Eric Vyncke, Distinguished Engineer, [email protected]
© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
1
• Security Myths of IPv6
• Shared Issues by IPv4 and IPv6
• Specific Issues for IPv6
IPsec everywhere, dual-stack, tunnels and 6VPE
• Enforcing a Security Policy in IPv6
ACL, Firewalls and IPS
• Enterprise Secure Deployment
Secure IPv6 transport over public network
• IPv6 Security Best Common Practice
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
2
© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
3
Sometimes, newer means better and more secure
Sometimes, experience IS better and safer!
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
4
• Public servers will still need to be DNS reachable
More information collected by Google...
• Increased deployment/reliance on dynamic DNS
More information will be in DNS
• Using peer-to-peer clients gives IPv6 addresses of peers
• Administrators may adopt easy-to-remember addresses
(::10,::20,::F00D, ::C5C0, :ABBA:BABE or simply IPv4 last octet for
dual stack)
• By compromising hosts in a network, an attacker can learn new
addresses to scan
• Transition techniques (see further) derive IPv6 address from IPv4
address
 can scan again
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
5
• Viruses and email, IM worms: IPv6 brings no change
• Other worms:
IPv4: reliance on network scanning
IPv6: not so easy (see reconnaissance) => will use
alternative techniques
 Worm developers will adapt to IPv6
 IPv4 best practices around worm detection and
mitigation remain valid
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
6
Remote
• Remote router CPU/memory DoS attack if aggressive scanning
Router will do Neighbor Discovery... And waste CPU and memory
• Local router DoS with NS/RS/…
NS: 2001:db8::3
NS: 2001:db8::2
NS: 2001:db8::1
NS: 2001:db8::3
NS: 2001:db8::2
NS: 2001:db8::1
NS: 2001:db8::3
NS: 2001:db8::2
NS: 2001:db8::1
2001:db8::/64
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
7
• Built-in rate limiter but no option to tune it
Since 15.1(3)T: ipv6 nd cache interface-limit
Or IOS-XE 2.6: ipv6 nd resolution data limit
Destination-guard is part of First Hop Security phase 3
• Using a /64 on point-to-point links => a lot of addresses to scan!
Using /127 could help (RFC 6164)
• Internet edge/presence: a target of choice
Ingress ACL permitting traffic to specific statically configured (virtual)
IPv6 addresses only
• Using infrastructure ACL prevents this scanning
iACL: edge ACL denying packets addressed to your routers
Easy with IPv6 because new addressing scheme can be done 
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
8
• Ingress ACL allowing only valid destination and dropping the rest
• NDP cache & process are safe
• Requires DHCP or static configuration of hosts
NS: 2001:db8::1
NA: 2001:db8::1
2001:db8::/64
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
9
• “IPv6 mandates the implementation of IPsec”
• Some organizations believe that IPsec should be used to secure all
flows…
“Security expert, W., a professor at the University of <foo> in the UK, told
<newspaper> the new protocol system – IPv6 – comes with a security code
known as IPSEC that would do away with anonymity on the web.
If enacted globally, this would make it easier to catch cyber criminals, Prof W.
said.”
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
10
• IPv6 originally mandated the implementation of IPsec (but not its use)
• Now, RFC 6434 “IPsec SHOULD be supported by all IPv6 nodes”
• Some organizations still believe that IPsec should be used to secure all
flows...
Interesting scalability issue (n2 issue with IPsec)
Need to trust endpoints and end-users because the network cannot secure
the traffic: no IPS, no ACL, no firewall
IOS 12.4(20)T can parse the AH
Network telemetry is blinded: NetFlow of little use
Network services hindered: what about QoS?
Recommendation: do not use IPsec end to end within an
administrative domain.
Suggestion: Reserve IPsec for residential or hostile environment or
high profile targets EXACTLY as for IPv4
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
11
© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
12
• Same as in IPv4
• Bogon filtering (data plane & BGP route map):
http://www.cymru.com/Bogons/ipv6.txt
• Anti-spoofing: uRPF
Inter-Networking Device
with uRPF Enabled
IPv6
Intranet
IPv6 Unallocated
Source Address
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
X
IPv6
Intranet/Internet
No Route to SrcAddr => Drop
Cisco Public
13
• RFC 5635 RTBH is easy in IPv6 as in IPv4
• uRPF is also your friend for blackholing a source
• RFC 6666 has a specific discard prefix
100::/64
Source: Wikipedia Commons
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
14
• Supported everywhere except:
7600 & Cat 6K
Sup720/32: no IPv6 uRPF at all
Sup 2T is OK
Cat 3750: no uRPF at all
GSR 12K
only strict mode
only with Engine 5, other engines uRPF not supported
requires IOS 12.0(31)S or IOS-XR rls 2.1
ASR 5K
ASR 9K requires release 4.1.1
Metro switch
Nexus 7K
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
15
Router Advertisements contains:
-Prefix to be used by hosts
-Data-link layer address of the router
-Miscellaneous options: MTU,
DHCPv6 use, …
RA w/o Any
Authentication
Gives Exactly Same
Level of Security as
DHCPv4 (None)
MITM
1. RS
2. RA
1. RS:
Data = Query: please send RA
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
DoS
2. RA
2. RA:
Data= options, prefix, lifetime,
A+M+O flags
Cisco Public
16
• Devastating:
Denial of service: all traffic sent to a black hole
Man in the Middle attack: attacker can intercept, listen, modify unprotected
data
• Also affects legacy IPv4-only network with IPv6-enabled hosts
• Most of the time from non-malicious users
• Requires layer-2 adjacency (some relief…)
• The major blocking factor for enterprise IPv6 deployment
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
17
Security Mechanisms
Built into Discovery
Protocol = None
A
B
Src = A
Dst = Solicited-node multicast of B
ICMP type = 135
Data = link-layer address of A
Query: what is your link address?
A and B Can Now Exchange
=> Very similar to ARP
Attack Tool:
Parasite6
Answer to all NS,
Claiming to Be All
Systems in the LAN...
Src = B
Dst = A
ICMP type = 136
Data = link-layer address of B
Packets on This Link
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
18
• MOSTLY GOOD NEWS: dynamic ARP inspection for IPv6 is available (but
not yet on all platforms)
First phase (Port ACL & RA Guard) available since Summer 2010
Second phase (NDP & DHCP snooping) starting to be available since Summer
2011
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ipv6/configuration/guide/ip6first_hop_security.html
• GOOD NEWS: Secure Neighbor Discovery
SeND = NDP + crypto
IOS 12.4(24)T
But not in Windows Vista, 2008 and 7, Mac OS/X, iOS, Android
Crypto means slower...
• Other GOOD NEWS:
Private VLAN works with IPv6
Port security works with IPv6
IEEE 801.X works with IPv6 (except downloadable ACL)
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
19
• Prevent Node-Node Layer-2
communication by using:
RA
Private VLANs (PVLAN) where nodes (isolated
port) can only contact the official router
Promiscuous
(promiscuous port)
Port
WLAN in ‘AP Isolation Mode’
RA
1 VLAN per host (SP access network with
Broadband Network Gateway)
Isolated Port
request, etc) sent only to the local
official router: no harm
RA
• Link-local multicast (RA, DHCP
RA
RA
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
20
• Certification paths
Anchored on trusted parties, expected to certify the authority
of the routers on some prefixes
• Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)
IPv6 addresses whose interface identifiers are cryptographically generated
• RSA signature option
Protect all messages relating to neighbor and
router discovery
• Timestamp and nonce options
Prevent replay attacks
• Requires IOS 12.4(24)T
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
21
• Port ACL blocks all ICMPv6 RA from hosts
interface FastEthernet0/2
ipv6 traffic-filter ACCESS_PORT in
RA
access-group mode prefer port
• RA-guard lite (12.2(33)SXI4 & 12.2(54)SG ): also
RA
dropping all RA received on this port
interface FastEthernet0/2
ipv6 nd raguard
RA
access-group mode prefer port
• RA-guard (12.2(50)SY)
RA
ipv6 nd raguard policy HOST device-role host
ipv6 nd raguard policy ROUTER device-role router
ipv6 nd raguard attach-policy HOST vlan 100
interface FastEthernet0/0
RA
ipv6 nd raguard attach-policy ROUTER
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
22
Address ownership vulnerabilities mitigation on First Hop
Binding table
H1
H2
H3
NS [IP source=A1, LLA=MACH1]
ADR
MAC
VLAN
IF
Preference
A1
MACH1
100
P1
X
A21
MACH2
100
P2
Y
A22
MACH2
100
P2
Y
A3
MACH3
100
P3
Z
DHCPserver
REQUEST [XID, SMAC = MACH2]
REPLY[XID, IP A21, IP A22]
data [IP source=A3, SMAC=MACH3]
DAD NS [IP source=UNSPEC, target = A3]
NA [IP source=A3, LLA=MACH3]
DHCP LEASEQUERY
DHCP LEASEQUERY_REPLY
Then use those bindings to drop invalid NDP packets
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
23
IPv6 FHS
C6K
C4K
C3K
C2K
WLC
RA Guard
12.2(50)SY
and
15.0(1)SY
12.2(54)S
G
15.0(2)SE
15.0(2)SE
7.2
DHCP Guard
2013
Q4
CY12
15.0(2)SE
15.0(2)SE
7.2
Binding Integrity Guard
2013
Q4
CY12
15.0(2)SE
15.0(2)SE
7.2
Source Guard
2013
MID 2013
15.0(2)SE
15.0(2)SE
7.2
Destination Guard
2013
Q4
CY12
15.0(2)SE
15.0(2)SE
7.2
Key Takeaway:
Catalyst & WLAN most secure IPv6 capable Products for your customer’s access layer
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
24
• Significant changes
• More relied upon
ICMP Message Type
ICMPv4
ICMPv6
Connectivity Checks
X
X
Informational/Error Messaging
X
X
Fragmentation Needed Notification
X
X
Address Assignment
X
Address Resolution
X
Router Discovery
X
Multicast Group Management
X
Mobile IPv6 Support
X
• => ICMP policy on firewalls needs to change
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
25
For Your
Reference
RFC 4890: Border Firewall Receive Policy
Internal Server A
Firewall B
Internet
ICMPv6 ICMPv6
Type
Code
Action Src
Dst
Permit Any
B
2
0
Packet too Big
Permit Any
B
4
0
Parameter Problem
Permit Any
B
130–132
0
Multicast Listener
Permit Any
B
135/136
0
Neighbor Solicitation
and Advertisement
Deny
Name
For locally
generated
traffic
Any Any
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
26
• BGP, ISIS, EIGRP no change:
An MD5 authentication of the routing update
• OSPFv3 has changed and pulled MD5 authentication from the
protocol and instead is supposed to rely on transport mode IPsec
(for authentication and confidentiality)
IPsec means crypto image
But see draft-ietf-ospf-auth-trailer-ospfv3
• IPv6 routing attack best practices
Use traditional authentication mechanisms on BGP
and IS-IS
Use IPsec to secure protocols such as OSPFv3
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
27
• Application layer attacks
Good news
IPv4 IPS signatures can be reused
The majority of vulnerabilities on the Internet today are at the application
layer, something that IPSec will do nothing to prevent
• Rogue devices
Rogue devices will be as easy to insert into an IPv6 network as in IPv4
• Man-in-the-Middle Attacks (MITM)
Without strong mutual authentication, any attacks utilizing MITM will
have the same likelihood in IPv6 as in IPv4
• Flooding
Flooding attacks are identical between IPv4 and IPv6
• Sniffing
IPv6 is no more or less likely to fall victim to a sniffing attack than IPv4
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
28
© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
29
/23
/32
2001
/48
/64
Interface ID
• Temporary addresses for IPv6 host client application,
e.g. web browser
Inhibit device/user tracking
Random 64 bit interface ID, then run Duplicate Address Detection
before using it
Rate of change based on local policy
• Enabled by default in Windows, Android, iOS 4.3, Mac OS/X 10.7
Recommendation: Use Privacy Extensions for
External Communication but not for Internal
Networks (Troubleshooting and Attack Trace Back)
IETF Work in progress: unpredictable and stable addresses
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
30
For Your
Reference
• Microsoft Windows
Deploy a Group Policy Object (GPO)
Or
netsh interface ipv6 set global randomizeidentifiers=disabled
netsh interface ipv6 set global randomizeidentifiers=disabled store=persistent
netsh interface ipv6 set privacy state=disabled store=persistent
• Alternatively disabling stateless autoconfiguration for DHCP
Send Router Advertisements with
all prefixes with A-bit set to 0 (disable SLAAC)
M-bit set to 1 to force stateful DHCPv6
Use DHCP to a specific pool + ingress ACL allowing only this pool
interface fastEthernet 0/0
ipv6 nd prefix default no-autoconfig
ipv6 dhcp server . . . (or relay)
ipv6 nd managed-config-flag
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
31
• Unlimited size of header chain (spec-wise) can make
filtering difficult
• Potential DoS with poor IPv6 stack implementations
More boundary conditions to exploit
Can I overrun buffers with a lot of extension headers?
• Mitigation: use firewall or IPS to drop packets which violate extension header
specification
Perfectly Valid IPv6 Packet
According to the Sniffer
Header Should Only Appear Once
Destination Header Which Should
Occur at Most Twice
Destination Options Header Should
Be the Last
See also: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/technologies/tk648/tk872/technologies_white_paper0900aecd8054d37d.html
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
32
•
HbH: same as RSVP router alerts
Goes to the CPU
•
HbH punted to CPU on several HW platform (including Cat 6K), before ACL & CoPP
•
ASR & ISR and HbH
CoPPr (control-plane cef-exception & class-default) and ACL blocking
Implicit rate limiting for transit traffic (CoPPr)
•
IOS GSR
E3 HbH rate limit 12.0(33)S02 12.0(32)S12 12.0(32)SY08 CSCsu10035
•
IOS-XR 3.7 (CRS-1 & GSR) limits HbH to 500 punts/sec (use of Local Packet Transport Services or PSE Punt in microcode)
•
7600 (12.2(33)SRD1 for SIP-400 & ES+ and 12.2(33)SRD3 for SIP-200 & enhanced FlexWan) can
rate limit on ES+ line cards,
test platform police ipv6 set 1000
•
7600 & GSR cannot do ACL drop (in LC CPU) before punting to LC CPU
CRS-1 new release will be able to do ACL drop before LPTS
•
ASR9K and Sup-2T can do ACL drop & rate limiting
•
This is also a self-defeating attack as it only harms the first vulnerable router…
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
33
• Finding the layer 4 information is not trivial in IPv6
Skip all known extension header
Until either known layer 4 header found => MATCH
Or unknown extension header/layer 4 header found... => NO MATCH
IPv6 hdr
HopByHop
Routing
AH
TCP
data
IPv6 hdr
HopByHop
Routing
AH
Unknown L4
???
IPv6 hdr
HopByHop Unk. ExtHdr
AH
TCP
data
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
34
Next Header = 44
Fragment
Header
IPv6 Basic Header
Fragment Header
Fragment Header
Next Header
Reserved
Fragment Offset
Identification
Fragment Data
•
In IPv6 fragmentation is done only by the end system
Tunnel end-points are end systems => Fragmentation / re-assembly can happen inside the network
•
Reassembly done by end system like in IPv4
•
RFC 5722: overlapping fragments => MUST drop the packet. Implemented by most OS in 2012
•
Attackers can still fragment in intermediate system on purpose
•
==> a great obfuscation tool
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
35
• Extension headers chain can be so large than it must be fragmented!
• RFC 3128 is not applicable to IPv6
• Layer 4 information could be in 2nd fragment
IPv6 hdr
HopByHop
Routing
Fragment1
IPv6 hdr
HopByHop
Routing
Fragment2
Destination
TCP
Data
Layer 4 header is
in 2nd fragment
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
36
• RFC 3128 is not applicable to IPv6
• Layer 4 information could be in 2nd fragment
• But, stateless firewalls could not find it if a previous extension header is fragmented
Destination …
IPv6 hdr
HopByHop
Routing
Fragment1
IPv6 hdr
HopByHop
Routing
Fragment2 … Destination TCP
Data
Layer 4 header is in 2nd fragment,
Stateless filters have no clue
where to find it!
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
37
• This makes matching against the first fragment non-deterministic:
layer 4 header might not be there but in a later fragment
Need for stateful inspection
• fragment keyword matches
Non-initial fragments (same as IPv4)
And the first fragment if the L4 protocol cannot be determined
• undertermined-transport keyword does not match
TCP/UDP/SCTP and ports are in the fragment
ICMP and type and code are in the fragment
Everything else matches (including OSPFv3, …)
Only for deny ACE
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
38
• 16+ methods, possibly in combination
• Dual stack
Consider security for both protocols
Cross v4/v6 abuse
Resiliency (shared resources)
• Tunnels
Bypass firewalls (protocol 41 or UDP)
Can cause asymmetric traffic (hence breaking stateful firewalls)
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
39
• Host security on a dual-stack device
Applications can be subject to attack on both IPv6 and IPv4
Fate sharing: as secure as the least secure stack...
• Host security controls should block and inspect traffic from both IP
versions
Host intrusion prevention, personal firewalls, VPN
clients, etc.
IPv4 IPsecVPN with
No Split Tunneling
Dual Stack Client
IPv6 HDR IPv6 Exploit
Does the IPsec Client Stop an
Inbound IPv6 Exploit?
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
40
• Your host:
IPv4 is protected by your favorite personal firewall...
IPv6 is enabled by default (Vista, Linux, Mac OS/X, ...)
• Your network:
Does not run IPv6
• Your assumption:
I’m safe
• Reality
You are not safe
Attacker sends Router Advertisements
Your host configures silently to IPv6
You are now under IPv6 attack
• => Probably time to think about IPv6 in your network
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
41
Internet
2) Sending RA with
prefix for autoconfiguration
1) I want
IPv6,
send RS
3)
Yahoo
!
IPv6

4) Default protection…
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
3)
Yahoo
!
IPv6

3)
Yahoo
!
IPv6

3)
Yahoo
!
IPv6

IPv4 protection:
iptables
IPv4 protection:
ipfw
IPv4 Protection:
Security center
IPv6 Protection:
No ip6tables ✗
IPv6 Protection:
No ip6fw ✗
IPv6 Protection:
Security center ✔
Cisco Public
42
Internet
2) Sending RA
without prefix for
auto-configuration
1) I want
IPv6,
send RS
3)
Yahoo!
Static
IPv6
address
IPv4 protection:
iptables
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
3) No
IPv6
SLAAC
3) No
IPv6
SLAAC
IPv4 protection:
ipfw
3) No
IPv6
SLAAC
IPv4 Protection:
Security center
Cisco Public
43
• RFC 1933/2893 configured
• Only allow authorized endpoints
• RFC 2401 IPSec tunnel
• Static tunnels are deemed as “more
and automatic tunnels
• RFC 2473 IPv6 generic
packet tunnel
• RFC 2529 6over4 tunnel
• RFC 3056 6to4 tunnel
• RFC 5214 ISATAP tunnel
• MobileIPv6 (uses RFC2473)
to establish tunnels
secure,” but less scalable
• Automatic tunneling mechanisms
are susceptible to packet forgery
and DoS attacks
• These tools have the same risk
as IPv4, just new avenues of exploitation
• Automatic IPv6 over IPv4 tunnels could
be secured by IPv4 IPSec
• RFC 4380 Teredo tunnels
• RFC 5969 6RD
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
44
• Most IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms have no authentication built in
• => an IPv4 attacker can inject traffic if spoofing on IPv4 and
IPv6 addresses
IPv4
IPv6 ACLs Are Ineffective
Since IPv4 & IPv6 Is Spoofed
Tunnel Termination Forwards
the Inner IPv6 Packet
IPv6
IPv6 Network
Public IPv4
Internet
IPv6 Network
IPv6 in IPv4
Server A
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Tunnel
Termination
Tunnel
Termination
Server B
Cisco Public
45
1. Spoofed packet
S: 2001:db8::200:5efe:c000:201
D: 2002:c000:202::1
6to4 relay
192.0.2.1
ISATAP router
Prefix 2001:db8::/64
192.0.2.2
2. IPv4 packet to 192.0.2.2 containing
S: 2001:db8::200:5efe:c000:201
D: 2002:c000:202::1
3. IPv6 packet
S: 2001:db8::200:5efe:c000:201
D: 2002:c000:202::1
Repeat until Hop Limit == 0
• Root cause
Same IPv4 encapsulation (protocol 41)
Different ways to embed IPv4 address in the IPv6
address
• ISATAP router:
accepts 6to4 IPv4 packets
Can forward the inside IPv6 packet back to 6to4
relay
• Symmetric looping attack exists
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Mitigation:
•Easy on ISATAP routers: deny
packets whose IPv6 is its 6to4
•Less easy on 6to4 relay: block all
ISATAP-like local address?
•Enterprise block all protocol 41 at the
edge which are not known tunnels
•Good news: not so many open
ISATAP routers on the Internet
Cisco Public
46
• Transport IPv6 packets over IPv4 UDP: goal traverse NAPT
• Main implementation: Microsoft Windows (+ Miredo for Linux)
• Enabled by default on Windows
If the firewall is enabled
If not connected to an Active Directory network
OR IF USER ENABLES IT
• Never preferred if there is native IPv4 or IPv6
• BUT: NAPT is often co-located with NAPT, users can force Teredo to be
used (for BitTorrent), and if free UDP is allowed by security policy
=> Once tunnel is open, the whole IPv6 Internet has access to your
machine
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
47
• 6VPE: the MPLS-VPN extension to also transport IPv6 traffic over
a MPLS cloud and IPv4 BGP sessions
v4 only VPN
v4 only VPN
10.1.1.0/24
PE1
v4 and v6 VPN
VRF
10.1.2.0/24
PE3
IPv4 only MPLS
VRF
v4 and v6 VPN
VRF
2001:db8:1:1:/64
Dual-Stack
IPv4-IPv6
PE Routers
10.1.1.0/24
2001:db8:1:2:/64
Dual-Stack
IPv4-IPv6
PE Routers
10.1.2.0/24
VRF
v6 VPN
v6 VPN
VRF
PE2
2001:db8:1:1:/64
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
PE4
VRF
2001:db8:1:2:/64
Cisco Public
48
• 6PE (dual stack without VPN) is a simple case
• Security is identical to IPv4 MPLS-VPN, see RFC 4381
• Security depends on correct operation and implementation
QoS prevent flooding attack from one VPN to another one
PE routers must be secured: AAA, iACL, CoPP …
• MPLS backbones can be more secure than “normal” IP backbones
Core not accessible from outside
Separate control and data planes
• PE security
Advantage: Only PE-CE interfaces accessible from outside
Makes security easier than in “normal” networks
IPv6 advantage: PE-CE interfaces can use link-local for routing
=> completely unreachable from remote (better than IPv4)
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
49
© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
50
• Very much like in IPv4
Filter traffic based on
Source and destination addresses
Next header presence
Layer 4 information
Implicit deny all at the end of ACL
Empty ACL means traffic allowed
Reflexive and time based ACL
• Known extension headers (HbH, AH, RH, MH, destination, fragment) are scanned
until:
Layer 4 header found
Unknown extension header is found
• Side note for switches:
VLAN ACL only in 15.0(1)SY
Port ACL on Nexus-7000, Cat 3750 (12.2(46)SE not in base image), Cat 4K (12.2(54)SG),
Cat 6K (12.3(33)SXI4)
Check your platform & release as your mileage can vary…
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
51
• Implicit entries exist at the end of each IPv6 ACL to allow neighbor
discovery:
permit icmp any any nd-na
permit icmp any any nd-ns
deny ipv6 any any
• Nexus 7000 also allows RS & RA
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
52
ipv6 access-list ACCESS_PORT
remark for paranoid, block 1st fragment w/o L4 info
deny ipv6 any any undetermined-transport
remark Block all traffic DHCP server -> client
deny udp any eq 547 any eq 546
remark Block Router Advertisements
deny icmp any any router-advertisement
permit ipv6 any any
Interface gigabitethernet 1/0/1
switchport
ipv6 traffic-filter ACCESS_PORT in
Note: PACL replaces RACL for the interface (or is merged with RACL ‘access-group mode prefer port’)
In August 2010, Nexus-7000, Cat 3750 12.2(46)SE, Cat 4500 12.2(54)SG and Cat 6500 12.2(33)SXI4
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
53
For Your
Reference
ipv6 access-list VTY
permit ipv6 2001:db8:0:1::/64 any
line vty 0 4
ipv6 access-class VTY in
MUST BE DONE before ‘ipv6 enable’ on any interface!
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
54
• Currently no way to restrict access to the IOS HTTP[S] server
• Only way, apply an ingress ACL on all interfaces
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
55
For Your
Reference
• Against DoS with NDP, Hop-by-Hop, Hop Limit Expiration...
• Software routers (ISR, 7200): works with CoPPr (CEF exceptions)
policy-map COPPr
class ICMP6_CLASS
police 8000
class OSPF_CLASS
police 200000
class class-default
police 8000
!
control-plane cef-exception
service-policy input COPPr
• Cat 6K-Sup 720 & 7600
IPv6 shares mls rate-limit with IPv4 for NDP & HL expiration
mls rate-limit all ttl-failure 1000
mls rate-limit unicast cef glean 1000
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
56
•
ASA Firewall
Since version 7.0 (released 2005)
Flexibility: Dual stack, IPv6 only, IPv4 only
SSL VPN for IPv6 over IPv4 (ASA 8.0) over IPv6 (ASA 9.0)
Stateful-Failover (ASA 8.2.2)
Extension header filtering and inspection (ASA 8.4.2)
Dual-stack ACL & object grouping (ASA 9.0)
•
ASA-SM
Leverage ASA code base, same features ;-) 16 Gbps of IPv6 throughput
•
FWSM
IPv6 in software... 80 Mbps … Not an option (put an IPv6-only ASA in parallel or migrate to ASA-SM)
•
IOS Firewall
IOS 12.3(7)T (released 2005)
Zone-based firewall on IOS-XE 3.6 (2012)
•
IPS
Since 6.2 (released 2008)
•
Email Security Appliance (ESA) under beta testing since 2010, IPv6 support since 7.6.1 (May 2012)
•
Web Security Appliance (WSA) with explicit proxy then transparent mode, work in progress (end of 2013)
•
ScanSafe expected to be available in 2012
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
57
© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
58
• No traffic sniffing
• No traffic injection
• No service theft
Public Network
IPv4
IPv6
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Site 2 Site
Remote Access
6in4/GRE Tunnels Protected
by IPsec
 ISATAP Protected by
RA IPsec
DMVPN 12.4(20)T
 SSL VPN Client AnyConnect
•IPsec VTI 12.4(6)T
• AnyConnect 3.1 & ASA 9.0
•DMVPN 15.2(1)T
Cisco Public
59
© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
60
For Your
Reference
• Train your network operators and security managers on IPv6
• Selectively filter ICMP (RFC 4890)
• Implement RFC 2827-like filtering
• Block Type 0 Routing Header at the edge
• Determine what extension headers will be allowed through
the access control device
• Deny IPv6 fragments destined to an internetworking device when
possible
• Use traditional authentication mechanisms on BGP and IS-IS
• Use IPsec to secure protocols such as OSPFv3 and RIPng
• Document procedures for last-hop traceback
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
61
For Your
Reference
• Implement privacy extensions carefully
• Filter internal-use IPv6 addresses & ULA at the border routers
• Filter unneeded services at the firewall
• Maintain host and application security
• Use cryptographic protections where critical
• Implement ingress filtering of packets with IPv6 multicast
source addresses
• Use static tunneling rather than dynamic tunneling
• Implement outbound filtering on firewall devices to allow only
authorized tunneling endpoints
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
62
© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
63
• So, nothing really new in IPv6
Reconnaissance: address enumeration replaced by DNS enumeration
Spoofing & bogons: uRPF is our IP-agnostic friend
NDP spoofing: RA guard and more features coming
ICMPv6 firewalls need to change policy to allow NDP
Extension headers: firewall & ACL can process them
Fragmentation: undetermined-transport is your friend
Potential loops between tunnel endpoints: ACL must be used
• Lack of operation experience may hinder security for a while: training is
required
• Security enforcement is possible
Control your IPv6 traffic as you do for IPv4
• Leverage IPsec to secure IPv6 when suitable
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
64
© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
65
Source: Cisco Press
© 2012 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Cisco Public
66
Thank you.