14 July, 2008
It is well known that last week
Dan Kaminsky
publicized a cache poisoning exploit
against DNS. The details of this exploit have not yet been released, but Dan will present
a talk at the
Blackhat Briefings next month that
will clarify the technical specifics behind the vulnerability - and therefore how to
exploit it. Even though Dan has yet to release the details, enough
information has already been
released to show that iptables
may be able to mitigate the vulnerability
with a single well-chosen rule in your iptables policy. Further, this technique can be
used right now whenever a vulnerable DNS server is deployed on (or behind) a system running
iptables. Although updates have been released in a coordinated effort for most platforms,
not everyone patches their systems immediately, and in some cases it can be easier to
execute a few iptables commands than to deploy such updates. Of course, patching the
vulnerability should be the top priority, but the exact details of the attack haven't been
disclosed so it is hard to gauge risk. That said, if Dan Kaminsky says to patch, then
it's probably a good idea to do so. In the meantime, let's press on.
The
CERT advisory highlights
three problems in the existing DNS infrastructure:
- Lack of sufficient randomness in the selection of source ports for DNS queries
- DNS transaction ID values that also exhibit insufficient randomness
- Multiple outstanding requests for the same resource record
For this blog post we are concerned about source port predictability for DNS queries,
but Dan's cache poisoning attack (most likely) relies heavily on the first two problems
in combination. Dan has probably found a clever way to weaponize his attack so that it
can be leveraged against lots of DNS servers.
How can iptables help? First, let's assume that source port predictability is a
necessary prerequisite to poison a DNS cache by Dan's technique. So, if iptables can
introduce additional randomness into the source port that
bind
uses - at least as far as any upstream DNS server can tell - for each DNS query then an
attacker would not be able to rely on source port predictability. The iptables
SNAT
target supports the ability to randomize both TCP and UDP source ports (see the
--random
option) even if a userspace application chooses a specific source port. This applies to
both locally generated and forwarded packets. Hence, if a piece of userland software
(such as bind) uses predictable source ports, iptables can rectify this via the SNAT target
subject to some connection tracking restrictions.
To illustrate this, we use nmap with its
--source-port option to set the source
port to 44444 for a UDP scan of port 53 on two different servers, and verify with a packet
trace that the source port is indeed set to this value. We'll assume the IP's
22.2.2.2
and
33.3.3.3 simulate upstream DNS servers from a local DNS server on the
system with IP
11.1.1.1:
# nmap --source-port 44444 -P0 -p 53 -sU 22.2.2.2 33.3.3.3
19:26:19.625637 IP 11.1.1.1.44444 > 22.2.2.2.53: [|domain]
19:26:19.625790 IP 11.1.1.1.44444 > 33.3.3.3.53: [|domain]
19:26:19.729520 IP 11.1.1.1.44444 > 33.3.3.3.53: [|domain]
19:26:20.626527 IP 11.1.1.1.44444 > 22.2.2.2.53: [|domain]
As you can see, the source port for each UDP datagram from 11.1.1.1 is set to 44444.
Now, to force the source port to be randomized when each packet is transmitted despite
setting it to 44444 from the nmap command line, let's use the SNAT target with the
--random option (note that it is assumed that the iptables policy is also using
connection tracking to allow expected replies through as well, etc.):
# iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING 1 -p udp -s 11.1.1.1 --dport 53 -j SNAT --to 11.1.1.1 --random
By executing the same nmap command again, now we see that the SNAT target has changed
the source port on the outgoing UDP datagrams to 9374 (for 22.2.2.2) and 54743 (for
33.3.3.3):
# nmap --source-port 44444 -P0 -p 53 -sU 22.2.2.2 33.3.3.3
19:28:05.613637 IP 11.1.1.1.9374 > 22.2.2.2.53: [|domain]
19:28:05.613792 IP 11.1.1.1.54743 > 33.3.3.3.53: [|domain]
19:28:05.717536 IP 11.1.1.1.54743 > 33.3.3.3.53: [|domain]
19:28:06.617553 IP 11.1.1.1.9374 > 22.2.2.2.53: [|domain]
Hence, iptables can introduce randomness into source ports via a NAT operation
regardless of whether a userspace application requests a specific source port.
However, you may have noticed that nmap generates two packets for each scan
of UDP/53, and you may have also noticed that the source port is 9374 for
both
packets sent to 22.2.2.2, and 54743 for
both packets sent to 33.3.3.3. While
the original source port of 44444 has definitely been randomized, it appears that this
randomization is not taking place on a per-packet basis. What is really happening is
that iptables has to use its connection tracking mechanism to map packets translated
with the SNAT target to the correct socket, and this mapping is created from the
srcIP/dstIP/sport/dport/protocol tuple along with a set of timers (see the
nf_ct_udp_timeout and nf_ct_udp_timeout_stream variables in the kernel
linux/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_udp.c file). So, if multiple requests are
made to the same upstream DNS server within a 30 second time window, then the
SNAT
--random rule will map the source port for each request to the same (randomly
assigned) source port - the initial tuples are the same after all.
At first glance this might seem to be a show stopper, but assuming that Dan's cache
poisoning attack requires a process of querying different DNS servers - at least one
of which is under the control of the attacker so that the source port behavior of the
targeted server can be monitored - then the SNAT --random strategy would provide an
effective defense. That is, the iptables state tracking code will assign a different
random source port on (at least) a per-server basis even for rapid sets of DNS
queries. Further, for queries to the same DNS server that are 30 seconds apart, the
source port will change on a per-query basis as well.
This should be an effective defense against the attack, but we'll have to wait for
Blackhat to be sure.
On another note, applications commonly do not bother requesting specific source ports
for client sockets because they assume that the networking stack provided by the local
kernel will assign a sensible source port. Or, they don't have to worry about the source
port because they build in enough security at the application layer (unlike DNS
implementations that don't sufficiently randomize transaction ID's) such that source
port prediction does not give an advantage to the attacker. Still, those stacks that
don't choose a random source port are not helping the state of network security, and
the Kaminsky DNS attack is a perfect example of why. It turns out that the Linux kernel
has only recently started
randomizing UDP source ports as of
2.6.24.
Update 07/16/2008: Jon Hart has also written a
blog post
that illustrates using OpenBSD's pf firewall to implement a similar mitigation strategy.
Hence, multiple pieces of firewall infrastructure can offer effective protection
from the cache poisoning attack.
Russ McRee of holisticinfosec.org
has written the October Toolsmith
issue from the ISSA Journal about fwsnort and intrusion detection.
Russ emphasizes practical usages of fwsnort with tuning the Snort signature set it translates into
an iptables policy, and after using fwsnort to build a detection policy, he sends several example
attacks at a webserver. These attacks include directory traversal, XSS, and CSRF attacks, and
he illustrates how the attacks are detected by fwsnort via the iptables log messages it generates.
Here is an attack identified as ET WEB-MISC Poison Null Byte by Snort rule ID 2003099, and
below is the log message generated by fwsnort when the attack is sent against a webserver:
