skip to main content
10.1145/3050220.3050232acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

iTAP: In-network Traffic Analysis Prevention using Software-Defined Networks

Published:03 April 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Advances in layer 2 networking technologies have fostered the deployment of large, geographically distributed LANs. Due to their large diameter, such LANs provide many vantage points for wiretapping. As an example, Google's internal network was reportedly tapped by governmental agencies, forcing the Web giant to encrypt its internal traffic. While using encryption certainly helps, eavesdroppers can still access traffic metadata which often reveals sensitive information, such as who communicates with whom and which are the critical hubs in the infrastructure.

This paper presents iTAP, a system for providing strong anonymity guarantees within a network. iTAP is network-based and can be partially deployed. Akin to onion routing, iTAP rewrites packet headers at the network edges by leveraging SDN devices. As large LANs can see millions of flows, the key challenge is to rewrite headers in a way that guarantees strong anonymity while, at the same time, scaling the control-plane (number of events) and the data-plane (number of flow rules). iTAP addresses these challenges by adopting a hybrid rewriting scheme. Specifically, iTAP scales by reusing rewriting rules across distinct flows and by distributing them on multiple switches. As reusing headers leaks information, iTAP monitors this leakage and adapts the rewriting rules before any eavesdropper could provably de-anonymize any host.

We implemented iTAP and evaluated it using real network traffic traces. We show that iTAP works in practice, on existing hardware, and that deploying few SDN switches is enough to protect a large share of the network traffic.

References

  1. B1SDN product brief. http://www.znyx.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/B1_SDN_brief_101414_web.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Cisco IOS NetFlow. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/ios-nx-os-software/ios-netflow/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Enterprise campus 3.0 architecture: Overview and framework. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/solutions/Enterprise/Campus/campover.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. IBM x-force threat intelligence quarterly, 2Q 2015.https://public.dhe.ibm.com/common/ssi/ecm/wg/en/wgl03076usen/WGL03076USEN.PDF.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Media access control (MAC) security. http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.1AE-2006.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Noviswitch 2122 high performance openflow switch. http://noviflow.com/wp-content/uploads/NoviSwitch-2122-Datasheet-V2_1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. RFC 6325 - routing bridges (rbridges). https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3031, July 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. I. Ahmad, S. Namal, M. Ylianttila, and A. Gurtov. Security in software defined networks: a survey. Communications Surveys & Tutorials, IEEE, 17(4), 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. S. Antonatos, P. Akritidis, E. P. Markatos, and K. G. Anagnostakis. Defending against hitlist worms using network address space randomization. Computer Networks, 51(12), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. P. Bosshart, D. Daly, G. Gibb, M. Izzard, N. McKeown, J. Rexford, C. Schlesinger, D. Talayco, A. Vahdat, G. Varghese, et al. P4: Programming protocol-independent packet processors. ACM CCR, 44(3), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M. Casado, T. Garfinkel, A. Akella, M. J. Freedman, D. Boneh, N. McKeown, and S. Shenker. Sane: A protection architecture for enterprise networks. In USENIX Security, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. D. Chaum, F. Javani, A. Kate, A. Krasnova, J. de Ruiter, and A. T. Sherman. cmix: Anonymization by high-performance scalable mixing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. C. Chen, D. E. Asoni, D. Barrera, G. Danezis, and A. Perrig. Hornet: High-speed onion routing at the network layer. In ACM SIGSAC, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. R. Dingledine, N. Mathewson, and P. Syverson. Tor: The second-generation onion router. Technical report, DTIC, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. K. P. Dyer, S. E. Coull, and T. Shrimpton. Marionette: A programmable network traffic obfuscation system. In USENIX Security, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. E. Germano da Silva, L. A. Dias Knob, J. A. Wickboldt, L. P. Gaspary, L. Z. Granville, and A. Schaeffer-Filho. Capitalizing on SDN-based SCADA systems: An anti-eavesdropping case-study. In IFIP/IEEE IM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. K. Giotis, C. Argyropoulos, G. Androulidakis, D. Kalogeras, and V. Maglaris. Combining openflow and sflow for an effective and scalable anomaly detection and mitigation mechanism on SDN environments. Computer Networks, 62, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. D. Goldschlag, M. Reed, and P. Syverson. Onion routing. Communications of the ACM, 42(2), 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. K. E. Huber. Host-based systemic network obfuscation system for windows. Technical report, DTIC, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. J. H. Jafarian, E. Al-Shaer, and Q. Duan. Openflow random host mutation: transparent moving target defense using software defined networking. In ACM HotSDN, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. D. Kewley, R. Fink, J. Lowry, and M. Dean. Dynamic approaches to thwart adversary intelligence gathering. In IEEE DARPA DISCEX, volume 1, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. O. Khazan. The creepy, long-standing practice of undersea cable tapping. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/id/277855/, July 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. D. Kreutz, F. Ramos, and P. Verissimo. Towards secure and dependable software-defined networks. In ACM HotSDN, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. S. Le Blond, D. Choffnes, W. Zhou, P. Druschel, H. Ballani, and P. Francis. Towards efficient traffic-analysis resistant anonymity networks. In ACM CCR, volume 43, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. D. C. MacFarland and C. A. Shue. The SDN shuffle: Creating a moving-target defense using host-based software-defined networking. In ACM MTD, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. S. A. Mehdi, J. Khalid, and S. A. Khayam. Revisiting traffic anomaly detection using software defined networking. In International Workshop on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. P. Porras, S. Shin, V. Yegneswaran, M. Fong, M. Tyson, and G. Gu. A security enforcement kernel for openflow networks. In ACM HotSDN, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. P. A. Porras, S. Cheung, M. W. Fong, K. Skinner, and V. Yegneswaran. Securing the software defined network control layer. In NDSS, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. C. Rotsos, N. Sarrar, S. Uhlig, R. Sherwood, and A. W. Moore. Oflops: An open framework for openflow switch evaluation. PAM, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012. Springer-Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. M. Seaman. Shortest path bridging. http://ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2005/new-seaman-shortestpath-par-0405-02.htm, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. C. E. Shannon. Communication theory of secrecy systems. Bell system technical journal, 28(4), 1949. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. L. Shu and W. Weinstein. Camouflage of network traffic to resist attack, Jan. 30 2007. US Patent 7,171,493.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. R. Skowyra, K. Bauer, V. Dedhia, and H. Okhravi. Have no phear: Networks without identifiers. In ACM MTD, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. B. Stephens, A. Cox, W. Felter, C. Dixon, and J. Carter. Past: Scalable ethernet for data centers. In ACM CoNEXT, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Y. Sun, A. Edmundson, L. Vanbever, O. Li, J. Rexford, M. Chiang, and P. Mittal. RAPTOR: Routing attacks on privacy in TOR. In USENIX Security, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. C. Timberg. Google encrypts data amid backlash against NSA spying. http://wapo.st/1adFyAe.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. L. Vanbever, O. Li, J. Rexford, and P. Mittal. Anonymity on quicksand: Using BGP to compromise TOR. In ACM HotNets, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. A. Voellmy, J. Wang, Y. R. Yang, B. Ford, and P. Hudak. Maple: simplifying SDN programming using algorithmic policies. In ACM CCR, volume 43, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. F. Webber, P. P. Pal, M. Atighetchi, C. Jones, and P. Rubel. Applications that participate in their own defense (apod). Technical report, DTIC, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. W. Weinstein and J. Lepanto. Camouflage of network traffic to resist attack (contra). In DARPA DISCEX, volume 2, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. N. Zaidenberg and A. Resh. Timing and side channel attacks. In Cyber Security: Analytics, Technology and Automation. Springer, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Y. Zhang. An adaptive flow counting method for anomaly detection in SDN. In ACM CoNEXT, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Floodlight openflow controller. https://github.com/floodlight/floodlight.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Open vswitch. http://openvswitch.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. RFC 4301 - security architecture for the internet protocol. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4301, Dec 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SOSR '17: Proceedings of the Symposium on SDN Research
    April 2017
    211 pages
    ISBN:9781450349475
    DOI:10.1145/3050220

    Copyright © 2017 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 3 April 2017

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate7of43submissions,16%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader