170 likes | 281 Views
SANE: A Protection Architecture for Enterprise Networks. Author: Martin Casado , Tal Garfinkel , Aditya Akella , Michael J. Freedman Dan Boneh , Nick McKeown , Scott Shenker Publisher: IEEE COMMUNICATIONS SURVEYS & TUTORIALS Presenter: Ching Hsuan Shih
E N D
SANE: A Protection Architecture for Enterprise Networks Author: Martin Casado, Tal Garfinkel, Aditya Akella, Michael J. Freedman Dan Boneh, Nick McKeown, Scott Shenker Publisher: IEEE COMMUNICATIONS SURVEYS & TUTORIALS Presenter: ChingHsuan Shih Date: 2013/10/09
Outline 1. Instroduction 2. What’s Wrong with Existing Technuques? 3. System Architecture 4. Attack Resistance 5. Implementation 6. Evaluation 7. Related Work 8. Conclusion
1. Instroduction • Allow natural policies that are simple yet powerful. - We seek an architecture that supports natural policies that are independent of the topology and provide least privilege access to resources. • Enforcement should be at the link layer, to prevent lower layers from undermining it. • Hide information about topology and services from those without permission to see them. • Have only one trusted component.
2. What’s Wrong with Existing Techniques? • Complexity of Mechenism • Proliferation of Trust • Proliferation of Information
3. System Architecture • This section describes two versions of the SANE architecture: 1. a clean –slate approach, in which every network component is modified to support SANE 2. inter-operate with unmodified end hosts running standard IP stacks
3.1 Domain Controller (DC) DC is the central component of a SANE network and responsible for authenticating users and hosts. • 1. Authentication Service • 2. Network Service Directory (NSD) • 3. Protection Layer Controller • Revoking Access Figure 2: SANE operates at the same layer as VLAN Figure 1: The SANE Service Model
3.2 Interoperability • Translation Proxies • Gateways • Broadcast • Service Publication
3.3 Fault Tolerance • Replicating the Domain Controller • Service directory must maintain consistency among multiple DCs • Recovering from Network Failure • Send periodic probes or keep-alive messages to detect failures and request fresh capabilities
4. Attack Resistance • Access-control lists • The NSD uses ACLs for directories, preventing attackers from enumerating all services in the system • Encrypted, authenticated source-routes and link-state updates • These prevent an attacker from learning the topology or from enumerating hosts and performing port scans • Authenticated network components • The authentication mechanism prevents unautherticated switches from joining a SANE network, thwarting a variety of topology attacks
4.1 Resource Exhaustion • Flooding • Rate-limit requests for capabilities to the DC • Revocation state exhaustion • Generate a new key to the DC • DC tracks the number of revocations issued per sender
4.2 Tolerating Malicious Switches • Sabotaging MST Discovery • Bad Link-State Advertisement Figure 5: Attacker C can deny service to A by selectively dropping A’s packets, yet letting the packets of its parent (B) through. As a result, A cannot communicate with the DC, even though a alternate path exists through D.
4.3 Tolerating a Malicious DC • Split the DCs’ secret key across a few servers, such that two of them are needed to generate a capability.
5. Implementation All development was done in C++ using the Virtual Network System (VNS) within the group LAN -Seven physical hosts on 100 Mb Ethernet for one month The implementation consists of a DC, switches and IP proxies - No support for multiple DCs - No support for tolerating malicious switches
5. Implementation (Cont.) • IP Proxies and SANE Switches • The proxies use ARP (Address Resolution Protocol) cache • Support automatic neighbor discovery, MST construction, link-state updates and packet forwarding • Domain Controller • Capability construction • Service Directory
6. Evalution Table 1: Performance of a DC and switches Figure 6: DNS requests, TCP connection establishment requests, and maximum concurrent TCP connections per second, respectively, for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory enterprise network.
7. Related Work • Network Protection Mechanisms • Dealing with Routing Complexity • Expanding the Link-layer • Capabilities for DDOS prevention
8. Conclusion • We believe that enterprise networks are different from the Internet at large and deserve special attention: • Security is paramount • Centralized control is the norm • Uniform and consistent policies are important