NOTES 17 KB
Newer Older
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166
I. Background:

Packets flow through an IPFW2 firewall as follows (taken from IPFW man page):

               ^     to upper layers   V
               |                       |
               +----------->-----------+
               ^                       V
          [ip_input]              [ip_output]   net.inet.ip.fw.enable=1
               |                       |
               ^                       V
         [ether_demux]    [ether_output_frame]  net.link.ether.ipfw=1
               |                       |
               +-->--[bdg_forward]-->--+        net.link.ether.bridge_ipfw=1
               ^                       V
               |      to devices       |

In our case, the devices involved are two VLANs coming via the same
physical interface, which we will call "em0" from now on for simplicity,
using 802.1q encapsulation.  However, on Ciscos, only one of the two
VLANs is actually encapsulated, the other is the so-called "native" VLAN.
Thus the devices involved under FreeBSD are vlan0, the encapsulated
("tagged") VLAN that is the "inside" of the firewall, and em0, the
unencapsulated VLAN that is the "outside".

This creates some problems for the BSD bridge code.  Recall that both
VLANs come over the same physical device so that there are tagged and
untagged packets coming in to, and going out of, em0.  A naive bridging of
all packets between em0 and vlan0 works correctly for untagged packets,
which are from outside, that will get handed off to the vlan0 device,
which is inside.  However, tagged packets coming into em0, which are from
inside, will also get handed off to the vlan device since they too are
technically coming in via em0.  So packets coming from the inside get
tagged again and passed back out the inside.  So we added a bridge sysctl:

	net.link.ether.bridge_vlan

which, when set, tells the bridge code to pass 802.1q encapsulated packets
through the bridge.  This is the default, and the traditional behavior.
When cleared, encapsulated packets are not bridged and instead are considered
"local" and passed on to ether_demux.  Ether_demux will pass the packet to
the vlan driver which will strip the encapsulation and again hand the packet
to the bridge code.  Now the packet will be properly bridged and sent out em0.

This is actually only a problem when using interfaces that cannot handle
VLAN tagging in hardware.  For these interfaces, the driver hands the
encapsulated packet up to ether_input which then behaves as described above.
However, with hardware support, the driver gets a packet that is
unencapsulated along with a tag value for who it belongs to.  Here, the
driver will hand the packet and tag directly to the vlan driver, skipping
the first level of demux.  It also avoid a layer of dummynet filtering as
we will see in the following diagrams.

II. Packet Flow:

A. Packets from the outside headed either inside or to the firewall itself
   (including all mcast and bcast packets) follow the path:

        em0
         |
         V
    ether_input --<to-FW,mcast,bcast>--> ether_demux                       
         |                          	      |                             
 <ucast,mcast,bcast>	              [ IPFW2 layer2 rules ] -<deny>->X
         |				      |                             
         V				   <accept>                         
   bridge_forward			      |                             
         |				      V                             
 [ IPFW2 layer2 rules ] -<deny>->X	   ip_input                         
         |				      |                             
      <accept>			      [ IPFW2 "not layer2" rules ] -<deny>->X
         |			              |                             
         V				      V                             
     vlan_start				   <accept>                         
         |				      |                             
   <encapsulated>			      V                             
         |			       [ higher levels ]                    
         V
        em0
    
   For bridged unicast packets, the firewall sees layer2 packets,
   unencapsulated, originating from "em0".  For packets targeted to
   the firewall itself, it sees the packets once or twice.  It always
   sees them as layer2, and possibly as layer3 if it is an IP packet.
   Multicast and broadcast packets are seen on BOTH paths, so up to
   3 times.
    
B. Packets from the inside headed either outside or to the firewall itself
   (including mcast and bcast) do:
    
	    (no HW VLAN support)
        em0 -----------+
         |             | 
         |         ether_input
  (HW    |             |
  VLAN   |             V
 support)|         ether_demux
         |             |
         |     [ IPFW2 layer2 rules ] -<deny>->X
         |             |
         |          <accept>
         |             |
         |             V
  vlan_input_tag   vlan_input
         |             |
         |      <unencapsulated>
         |             |
         |<------------+
         V
    ether_input --<to-FW,mcast,bcast>--> ether_demux                       
         |                          	      |                             
 <ucast,mcast,bcast>	              [ IPFW2 layer2 rules ] -<deny>->X
         |				      |                             
         V				   <accept>                         
   bridge_forward			      |                             
         |				      V                             
 [ IPFW2 layer2 rules ] -<deny>->X	   ip_input                         
         |				      |                             
      <accept>			      [ IPFW2 "not layer2" rules ] -<deny>->X
         |			              |                             
         V				      V                             
        em0				   <accept>                         
          				      |                             
                 			      V                             
          			       [ higher levels ]                    
    
   Are we getting scared yet?  With hardware VLAN support, we skip one layer
   of firewalling with the encapsulated packet.  So bridged unicast traffic
   is seen once or twice.  Traffic to the firewall is seen 1 to 3 times,
   depending on whether there is HW VLAN support and whether it is an IP
   packet.

C. All packets from the firewall itself destined for anywhere
   (including mcast and bcast):
    
  [ higher levels ]
         |
         V
     ip_output
         |
 [ IPFW2 "not layer2" rules ] -<deny>->
         |
      <accept>
         |
         V
  ether_output_frame
         |
         V
    bridge_forward -<to-out,mcast,bcast>-+
         |                               |
 <to-in,mcast,bcast>                     |
         |                               |
	 V                               |
     vlan_start                          |
         |                               |
   <encapsulated>                        |
         |                               |
         V                               |
        em0 <----------------------------+
    
  Whoa!  Now that is a breath of fresh air, only one check!  Locally
  generated, bridged packets do not go through the firewall.  I suspect
  this is less of a "feature" and more of a side-effect of the need to
  not filter packets more than once on the common bridge path.


167
III. IPFW2 match pattern values and what they mean:
168

169 170 171 172 173
To summarize some of the ipfw match patterns.  "From" is where the packet
originates, either the "outside" network, "inside" network, or the
"f(ire)wall" itself.  "To" is the destination, either unicast to the inside
(Uin), outside (Uout), or either (Uany), or broadcast/multicast (BM) which
both follow the same path.
174
    
175
Check	From	To	layer2	in/out	recv	xmit	via	handled by
176

177 178 179
A1	outside	Uin,BM	true	in	em0	N/A	em0	bridge
A2	outside	Ufw,BM	true	in	em0	N/A	em0	ether_in
A3	outside	Ufw,BM	false	in	em0	N/A	em0	IP_in
180

181 182 183 184
[ B1	inside	Uany,BM	true	in	em0	N/A	em0	ether_in ]
B2	inside	Uout,BM	true	in	vlan0	N/A	vlan0	bridge
B3	inside	Ufw,BM	true	in	vlan0	N/A	vlan0	ether_in
B4	inside	Ufw,BM	false	in	vlan0	N/A	vlan0	IP_in
185

186 187
C1	fwall	Uin	false	out	N/A	em0	em0	IP_out
C2	fwall	Uout	false	out	N/A	vlan0	vlan0	IP_out
188

189
Note that B1 is not done if there is hardware VLAN support.
190 191 192 193 194

The first thing to do is to eliminate the difference between cases where
there is HW VLAN support and where there isn't.  The only time the bridge
or firewall sees encapsulated packets is the latter.  The bridge_vlan sysctl
described above ensures that encapsulated packets are not seen by the bridge,
195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217
and we can introduce a simple firewall rule checking "mac-type vlan" and
accepting immediately to get them past the firewall code.  That would
effectively eliminate B1 above, making inside/outside rules more symmetric.

Another way to do this, the one we currently use, is to disable (rather,
not enable) net.link.ether.ipfw, which disables not only B1 but also A2
and B3, the checks done in ether_demux.  The consequences of disabling
the latter two is that we can no longer filter non-IP packets destined
to the firewall.  IP packets for the firewall could still be filtered at
A3 and B4.  This technique has the nice side-effect that true bridged
packets will always be "bridged" (aka "layer2") while packets for the
firewall will be "not bridged" in the firewall rules.  At least for
unicast--broadcast and multicast might screw things up as they appear
on both paths.  However, the local and bridged firewall rules will see
different copies of these packets, so they can be treated separately.
The fact that we lose the ability to filter out layer2-only broadcast
and multicast, in particular ARP, may be bad.  In particular, it leaves
firewall subject to ARP spoofing attacks from inside.  But more on that
in a minute.

First lets look at the information available from the table above and
what that means to firewall rules.  We can tell whether incoming packets
are from the inside or outside with:
218 219 220 221 222 223 224

"in via vlan0"
	Means coming from the inside network.

"in not via vlan0"
	Means coming from the outside network.  Same as "in via em0" in
	this case, but we don't always know the name of the physical
225 226 227 228
	interface, so we stick with the contorted negation.

Because of non-setting of ether.ipfw to disable ether_demux checks for
local packets we know that:
229

230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249
"layer2 ... in via vlan0"
	Means heading from inside to outside.

"layer2 ... in not via vlan0"
	Means heading from outside to inside.

As the only packets matching "out" are locally generated, we know that
IP packets from the firewall are:

"from me to any out via vlan0"
	Means to the inside network.

"from me to any out not via vlan0"
	Means to the outside network.  We don't really need the "from me"
	in either, but it clarifies the rule.  But we may drop it for
	performance reasons.

and this is true for IP unicast, broadcast or multicast.  However, as
mentioned, we cannot filter outgoing, non-IP packets (e.g., ARP).
We can identify incoming IP packets for the firewall with:
250 251

"from any to me in via vlan0"
252
	Means to the firewall from inside.
253 254

"from any to me in not via vlan0"
255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291
	Means to firewall from outside.  If we have already diverted off
	the "layer2" packets with a "skipto" rule, then we don't need the
	"to me" part.

Again, recall that we will not see non-IP packets coming in or leaving
the firewall.  If the ether_demux checks were enabled, we would be able
to see incoming packets (A2,B3), but would not be able to distinguish
bridged from local packets, and if we wanted to, say, disallow ethernet
broadcast packets across the bridge, that would also disable IP broadcast
traffic for the firewall (which appear as broadcast packets at layer2).


IV. The problems of a bridging firewall.

Note that the use of IPFW2 at layer2 doesn't present any problem for the
bulk of IP traffic.  Any rules that can be applied at layer3, can also
be done at layer2 (e.g., matching IP types, TCP flags, etc.)  But being
a bridge implies other things, in particular forwarding non-IP traffic
and layer2 broadcast.

We really do want to be a routing firewall, in that we don't want to allow
non-IP traffic through to the infrastructure where it has no business
(at least currently, there has been talk of using a non-IP protocol on the
control net to help reduce its accidental misuse).  And we would largely
like to avoid letting IP broadcast and unrestrained IP multicast through
as well, since that is traffic that could affect other experiments and the
Emulab infrastructure.  So why don't we use a routing firewall
implementation?  Largely this has to do with IP naming, and is the topic
for another NOTES file, not this one.  But there is some exceptional
traffic as well.

So who are the non-unicast Bad Boys we care about?  ARP (non-IP broadcast),
DHCP (IP broadcast), and frisbee (IP multicast).  For the latter two,
we know src IP addresses, or multicast IP ranges or port numbers that we
can use to narrow things down.  Being a layer2 protocol, ARP is more
difficult.  But for all, there are two classes of attacks to worry about:
DoS attacks on shared servers (and other experiments) and spoofing of servers.
292 293 294

DoS attacks can happen with any protocol we allow through the firewall:
ARP, DHCP, TFTP, DNS, HTTP, etc.  The solution to these involves non-shared
295 296 297
infrastructure (aka, Emulab in Emulab) to address completely, and I am
willing to punt on those here.  But any of ARP, DHCP or frisbee have
potential for spoofing problems.  We'll look at these in turn.
298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308


V. The problem with ARP

We don't want to allow ARP packets from the inside to get out, since
ARP spoofing is the enabler for lots of DoS or MitM attacks.  However,
since we are a bridge, the nodes will need to locate the default router
in order to talk to Emulab or the outside.  Likewise, the router may
need to locate the nodes.  And the firewall itself needs to find the
router and be found by it.

309
One solution is to allow through ARP requests for the gateway from the inside
310 311
(and from us) and ARP replies from the gateway to the inside (and to us).
However, we cannot lock it down quite that tight as we cannot look inside
312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372
ARP packets to extract protocol or hardware addresses.  So, with the current
IPFW2, we would have to allow broadcast ARP packets (aka "requests for
router") from the inside, unicast ARP packets from the router (aka "replies
from router"), and broadcast ARP packets from the router (aka "requests
from router").  But this would allow nodes on the inside to randomly
broadcast "replies" for other machines it knows are on the outside control
network.  While they would not be able to hijack the traffic for such nodes
(we disallow IP traffic from outside control net to inside), they could DoS
them.

Our solution is to block all ARP traffic through the bridge, and instead
have the firewall act as a proxy for both both sides.  Nodes finding the
router is handled by having the firewall publish an ARP entry for it (note
that this is not "proxy ARP" in the traditional sense, we are publishing
the router's real MAC, not our MAC).  This locked-down ARP entry takes care
of the firewall finding the router as well.  Likewise we publish entries
for all the nodes behind the firewall so that we can respond on their behalf
to the router.

But all is not well in the Land of Proxy ARP.  There is a minor problem,
in that we would proxy for the router not only on the inside, but on the
outside as well (this is a consequence of the way proxy arp is implemented
and the particular way in which we setup the bridge).  So whenever anyone
on the shared control net asked for the router, the router, us, and every
other per-experiment firewall, would respond.  This is probably just
annoying, and not fatal.  However, the same thing happens on the inside:
any inside node ARPing for another inside node, would get a response from
the firewall as well as from the real node.  At first glance this is harmless
as well, but if the experiment inside is TRYING to do ARP spoofing, we would
interfere with that.

So, in the spirit of "anything can be fixed in the kernel", I have introduced
an Egregious Kernel Hack to constrain ARPs in our situation.  The arp command
has been modified to allow specifying an explicit interface with which the
entry should be associated.  Then, if the net.link.ether.inet.proxyongwonly
MIB is set and we are dealing with a proxy ARP entry, we will only reply
if the request came in the interface associated with the ARP entry. 


VI. The problem with DHCP traffic

While we know the ports involved with DHCP, 67 and 68, requests and even
replies can be broadcast.  The best we can do at the moment is to say that
only requests can come from the inside, and only replies from the outside.
So only someone outside of a firewall could spoof another experiment inside
a firewall.  This is acceptible in our current threat model.

VII. The problem with frisbee traffic

There are two problems here.  One is that frisbee itself is vulnerable to
snooping and spoofing, but that will be addressed with authentication and
encryption in frisbee itself.  The other problem is that the range of MC
address and ports used is quite wide, and leaves a pretty big hole in the
firewall.  Once authentication and encryption are in place, we will be able
to close this down.

VIII. Other issues

Note that there are issues with other services allowed through as well.
In particular, NFS is the elephant in the middle of the room that we keep
ignoring.
373