Post Syndicated from daroc original https://lwn.net/Articles/988401/

OpenSnitch is an
“interactive application firewall“. Like other firewalls, it uses a
series of rules to decide what network traffic should be permitted. Unlike
many other firewalls, though, OpenSnitch does not ask the user to create a list of rules
ahead of time. Instead, the list of rules can be built up
incrementally as applications make connections — and the user can peruse both
the rules that have built up over time, and statistics on the connections that
have been attempted.

Post Syndicated from BeardedTinker original https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYrt_ziLPRI

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/989047/

Version 4.21.0 of the Samba Windows interoperability suite has been
released. Changes include some authentication hardening, a number of LDAP
improvements, per-user and per-group veto and hide files, group-managed
service accounts, and quite a bit more.

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/989046/

Security updates have been issued by AlmaLinux (bubblewrap and flatpak, containernetworking-plugins, fence-agents, ghostscript, krb5, orc, podman, python3.11, python3.9, resource-agents, runc, and wget), Debian (chromium, cinder, glance, gnutls28, nova, nsis, python-oslo.utils, ruby-sinatra, and setuptools), Fedora (kernel), Oracle (bubblewrap and flatpak, buildah, containernetworking-plugins, fence-agents, ghostscript, gvisor-tap-vsock, kernel, krb5, libndp, nodejs:18, orc, podman, postgresql, python-urllib3, python3.11, python3.12, python3.9, runc, skopeo, and wget), SUSE (hdf5, netcdf, trilinos), and Ubuntu (firefox, imagemagick, ironic, openssl, python-django, vim, and znc).

Post Syndicated from The History Guy: History Deserves to Be Remembered original https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoTqL_e-WSY

Post Syndicated from The Atlantic original https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctw1iFZvzXg

Post Syndicated from Luke Valenta original https://blog.cloudflare.com/tcp-resets-timeouts

Cloudflare handles over 60 million HTTP requests per second globally, with approximately 70% received over TCP connections (the remaining are QUIC/UDP). Ideally, every new TCP connection to Cloudflare would carry at least one request that results in a successful data exchange, but that is far from the truth. In reality, we find that, globally, approximately 20% of new TCP connections to Cloudflare’s servers time out or are closed with a TCP “abort” message either before any request can be completed or immediately after an initial request.

This post explores those connections that, for various reasons, appear to our servers to have been halted unexpectedly before any useful data exchange occurs. Our work reveals that while connections are normally ended by clients, they can also be closed due to third-party interference. Today we’re excited to launch a new dashboard and API endpoint on Cloudflare Radar that shows a near real-time view of TCP connections to Cloudflare’s network that terminate within the first 10 ingress packets due to resets or timeouts, which we’ll refer to as anomalous TCP connections in this post. Analyzing this anomalous behavior provides insights into scanning, connection tampering, DoS attacks, connectivity issues, and other behaviors.

Our ability to generate and share this data via Radar follows from a global investigation into connection tampering. Readers are invited to read the technical details in the peer-review study, or see its corresponding presentation. Read on for a primer on how to use and interpret the data, as well as how we designed and deployed our detection mechanisms so that others might replicate our approach.

To begin, let’s discuss our classification of normal vs anomalous TCP connections.

TCP connections from establishment to close

The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) is a protocol for reliably transmitting data between two hosts on the Internet (RFC 9293). A TCP connection passes through several distinct stages, from connection establishment, to data transfer, to connection close.

A TCP connection is established with a 3-way handshake. The handshake begins when one party, called the client, sends a packet marked with the ‘SYN’ flag to initialize the connection process. The server responds with a “SYN+ACK” packet where the ‘ACK’ flag acknowledges the client’s initialization ‘SYN’. Additional synchronization information is included in both the initialization packet and its acknowledgement. . Finally, the client acknowledges the server’s SYN+ACK packet with a final ACK packet to complete the handshake.

The connection is then ready for data transmission. Typically, the client will set the PSH flag on the first data-containing packet to signal to the server’s TCP stack to forward the data immediately up to the application. Both parties continue to transfer data and acknowledge received data until the connection is no longer needed, at which point the connection is closed.

RFC 9293 describes two ways in which a TCP connection may be closed:

• The normal and graceful TCP close sequence uses a FIN exchange. Either party can send a packet with the FIN flag set to indicate that they have no more data to transmit. Once the other party acknowledges that FIN packet, that direction of the connection is closed. When the acknowledging party is finished transmitting data, it transmits its own FIN packet to close, since each direction of the connection must be closed independently.

• An abort or “reset” signal in which one party transmits RST packets, instructing the other party to immediately close and discard any connection state. Resets are generally sent when some unrecoverable error has occurred.

The full lifetime of a connection that closes gracefully with a FIN is captured in the following sequence diagram.

_{A normal TCP connection starts with a 3-way handshake and ends with a FIN handshake}

Additionally, a TCP connection may be terminated by a timeout which specifies the maximum duration that a connection can be active without receiving data or acknowledgements. An inactive connection, for example, can be kept open with keepalive messages. Unless overridden, the global default duration specified in RFC 9293 is five minutes.

We consider TCP connections anomalous when they close via either a reset or timeout from the client side.

Sources of anomalous connections

Anomalous TCP connections may not themselves be problematic but they can be a symptom of larger issues, especially when occurring at early (pre-data) stages of TCP connections. Below is a non-exhaustive list of potential reasons that we might observe resets or timeouts:

• Scanners: Internet scanners may send a SYN packet to probe if a server responds on a given port, but otherwise fail to clean up a connection once the probe has elicited a response from the server.

• Sudden Application Shutdowns: Applications might abruptly close open connections if they are no longer required. For example, web browsers may send RSTs to terminate connections after a tab is closed, or connections can time out if devices lose power or connectivity.

• Network Errors: Unstable network conditions (e.g., a severed cable connection could result in connection timeouts)

• Attacks: A malicious client may send attack traffic that appears as anomalous connections. For instance, in a SYN flood (half-open) attack, an attacker repeatedly sends SYN packets to a target server in an attempt to overwhelm resources as it maintains these half-opened connections.

• Tampering: Firewalls or other middleboxes capable of intercepting packets between a client and server may drop packets, causing timeouts at the communicating parties. Middleboxes capable of deep packet inspection (DPI) might also leverage the fact that the TCP protocol is unauthenticated and unencrypted to inject packets to disrupt the connection state. See our accompanying blog post for more details on connection tampering.

Understanding the scale and underlying reasons for anomalous connections can help us to mitigate failures and build a more robust and reliable network. We hope that sharing these insights publicly will help to improve transparency and accountability for networks worldwide.

How to use the dataset

In this section, we provide guidance and examples of how to interpret the TCP resets and timeouts dataset by broadly describing three use cases: confirming previously-known behaviors, exploring new targets for followup study, and longitudinal studies to capture changes in network behavior over time.

In each example, the plot lines correspond to the stage of the connection in which the anomalous connection closed, which provides valuable clues into what might have caused the anomaly. We place each incoming connection into one of the following stages:

Post-SYN (mid-handshake): Connection resets or timeouts after the server received a client’s SYN packet. Our servers will have replied, but no acknowledgement ACK packet has come back from the client before the reset or timeout. Packet spoofing is common at this connection stage, so geolocation information is especially unreliable.

Post-ACK (immediately post-handshake): Connection resets or timeouts after the handshake completes and the connection is established successfully. Any subsequent data, that may have been transmitted, never reached our servers.

Post-PSH (after first data packet): Connection resets or timeouts after the server received a packet with the PSH flag set. The PSH flag indicates that the TCP packet contains data (such as a TLS Client Hello message) that is ready to be delivered to the application.

Later (after multiple data packets): Connection resets within the first 10 packets from the client, but after the server has received multiple data packets.

None: All other connections.

To keep focus on legitimate connections, the dataset is constructed after connections are processed and filtered by Cloudflare’s attack mitigation systems.  For more details on how we construct the dataset, see below.

Start with a self-evaluation

To start, we encourage readers to visit the dashboard on Radar to view the results worldwide, and for their own country and ISP.

Globally, as shown below, about 20% of new TCP connections to Cloudflare’s network are closed by a reset or timeout within the first 10 packets from the client. While this number seems astonishingly high, it is in-line with prior studies. As we’ll see, rates of resets and timeouts vary widely by country and network, and this variation is lost in the global averages.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

The United States, my home country, shows anomalous connection rates slightly lower than the worldwide averages, largely due to lower rates for connections closing in the Post-ACK and Post-PSH stages (those stages are more reflective of middlebox tampering behavior). The elevated rates of Post-SYN are typical in most networks due to scanning, but may include packets that spoof the true client’s IP address. Similarly, high rates of connection resets in the Later connection stage (after the initial data exchange, but still within the first 10 packets) might be applications responding to human actions, such as browsers using RSTs to close unwanted TCP connections after a tab is closed.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

My home ISP AS22773 (Cox Communications) shows rates comparable to the US as a whole. This is typical of most residential ISPs operating in the United States.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

Contrast this against AS15169 (Google LLC), which originates many of Google’s crawlers and fetchers. This network shows significantly lower rates of resets in the “Later” connection stage, which may be explained by the larger proportion of automated traffic, not driven by human user actions (such as closing browser tabs).

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

Indeed, our bot detection system classifies over 99% of HTTP requests from AS15169 as automated. This shows the value of collating different types of data on Radar.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

The new anomalous connections dataset, like most that appear on Radar, is passive – it only reports on observable events, not what causes them. In this spirit, the graphs above for Google’s network reinforce the reason for corroborating observations, as we discuss next.

One view for a signal, more views for corroboration

Our passive measurement approach works at Cloudflare scale. However, it does not identify root causes or ground truth on its own. There are many plausible explanations for why a connection closed in a particular stage, especially when the closure is due to reset packets and timeouts. Attempts to explain by relying solely on this data source can only lead to speculation. 

However, this limitation can be overcome by combining with other data sources such as active measurements. For example, corroborating with reports from OONI or Censored Planet, or with on-the-ground reports, can give a more complete story. Thus, one of the major use cases for the TCP resets and timeouts dataset is to understand the scale and impact of previously-documented phenomena.

Corroborating Internet-scale measurement projects

Looking at AS398324 would suggest something terribly wrong, with more than half of connections showing up as anomalous in the Post-SYN stage. However, this network turns out to be CENSYS-ARIN-01, from Internet scanning company Censys. Post-SYN anomalies can be the result of network-layer scanning, where the scanner sends a single SYN packet to probe the server, but does not complete the TCP handshake. There are also high rates of Later anomalies, which could be indicative of application-layer scanning, as indicated by the near 100% proportion of connections being classified as automated.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

Indeed, similar to AS15169, we classify over 99% of requests from AS398324 as automated.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

So far, we’ve looked at networks that generate high volumes of scripted or automated traffic. It’s time to look further afield.

Corroborating connection tampering

The starting point of this dataset was a research project to understand and detect active connection tampering, in a similar spirit to our work on HTTPS interception. The reasons we set out to do are explained in detail in our accompanying blog post.

A well-documented technique in the wild to force connections to close is reset injection. With reset injection, middleboxes on the path to the destination inspect data portions of packets. When the middlebox sees a packet to a forbidden domain name, it injects forged TCP Reset (RST) packets to one or both communicating parties to cause them to abort the connection. If the middlebox did not drop the forbidden packet first, then the server will receive both the client packet that triggered the middlebox tampering – perhaps containing a TLS Client Hello message with a Server Name Indication (SNI) field – followed soon afterwards by the forged RST packet.

In the TCP resets and timeouts dataset, a connection disrupted via reset injection would typically appear as a Post-ACK, Post-PSH, or Later anomaly (but, as a reminder, not all anomalies are due to reset injection).

As an example, the reset injection technique is known and commonly associated with the so-called Great Firewall of China (GFW). Indeed, looking at Post-PSH anomalies in connections originating from IPs geolocated to China, we see higher rates than the worldwide average. However, looking at individual networks in China, the Post-PSH rates vary widely, perhaps due to the types of traffic carried or different implementations of the technique. In contrast, rates of Post-SYN anomalies are consistently high across most major Chinese ASes; this may be scanners, spoofed SYN flood attacks, or residual blocking with collateral impact. 

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

AS4134 (CHINANET-BACKBONE) shows lower rates of Post-PSH anomalies than other Chinese ASes, but still well above the worldwide average.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

Networks AS9808 (CHINAMOBILE-CN) and AS56046 (CMNET-Jiangsu-AP) both show double-digit percentages of connections matching Post-PSH anomalies.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

See our deep-dive blog post for more information about connection tampering.

Sourcing new insights and targets for followup study

TCP resets and timeouts dataset may also be a source for identifying new or previously understudied network behaviors, by helping to find networks that “stick out” and merit further investigation.

Unattributable ZMap scanning

Here is one we’re unable to explain: Every day during the same 18-hour interval, over 10% of connections from UK clients never progress past the initial SYN packets, and just time out.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

Internal inspection revealed that almost all of the Post-SYN anomalies come from a scanner using ZMap at AS396982 (GOOGLE-CLOUD-PLATFORM), in what appears to be a full port scan across all IP address ranges. (The ZMap client responsibly self-identifies, based on ZMap’s responsible self-identification as discussed later.) We see a similar level of scan traffic from IP prefixes in AS396982 geolocated to the United States.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

Zero-rating in mobile networks

A cursory look at anomaly rates at the country level reveals some interesting findings. For instance, looking at connections from Mexico, the rates of Post-ACK and Post-PSH anomalies often associated with connection tampering are higher than the global average. The profile for Mexico connections is also similar to others in the region. However, Mexico is a country with “no documented evidence that the government or other actors block or filter internet content.”

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

Looking at each of the top ASes by HTTP traffic volume in Mexico, we find that close to 50% of connections from AS28403 (RadioMovil Dipsa, S.A. de C.V., operating as Telcel) are terminated via a reset or timeout directly after the completion of the TCP handshake (Post-ACK connection stage). In this stage, it’s possible a middlebox has seen and dropped a data packet before it gets to Cloudflare.

One explanation for this behavior may be zero-rating, in which a cellular network provider allows access to certain resources (such as messaging or social media apps) at no cost. When users exceed their data transfer limits on their account, the provider might still allow traffic to zero-rated destinations while blocking connections to other resources.

To enforce a zero-rating policy, an ISP might use the TLS Server Name Indication (SNI) to determine whether to block or allow connections. The SNI is sent in a data-containing packet immediately following the TCP handshake. Thus, if an ISP drops the packet containing the SNI, the server would still see the SYN and ACK packets from the client but no subsequent packets, which is consistent with a Post-ACK connection anomaly.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

Turning to Peru, another country with a similar profile in the dataset, there are even higher rates of Post-ACK and Post-PSH anomalies compared to Mexico.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

Focusing on specific ASes, we see that AS12252 (Claro Peru) shows high rates of Post-ACK anomalies similar to AS28403 in Mexico. Both networks are operated by the same parent company, América Móvil, so one might expect similar network policies and network management techniques to be employed.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

Interestingly, AS6147 (Telefónica Del Perú) instead shows high rates of Post-PSH connection anomalies. This could indicate that this network uses different techniques at the network layer to enforce its policies.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

Changes over time, a longitudinal view

One of the most powerful aspects of our continuous passive measurement is the ability to measure networks over longer periods of time.

Internet shutdowns

In our June 2024 blog post “Examining recent Internet shutdowns in Syria, Iraq, and Algeria”, we shared the view of exam-related nationwide Internet shutdowns from the perspective of Cloudflare’s network. At that time we were preparing the TCP resets and timeouts dataset, which was helpful to confirm outside reports and get some insight into the specific techniques used for the shutdowns.

As examples of changing behavior, we can go “back in time” to observe exam-related blocking as it happened. In Syria, during the exam-related shutdowns we see spikes in the rate of Post-SYN anomalies. In reality, we see a near-total drop in traffic (including SYN packets) during these periods.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

A second round of shutdowns starting the last week of July are quite prominent as well.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

Looking at connections from Iraq, Cloudflare’s view of exam-related shutdowns appears similar to those in Syria, with multiple Post-SYN spikes, albeit much less pronounced.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

The exams shutdown blog also describes how Algeria took a more nuanced approach for restricting access to content during exam times: instead of full Internet shutdowns, evidence suggests that Algeria instead targeted specific connections. Indeed, during exam periods we see an increase in Post-ACK connection anomalies. This behavior would be expected if a middlebox selectively drops packets that contain forbidden content, while leaving other packets alone (like the initial SYN and ACK).

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

The examples above reinforce that this data is most useful when correlated with other signals. The data is also available via the API, so others can dive in more deeply. Our detection techniques are also transferable to other servers and operators, as described next.

How to detect anomalous TCP connections at scale

In this section, we discuss how we constructed the TCP resets and timeouts dataset. The scale of Cloudflare’s global network presents unique challenges for data processing and analysis. We share our techniques to help readers to understand our methodology, interpret the dataset, and replicate the mechanisms in other networks or servers.

Our methodology can be summarized as follows:

1. Log a sample of connections arriving at our client-facing servers. This sampling system is completely passive, meaning that it has no ability to decrypt traffic and only has access to existing packets sent over the network. 

2. Reconstruct connections from the captured packets. A novel aspect of our design is that only one direction needs to be observed, from client to server.

3. Match reconstructed connections against a set of signatures for anomalous connections terminated by resets or timeouts. These signatures consist of two parts: a connection stage, and a set of tags that indicate specific behaviors derived from the literature and our own observations.

These design choices keep encrypted packets safe and can be replicated anywhere, without needing access to the destination server.

First, sample connections

Our main goal was to design a mechanism that scales, and gives us broad visibility into all connections arriving at Cloudflare’s network. Running traffic captures on each client-facing server works, but does not scale. We would also need to know exactly where and when to look, making continuous insights hard to capture. Instead, we sample connections from all of Cloudflare’s servers and log them to a central location where we could perform offline analysis.

This is where we hit the first roadblock: existing packet logging pipelines used by Cloudflare’s analytics systems log individual packets, but a connection consists of many packets. To detect connection anomalies we needed to see all, or at least enough, packets in a given connection. Fortunately, we were able to leverage a flexible logging system built by Cloudflare’s DoS team for analyzing packets involved in DDoS attacks in conjunction with a carefully crafted invocation of two iptables rules to achieve our goal.

The first iptables rule randomly selects and marks new connections for sampling. In our case, we settled on sampling one in every 10,000 ingress TCP connections. There’s nothing magical about this number, but at Cloudflare’s scale it strikes a balance between capturing enough without straining our data processing and analytics pipelines. The iptables rules only apply to packets after they have passed the DDoS mitigation system. As TCP connections can be long-lived, we sample only new TCP connections. Here is the iptables rule for marking connections to be sampled:

-t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp --syn -m state 
--state NEW -m statistic --mode random 
--probability 0.0001 -m connlabel --label  
--set -m comment --comment "Label a sample of ingress TCP connections"

Breaking this down, the rule is installed in the mangle table (for modifying packets) in the chain that handles incoming packets (-A PREROUTING). Only TCP packets with the SYN flag set are considered (-p tcp --syn) where there is no prior state for the connection (--state NEW). The filter selects one in every 10,000 SYN packets (-m statistic –mode random --probability 0.0001) and applies a label to the connection (-m connlabel --label <label> --set).

The second iptables rule logs subsequent packets in the connection, to a maximum of 10 packets. Again, there’s nothing magic about the number 10 other than that it’s generally enough to capture the connection establishment, subsequent request packets, and resets on connections that close before expected.

-t mangle -A PREROUTING -m connlabel --label 
 -m connbytes ! --connbytes 11 
--connbytes-dir original --connbytes-mode packets 
-j NFLOG --nflog-prefix "" -m 
comment --comment "Log the first 10 incoming packets of each sampled ingress connection"

This rule is installed in the same chain as the previous rule. It matches only packets from sampled connections (-m connlabel --label <label>), and only the first 10 packets from each connection (-m connbytes ! --connbytes 11 --connbytes-dir original --connbytes-mode packets). Matched packets are sent to NFLOG (-j NFLOG --nflog-prefix "<logging flags>") where they’re picked up by the logging system and saved to a centralized location for offline analysis.

Reconstructing connections from sampled packets

Packets logged on our servers are inserted into ClickHouse tables as part of our analytics pipeline. Each logged packet is stored in its own row in the database. The next challenge is to reassemble packets into the corresponding connections for further analysis. Before we go further, we need to define what a “connection” is for the purpose of this analysis.

We use the standard definition of a connection defined by the network 5-tuple of protocol, source IP address, source port, destination IP address, destination port with the following tweaks:

• We only sample packets on the ingress (client-to-server) half of a connection, so do not see the corresponding response packets from server to client. In most cases, we can infer what the server response will be based on our knowledge of how our servers are configured. Ultimately, the ingress packets are sufficient to learn anomalous TCP connection behaviors.

• We query the ClickHouse dataset in 15-minute intervals, and group together packets sharing the same network 5-tuple within that interval. This means that connections may be truncated towards the end of the query interval. When analyzing connection timeouts, we exclude incomplete flows where the latest packet timestamp is within 10 seconds of the query cutoff.

• Since resets and timeouts are most likely to affect new connections, we only consider sequences of packets starting with a SYN packet marking the beginning of a new TCP handshake. Thus, existing long-lived connections are excluded.

• The logging system does not guarantee precise packet interarrival timestamps, so we consider only the set of packets that arrive, not ordered by their arrival time. In some cases, we can determine packet ordering based on TCP sequence numbers but it turns out not to significantly impact the results.

• We filter out a small fraction of connections with multiple SYN packets to reduce noise in the analysis.

With the above conditions for how we define a connection, we’re now ready to describe our analysis pipeline in more detail.

Mapping connection close events to stages

TCP connections transition through a series of stages from connection establishment through eventual close. The stage at which an anomalous connection closes provides clues as to why the anomaly occurred. Based on the packets that we receive at our servers, we place each incoming connection into one of four stages (Post-SYN, Post-ACK, Post-PSH, Later), described in more detail above.

The connection close stage alone provides useful insights into anomalous TCP connections from various networks, and this is what is shown today on Cloudflare Radar. However, in some cases we can provide deeper insights by matching connections against more specific signatures.

Applying tags to describe more specific connection behaviors

The grouping of connections into stages as described above is done solely based on the TCP flags of packets in the connection. Considering other factors such as packet inter-arrival timing, exact combinations of TCP flags, and other packet fields (IP identification, IP TTL, TCP sequence and acknowledgement numbers, TCP window size, etc.) can allow for more fine-grained matching to specific behaviors.

For example, the popular ZMap scanner software fixes the IP identification field to 54321 and the TCP window size to 65535 in SYN packets that it generates (source code). When we see packets arriving to our network that have these exact fields set, it is likely that the packet was generated by a scanner using ZMap.

Tags can also be used to match connections against known signatures of tampering middleboxes. A large body of active measurements work (for instance, Weaver, Sommer, and Paxson) has found that some middleboxes deployments exhibit consistent behaviors when disrupting connections via reset injection, such as setting an IP TTL field that differs from other packets sent by the client, or sending both a RST packet and a RST+ACK packet. For more details on specific connection tampering signatures, see the blog post and the peer-reviewed paper.

Currently, we define the following tags, which we intend to refine and expand over time. Some tags only apply if another tag is also set, as indicated by the hierarchical presentation below (e.g., the fin tag can only apply when the reset tag is also set).

• timeout: terminated due to a timeout

• reset: terminated due to a reset (packet with RST flag set)

  • fin: at least one FIN packet was received alongside one or more RST packets

  • single_rst: terminated with a single RST packet

  • multiple_rsts: terminated with multiple RST packets

    • acknumsame: the acknowledgement numbers in the RST packets were all the same and non-zero

    • acknumsame0: the acknowledgement numbers in the RST packets were all zero

    • acknumdiff: the acknowledgement numbers in the RST packets were different and all non-zero

    • acknumdiff0: the acknowledgement numbers in the RST packets were different and one was zero

  • single_rstack: terminated with a single RST+ACK packet (both RST and ACK flags set)

  • multiple_rstacks: terminated with a multiple RST+ACK packets

  • rst_and_rstacks: terminated with a combination of RST and RST+ACK packets

• zmap: SYN packet matches those generated by the ZMap scanner

Connection tags are not currently visible in the Radar dashboard and API, but we plan to release this additional functionality in the future.

What’s next?

Cloudflare’s mission is to help build a better Internet, and we consider transparency and accountability to be a critical part of that mission. We hope that the insights and tools we are sharing help to shed light on anomalous network behaviors around the world.

While the current TCP resets and timeouts dataset should immediately prove useful to network operators, researchers, and Internet citizens as a whole, we’re not stopping here. There are several improvements we’d like to add in the future:

• Expand the set of tags for capturing specific network behaviors and expose them in the API and dashboard.

• Extend insights to connections from Cloudflare to customer origin servers.

• Add support for QUIC, which is currently used for over 30% of HTTP requests to Cloudflare worldwide.

If you’ve found this blog interesting, we encourage you to read the accompanying blog post and paper for a deep dive on connection tampering, and to explore the TCP resets and timeouts dashboard and API on Cloudflare Radar. We welcome you to reach out to us with your own questions and observations at [email protected].

Post Syndicated from Ram Sundara Raman original https://blog.cloudflare.com/connection-tampering

Have you ever made a phone call, only to have the call cut as soon as it is answered, with no obvious reason or explanation? This analogy is the starting point for understanding connection tampering on the Internet and its impact. 

We have found that 20 percent of all Internet connections are abruptly closed before any useful data can be exchanged. Essentially, every fifth call is cut before being used. As with a phone call, it can be challenging for one or both parties to know what happened. Was it a faulty connection? Did the person on the other end of the line hang up? Did a third party intervene to stop the call?  

On the Internet, Cloudflare is in a unique position to help figure out when a third party may have played a role. Our global network allows us to identify patterns that suggest that an external party may have intentionally tampered with a connection to prevent content from being accessed. Although they are often hard to decipher, the ways connections are abruptly closed give clues to what might have happened. Sources of tampering generally do not try to hide their actions, which leaves hints of their existence that we can use to identify detectable ‘signatures’ in the connection protocol. As we explain below, there are other protocol features that are less likely to be spoofed and that point to third party actions. We can use these hints to build signature patterns of connection tampering that can be recognized.

To be clear, there are many reasons a third party might tamper with a connection. Enterprises may tamper with outbound connections from their networks to prevent users from interacting with spam or phishing sites. ISPs may use connection tampering to enforce court or regulatory orders that demand website blocking to address copyright infringement or for other legal purposes. Governments may mandate large-scale censorship and information control. 

Despite the fact that everyone knows it happens, no other large operation has previously looked at the use of connection tampering at scale and across jurisdictions. We think that creates a notable gap in understanding what is happening in the Internet ecosystem, and that shedding light on these practices is important for transparency and the long-term health of the Internet. So today, we’re proud to share a view of global connection tampering practices.

The full technical details were recently peer-reviewed and published in “Global, Passive Detection of Connection Tampering” at ACM SIGCOMM, with its public presentation. We’re also announcing a new dashboard and API on Cloudflare Radar that shows a near real-time view of specific connection timeout and reset events – the two mechanisms dominant in tampering experienced by users connecting to Cloudflare’s network globally.

To better understand our perspective, it helps to understand the nature of connection tampering and reasons we’re talking about it.

Global insights for a global audience

Evidence of connection tampering is visible in networks all around the world. We were initially shocked that, globally, about 20% of all connections to Cloudflare close unexpectedly before any useful data exchange occurs — consistent with connection tampering. Here is a snapshot of these anomalous connections seen by Cloudflare that, as of today, we’re sharing on Radar.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

It’s not all tampering, but some of it clearly is, as we describe in more detail below. The challenge is filtering through the noise to determine which anomalous connections can confidently be attributed to tampering.

Macro-level analysis and validation

In our work we identified 19 patterns of anomalous connections as being candidate signatures for connection tampering. From those, we found that 14 had been previously reported by active “on the ground” measurement efforts, which presented an opportunity for validation at macro-level: If we observe our tampering signatures from Cloudflare’s network in the same places others observe them from the ground, we could have greater confidence that the signatures capture true cases of connection tampering when observed elsewhere, where there has been no prior reporting. To mitigate the risk of confirmation bias from looking where tampering is known to exist, we decided to look everywhere at the same time.

Taking that approach, the figure below, taken from our peer-review study, is a visual side-by-side comparison of each of the 19 signatures. The data is taken from a two-week interval starting January 26, 2023. Within each signature column is the proportion of matching connections broken down by the country where the connection originated. For example, the column third from the right labeled with ⟨PSH → RST;RST₀⟩ indicates that we almost exclusively observed that signature on connections from China. Overall, what we find is a mirror of known cases from public and prior reports, which is an indication that our methodology works.

_{Figure 1: Signature matching across countries: Each column is the total global number of connections matching a specific signature. Within each column is the proportion of connections initiations from individual countries matching that signature.}

Interestingly, by honing in on prevalence, and setting aside the raw number of signature matches, interesting patterns emerge. As a result of this data-driven perspective, unexpected macro-insights also emerge. If we focus on the three most populous countries in the world ranked by number of Internet users, connections from China contribute a substantial portion of matches across no fewer than 9 of the signatures. This is perhaps unsurprising, but reinforces prior studies that find evidence of the Great Firewall (GFW) being made of many different deployments and implementations of blocking mandates. Next, matches on connections from India also contribute substantially to nine 9 different signatures, five of which are in common with signatures where China matches feature highly. Looking at the third most populous, the United States, a visible if not substantial proportion of matches appear on all but two of the signatures.

A snapshot of signature distributions per-country, also taken from the peer-review study, appears below for a select set of countries. The global distribution is included for comparison. The dark gray portions marked ⟨SYN → ∅⟩ are included for completeness, but have more non-tampering alternative explanations than the others (for example, as result of a low-rate SYN flood).

_{Figure 4: Signature distribution per country: The percentage of connections originating from select countries (and globally) that match a particular signature, or are not tampered with.}

From this perspective we again observe patterns that match prior studies. We focus first on rates above the global average, and ignore the noisiest signature ⟨SYN → ∅⟩ in medium-gray; there are simply too many other explanations for a signature match at this earliest possible stage. Among all connections from Turkmenistan (TM), Russia (RU), Iran (IR), and China (CN), roughly 80%, 30%, 40%, and 30%, respectively, of those connections match a tampering signature. The data also reveals high signature match rates where no prior reports exist. For example, connections from Peru (PE) and Mexico (MX), match roughly 50% and 25%, respectively; analysis of individual networks in these countries suggests a likely explanation is zero-rating in mobile and cellular networks, where an ISP allows access to certain resources (but not others) at no cost. If we look below the global average, Great Britain (GB), the United States (US), and Germany (DE), each match a signature on about 10% of connections.

The data makes clear that connection tampering is widespread, and close to many users, if not most. In many ways, it’s closer than most know. To explain why, we explain connection tampering with a very familiar communication tool, the telephone.

Explaining tampering with telephone calls

Connection tampering is a way for a third party to block access to particular content. However, it’s not enough for the third party to know the type of content it wants to block. The third party can only block an identity by name. 

Ultimately, connection tampering is possible only by accident – an unintended side effect of protocol design. On the Internet, the most common identity is the domain name. In a communication on the Internet, the domain name is most often transmitted in the “server name indication (SNI)” field in TLS – exposed in cleartext for all to see.

To understand why this matters, it helps to understand what connection tampering looks like in human-to-human communications without the Internet. The Internet itself looks and operates much like the postal system, which relies only on addresses and never on names. However, the way most people use the Internet is much more like the “plain old telephone system,” which requires names to succeed.

In the telephone system, a person first dials a phone number, not a name. The call is connected and usable only after the other side answers, and the caller hears a voice.  The caller asks for a name only after the call is connected. The call manifests in the system as energy signals that do not identify the communicating parties. Finally, after the call ends, a new call is required to communicate again.

On the Internet, a client such as a browser “establishes a connection.” Much like a telephone caller, it initiates a connection request to a server’s number, which is an IP address. The longest-standing “connection-oriented” protocol to connect two devices is called the Transmission Control Protocol, or TCP. The domain name is transmitted in isolation from the connection establishment, much like asking for a name once the phone is answered. The connections are “logical” identified by metadata that does not identify communicating parties. Finally, a new connection is established with each new visit to a website.

_{Comparison between a TCP connection and a telephone call}

What happens if a telephone company is required to prevent a call to some party? One option is to modify or manipulate phone directories so a caller can’t get the phone number they need to dial the phone that makes the call; this is the essence of DNS filtering. A second option is to block all calls to the phone number, but this inadvertently affects others, just like IP blocking does.

Once a phone call is initiated, the only way for the telephone company to know who is being called is to listen in on the call and wait for the caller to say, “is so-and-so there?” or “can I speak with so-and-so?” Mobile and cellular calls are no exception. The idea that the number we call is the person who will answer is just an expectation – it has never been the reality. For example, a parent could get a number to give to their child, or a taxi company could leave the mobile phone with whomever is on-shift at the time. As a result, the telephone company must listen in. Once it hears a certain name it can cut the call; neither side would have any idea what has happened – this is the very definition of connection tampering on the Internet. 

For the purpose of establishing a communication channel, phone calls and TCP connections are at least comparable, and arguably exactly the same – not least because the domain name is transmitted separately from establishing a connection.

Similarly, on the Internet, the only way for a third party to know the intended recipient of a connection is to “look inside” of packets as they are transmitted. Where a telephone company would have to listen for a name, a third party on the Internet waits to see something it does not like, most often a forbidden name. Recall from above the unintended side-effect of the protocol: the name is visible in the SNI, which is required to help encrypt the data communication. When that happens, the third party causes one or both devices to close the connection by either dropping messages or injecting specially-crafted messages that cause the communicating parties to abort the connection.

The mechanisms to trigger tampering begin with deep packet inspection (DPI), which means looking into the data portions that lie beyond the address and other metadata belonging to the connection. It’s safe to say that this functionality does not come for free; whether it’s an ISP’s router or a parental proxy, DPI is an expensive operation that gets more expensive at large scale or high speed. 

One last point worth mentioning is that weaknesses in telephone tampering similarly appear in connection tampering. For example, the sound of Jean and Gene are indistinguishable to any ear, despite being different names. Similarly, tampering with connections to Twitter’s short-form name “t.co” would also affect “microsoft.com” – and has.

A live view of tampering during Mahsa Amini protests

Before we delve deeply into the technical, there is one more motivation that is personal to many at Cloudflare. Transparency is important and the reason we started this work, but it was after seeing the data during the Mahsa Amini protests in Iran in 2022 that we committed internally to share the data on Radar. 

_{Figure 8: Signature match rates longitudinally in Iran during a period of nation-wide protests. (𝑥-axis is local time.)}

The figure below is for connections from Iran during 17 days overlapping the protests. The plot-lines track individual signals of anomalous connections, including signatures of different types of connection tampering. This data pre-dates the Radar service, so we have elected to share this representation from the peer-reviewed paper. It was also the first visual example of the value of the data if it could be shared via Radar. 

From the data there are two observations that stick out. First is the way that the lines appear stable before the protests, then increase after the protests began. Second is the variation between the lines over time, in particular the lines in light gray, dark purple, and dark green. Recall that each line is a different tampering signature, so the variation between lines suggests changes in the underlying causes – either the mechanisms at work, or the traffic that invokes them.

We emphasize that a signature match, alone, does not in itself mean there is tampering. However, in the case of Iran in 2022 there were public reports of blocking of various forms. The methods in use at the time, specifically Server Name Indication (SNI)-based blocking of access to content, had also previously been well-documented, and matched with our observations represented by the figure above.

What about today? Below we see the Radar view of the twelve months from August 2023 to August 2024. Each color represents a different stage of the connection where tampering might happen. In the previous 12 months, TCP connection anomalies in Iran are lower than the worldwide averages, overall, but appear significantly higher in the portion of anomalies represented by the light-blue region. This “Post ACK” phase of communication is often associated with SNI-based blocking. (In the graph above, the relevant signatures are represented by the dark purple and dark green lines.) Alongside, the changing proportions of the different plot-lines since mid-December 2023 suggest that techniques have been changing over time.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

The importance of an open network measurement community

As a testament to the importance of open measurement and research communities, this work very literally “builds on the shoulders of giants.” It was produced in collaboration with researchers at the University of Maryland, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, and the University of Michigan, but does not exist in isolation. There have been extensive efforts to measure connection tampering, most of which comes from the censorship measurement community. The bulk of that work consists of active measurements, in which researchers craft and transmit probes in or along networks and regions to identify blocking behavior. Unsurprisingly, active measurement has both strengths and weaknesses, as described in Section 2 in the paper). 

The counterpart to active measurement, and the focus of our project, is passive measurement, which takes an “observe and do nothing” approach. Passive measurement comes with its own strengths and weaknesses but, crucially, it relies on having a good vantage point such as a large network operator. Each of active and passive measurements are most effective when working in conjunction, in this case helping to paint a more complete picture of the impact of connection tampering on users.

Most importantly, when embarking upon any type of measurement, great care must be taken to understand and evaluate the safety of the measurement since the risk imposed on people and networks are often indirect, or hidden from view.

Limitations of our data

We have no doubt about the importance of being transparent with connection tampering, but we also need to be explicit about the limits on the insights that can be gleaned from the data. As passive observers of connections to the Cloudflare network – and only the Cloudflare network – we are only able to see or infer the following:

1. Signs of connection tampering, but not where it happened. Any software or device between the client’s application and the server systems can tamper with a connection. The list ranges from purpose-built systems, to firewalls in the enterprise or home broadband router, and protection software installed on home or school computers. All we can infer is where the connection started (albeit at the limits of geolocation inaccuracies inherent in the Internet’s design).

2. (Often, but not always) What triggered the tampering, but not why. Typically, tampering systems are triggered by domain names, keywords, or regular expressions. With enough repetition, and manual inspection, it may be possible to identify the likely cause of tampering, but not the reasons. Many tampering system designs are prone to unintended consequences, among them the t.co example mentioned above.

3. Who and what is affected, but not who or what could be affected. As passive observers, there are limits on the kinds of inferences we can make. For example, observable tampering on 1000 out of 1001 connections to example.com suggests that tampering is likely on the next connection attempt. However, that says nothing about connections to another-example.com. 

Data, data, data: Extracting signals from the noise

If you just want to get and use the data on Radar, see our “how to” guide. Otherwise, let’s understand the data itself.

The focus of this work is TCP. In our data there are two mechanisms available to a third-party to force a connection to close: dropping packets to induce timeouts or injecting forged TCP RST packets, each with various deployment choices. Individual tampering signatures may be reflections of those choices. For comparison, a graceful TCP close is initiated with a FIN packet. 

Connection tampering signatures

Our detection mechanism evaluates sets of packets in a connection against a set of signatures for connection tampering. The signatures are hand-crafted from signatures identified in prior work, and by analyzing samples of connections to Cloudflare’s network that we classify as anomalous – connections that close early, and ungracefully by way of a RST packet or timeout within the first 10 packets from the client. We analyzed the samples and found that 19 patterns accounted for 86.9% of all possibly tampered connections in the samples, shown in the table below.

_{Table 1: The comprehensive set of tampering signatures we identify through global passive measurements.}

To help reason about tampering, we also classed the 19 signatures above according to the stage of the connection lifetime in which they appear. Each stage implies something about the middlebox, as described below alongside corresponding sequence diagrams:

• (a) Post-SYN (mid-handshake): Tampering is likely triggered by the destination IP address because the middlebox has likely not seen application data, which is typically transmitted after the handshake completes.

• (b) Post-ACK (immediately after handshake): The connection is established and immediately forced to close before seeing any data. It is possible, even likely, that the middlebox has likely seen a data packet; for example, the host header in HTTP or SNI field in TLS. 

• (c) Post-PSH (after first data packet): The middlebox has definitely seen the first data packet because the server has received it. The middlebox may have been waiting for a packet with a PSH flag, typically set to indicate data in the packet should be delivered to the application on receipt, without delay. The likely middlebox is likely a monster-on-the-side because it permits the offending packet to reach the destination.

• (d) Later-in-flow (after multiple data packets): Tampering at later stages in the connection (not immediately after the first data packet, but still within the first 10 packets). The prevalence of encrypted data in TLS makes this the least likely stage for tampering to occur. The likely triggers are keywords appearing in cleartext later in (HTTP) connections, or by the likes of enterprise proxies and parental protection software that has visibility into encrypted traffic and can reset connections when certain keywords are encountered. 

Accounting for alternative explanations

How can we be confident that the signatures above detect middlebox tampering, and not just atypical client behavior? One of the challenges of passive measurement is that we do not have full visibility into the clients connecting to our network, so absolute positives are hard if not impossible. Instead, we look for strong positive evidence of tampering, that must first begin by identifying false positives. 

We are aware of the following sources of false positives that can be hard to disambiguate from true sources of tampering. All but the last occur in the first two stages of the connection, before data packets are received. 

• Scanners are client-side applications that probe servers to elicit responses. Some scanner software uses fixed bits in the header to self-identify, which helps us filter. For example, we found that Zmap accounts for approximately 1% of all ⟨SYN → RST⟩ signature matches.

• SYN flood attacks are another likely source of false positives, especially for signatures in the Post-SYN connection stage like the ⟨SYN → ∅⟩ and ⟨SYN → RST⟩ signatures. These are less likely to appear in our dataset collection, which happens after the DDoS protection systems.

• Happy Eyeballs is a common technique used by dual-stack clients in which the client initiates an IPv6 connection to the server and, with some delay to favor IPv6, also makes an IPv4 connection. The client keeps the connection that succeeds first and drops the other. Clients that cease transmission or close the connection with a RST instead of a FIN would show up in the data, matching the ⟨SYN → RST⟩ signature. 

• Browser-triggered RSTs may appear at any stage of the connection, but especially for signatures that match later in a connection (after multiple data packets). It might be triggered, for example, by a user closing a browser tab. Unlike targeted tampering, however, RSTs originating from browsers are unlikely to be biased towards specific services or websites. 

How can we separate legitimate client-initiated false positives from third-party tampering? We seek an evidence-based approach to distinguish tampering signatures from other signals within the dataset. For this we turn to individual bits in the packet headers.

Signature validation – letting the data speak

Signature matches in isolation are insufficient to make good determinations. Alongside, we can find further supporting evidence of their accuracy by examining connections in aggregate – if the cause is tampering, and tampering is targeted, then there must be other patterns or markers in common. For example, we expect browser behavior to appear worldwide; however, as we showed above, signatures that match on connections in only some places or some time intervals stick out. 

Similarly, we expect certain characteristics in contiguous packets within a connection to also stick out, and indeed they do, namely in the IP-ID and TTL fields in the IP header.

The IP-ID (IP identification) field in the IPv4 packet header is usually a fixed per-connection value, often incremented by the client for each subsequent packet it sends. In other words, we expect the change in IP-ID value in subsequent packets sent from the same client to be small. Thus, large changes in IP-ID value between subsequent packets are unexpected in normal connections, and could be used as an indicator of packet injection. This is exactly what we see in the figure above, marked (a), for a select set of signatures.

The Time-to-Live (TTL) field offers another clue for detecting injected packets. Here, too, most client implementations use the same TTL for each packet sent on a connection, usually set initially to either 64 or 128 and decremented by every router along the packet’s route. If a RST packet does not have the same TTL as other packets in a connection, it’s a strong signal that it was injected. Looking at the figure above, marked (b), we can see marked differences in TTLs, indicating the presence of a third party. 

We strongly encourage readers to read the underlying details of how and why these make sense.  Connections with high maximum IP-ID and TTL differences give positive evidence for traffic tampering, but the absence of these signals does not necessarily mean that tampering did not occur, as some middleboxes are known to copy IP header values including the IP-ID and TTL from the original packets in the connection. Our interest is in responsibly ensuring our dataset has indicative value.

There is one last caveat: While our tampering signatures capture many forms of tampering, there is still potential for false negatives for connections that were tampered with but escaped our detection. Some examples are connections terminated after the first 10 packets (since we don’t sample that far), FIN injection (a less common alternative to RST injection), or connections where all packets are dropped before reaching Cloudflare’s servers. Our signatures also do not apply to UDP-based protocols such as QUIC. We hope to expand the scope of our connection tampering signatures in the future.

Case studies

To get a sense of how this looks on the Cloudflare network, below we provide further examples of TCP connection anomalies that are consistent with OONI reports of connection tampering.

For additional insights from this specific study, see the full technical paper and presentation. For other regions and networks not listed below, please see the new data on Radar.

Pakistan

Reporting from inside Pakistan suggests changes in users’ Internet experience throughout August 2024. Taking a look at a two-week interval in early August, there is a significant shift in Post-ACK connection anomalies starting on August 9, 2024.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

The August 9 Post-ACK spike can be almost entirely attributed to AS56167 (Pak Telecom Mobile Limited), shown below in the first image, where Post-ACK anomalies jumped from under 5% to upwards of 70% of all connections, and has remained high since. Correspondingly, we see a significant reduction in the number of successful HTTP requests reaching Cloudflare’s network from clients in AS56167, below in the second image, which provides evidence that connections are being disrupted. This Pakistan example reinforces the importance of corroborating reports and observations, discussed in more detail in the Radar dataset release.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

Tanzania

A OONI report from April 2024 discusses targeted connection tampering in Tanzania. The report states that this blocking is observed on the client side as connection timeouts after the Client Hello message during the TLS handshake, indicating that a middlebox is dropping the packet containing the Client Hello message. On the server side, connections tampered with in this way would appear as Post-ACK timeouts as the PSH packet containing the Client Hello message never reaches the server.

Looking at the Post-ACK data represented in the light-blue portion, below, we find matching evidence: close to 30% of all new TCP connections from Tanzania appear as Post-ACK anomalies. Breaking this down further (not shown in the plots below), approximately one third is due to timeouts, consistent with the OONI report above. The remainder is due to RSTs.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

Ethiopia

Ethiopia is another location with previously-reported connection tampering. Consistent with this, we see elevated rates of Post-PSH TCP anomalies across networks in Ethiopia. Our internal data shows that the majority of Post-PSH anomalies in this case are due to RSTs, although timeouts are also prevalent.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

The majority of traffic arriving to Cloudflare’s servers from IP addresses geolocated in Ethiopia is from AS24757 (Ethio Telecom), shown below in the first image, so it is perhaps unsurprising that its data closely matches the country-wide distribution of connection anomalies. The number of Post-PSH connections originating from AS328988 (SAFARICOM TELECOMMUNICATIONS ETHIOPIA PLC), shown below in the second image, are higher in proportion and account for over 33% of all connections from that network.

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

_{via Cloudflare Radar}

Reflecting on the present to promote a resilient future

Connection tampering is a blocking mechanism that is deployed in various forms throughout the Internet. Although we have developed ways to help detect and understand it globally, the experience is just as individual as an interrupted phone call.

Connection tampering is also made possible by accident. It works because domain names are visible in cleartext. But it may not always be this way. For example, Encrypted Client Hello (ECH) is an emerging building block that encrypts the SNI field. 

We’ll continue to look for ways to talk about network activity and disruption, all to foster wider conversations. Check out the newest additions about connection anomalies on Cloudflare Radar and the corresponding blog post, as well as the peer-reviewed technical paper and its 15-minute summary talk.

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/987605/

The LWN.net Weekly Edition for September 5, 2024 is available.

Post Syndicated from The History Guy: History Deserves to Be Remembered original https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUPgjaM6B2A

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/988862/

The call for candidates
has gone out for the 2024 election of members of the Linux Foundation
Technical Advisory Board:

The TAB exists to provide advice from the kernel community to the
Linux Foundation and holds a seat on the LF’s board of directors;
it also serves to facilitate interactions both within the community
and with outside entities. Over the last year, the TAB has
overseen the organization of the Linux Plumbers Conference, advised
on the setup of the kernel CVE numbering authority, worked behind
the scenes to help resolve a number of contentious community
discussions, worked with the Linux Foundation on community
conference planning, and more.

Nominations are due by September 20.

Post Syndicated from The Atlantic original https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V53zpe5KpxQ