DOC PREVIEW
UT CS 395T - Game-based Analysis of Denial-of-Service Prevention Protocols

This preview shows page 1-2-20-21 out of 21 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 21 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 21 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 21 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 21 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 21 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Game-based Analysis of Denial-of-Service Prevention ProtocolsOverviewDDoS AttacksDefense Mechanisms (1)Defense Mechanisms (2)Push-back MechanismDefense Mechanisms (3)ProblemsClient PuzzlesClient Puzzle Protocols (1)Client Puzzle Protocols (2)Basic Client Puzzle ProtocolDistributed Approach (1)Distributed Approach (2)Analysis of the Protocols (1)Analysis of the Protocols (2)Liveness in ATLAvailability in ATLClient Authentication in ATLAdaptability in ATLConclusions and Future WorkGame-based Analysis of Denial-of-Service Prevention ProtocolsAjay MahimkarClass Project: CS 395TOverviewIntroduction to DDoS AttacksCurrent DDoS Defense StrategiesClient Puzzle Protocols for DoS PreventionDistributed ApproachGame-based Verification using MOCHAConclusions and future workDDoS AttacksWhat is a Denial-of-Service Attack?Degrade the service quality or completely disable the target service by overloading critical resources of the target system or by exploiting software bugsWhat is a Distributed Denial-of-Service Attack?The objective is the same with DoS attacks but is accomplished by a set of compromised hosts distributed over the InternetDefense Mechanisms (1)Victim-endMost existing intrusion detection systems and DDoS detection systems fall in this categoryUsed to protect a set of hosts from being attackedAdvantagesDDoS attacks are easily detected due to aggregate of huge traffic volumeDisadvantagesAttack flows can still incur congestion along the attack pathFiltering of attack flows using IP TracebackDefense Mechanisms (2)Intermediate NetworkRouters identify attack packet characteristics, send messages to upstream routers to limit traffic rateAttack packets filtered by Internet core routersAdvantagesEffectiveness of filtering improvedDisadvantagesInternet-wide authentication framework is requiredExamplePush-back MechanismPush-back MechanismR2R0R1R3R7R6R5R4Heavy traffic flowPush-back messages●Challenge – attack/legitimate packet differentiationAttack trafficAttack trafficLegitimate trafficLegitimate trafficLegitimate trafficDefense Mechanisms (3)Source-endAttack packets dropped at sourcesPrevents attack traffic from entering the InternetAdvantagesEffectiveness of packet filter is the bestDisadvantagesIt is very hard to identify DDoS attack flows at sources since the traffic is not so aggregateRequires support of all edge routersProblemsIn DDoS Attack Mitigation techniques, filters do not accurately differentiate legitimate and attack trafficMechanisms like IP Traceback, Push-back could drop legitimate trafficDropping legitimate traffic serves the purpose of the attacker Question is How to differentiate legitimate and attack traffic behavior?SolutionUse Client PuzzlesClient PuzzlesForce each client to solve a cryptographic puzzle for each request before server commits its resourcesIn other words, “Make client commit its resources before receiving resource”Client puzzles defends against Distributed DoS attacksStudy shows that existing DDoS tools are carefully designed not to disrupt the zombie computers, so as to avoid alerting the machine ownersFilter packets from clients that do not solve puzzlesThis differentiates legitimate users from attackersClient Puzzle Protocols (1)Puzzle Auctions ProtocolBefore initiating session, client solves a puzzle of some difficulty level and sends request along with puzzle solution to the serverDepending upon the server utilization and the puzzle difficulty levelThe server sends an accept and continues with the session communication or,It sends a reject and asks client to increase the puzzle difficulty level If client can solve puzzle with higher difficulty level, it gets serviceLegitimate clients can solve puzzles of high difficulty, whereas attackers have an upper boundThus attacker cannot prevent legitimate users from accessing serviceClient Puzzle Protocols (2)Challenge-Response Type Client Puzzle ProtocolWhen server receives request from client, depending upon the current utilization it asks the client to solve a puzzle of some difficulty levelServer allocates resources only if it receives solution from the clientServer does not maintain information about the puzzlesAvoids denial-of-service attacks on the puzzle generationBasic Client Puzzle ProtocolClientServerSYN, NcRequest ServiceGenerate puzzle(F is the flow ID and X is solution to puzzle) P, Ns, h’ = hashKs (Ns, Nc, F, X)Nc, X, h’Solve puzzleVerify solution using X and hashSYN-ACKACKDistributed Approach (1)The two protocols solve Resource-exhaustion DDoS attacksCannot prevent the attacker from flooding the link to the server, thereby exhibiting Bandwidth-consumption attacksI propose a new approach that shifts puzzle distribution and verification from server to intermediate routers or monitoring nodesIntermediate routers collaborate and determine the total traffic to a certain destinationThey adapt the difficulty level depending on traffic informationPackets from clients that fail to solve puzzles of appropriate difficulty levels are filtered in the intermediate networkDistributed Approach (2)t ij is the traffic on a link from client i to router jAnalysis of the Protocols (1)Protocol PropertiesLivenessIf a server has enough resources to handle connection requests, then it should allocate resources to clients (genuine or legitimate) that solve puzzles of any difficulty levelAvailabilityA set of attackers should not be able to prevent legitimate users from accessing the serviceClient AuthenticationServer allocates resources after authenticating the clients by verifying the solution to the puzzleAdaptabilityPuzzle difficulty level should be in proportion to the traffic levels going to a serverAnalysis of the Protocols (2)Game-based verification using MOCHASituation between the attacker and the server modeled as a two-player strategic gameServer’s strategy is characterized by the complexity of the puzzle that it generatesAttacker’s strategy is characterized by the amount of effort he invests in solving the received puzzles Σ   ((full)  ((requestC  allocatedC)  (requestA  allocatedA))Liveness in ATLIt is always true in all states that If the server has not committed all of its resources Request from client C implies


View Full Document

UT CS 395T - Game-based Analysis of Denial-of-Service Prevention Protocols

Documents in this Course
TERRA

TERRA

23 pages

OpenCL

OpenCL

15 pages

Byzantine

Byzantine

32 pages

Load more
Download Game-based Analysis of Denial-of-Service Prevention Protocols
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Game-based Analysis of Denial-of-Service Prevention Protocols and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Game-based Analysis of Denial-of-Service Prevention Protocols 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?