skip to main content
10.1145/863955.863966acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

Low-rate TCP-targeted denial of service attacks: the shrew vs. the mice and elephants

Published:25 August 2003Publication History

ABSTRACT

Denial of Service attacks are presenting an increasing threat to the global inter-networking infrastructure. While TCP's congestion control algorithm is highly robust to diverse network conditions, its implicit assumption of end-system cooperation results in a well-known vulnerability to attack by high-rate non-responsive flows. In this paper, we investigate a class of low-rate denial of service attacks which, unlike high-rate attacks, are difficult for routers and counter-DoS mechanisms to detect. Using a combination of analytical modeling, simulations, and Internet experiments, we show that maliciously chosen low-rate DoS traffic patterns that exploit TCP's retransmission time-out mechanism can throttle TCP flows to a small fraction of their ideal rate while eluding detection. Moreover, as such attacks exploit protocol homogeneity, we study fundamental limits of the ability of a class of randomized time-out mechanisms to thwart such low-rate DoS attacks.

References

  1. M. Allman and V. Paxson. On estimating end-to-end network path properties. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '99, Vancouver, British Columbia, September 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. F. Anjum and L. Tassiulas. Fair bandwidth sharing among adaptive and non-adaptive flows in the Internet. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM '99, New York, NY, March 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. R. L. Carter and M. E. Crovella. Measuring bottleneck link speed in packet-switched networks. Performence Evaluation, 27(28):297--318, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. C. Dovrolis, P. Ramanathan, and D. Moore. What do packet dispersion techniques measure? In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM '01, Anchorage, Alaska, April 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. F. Ertemalp, D. Chiriton, and A. Bechtolsheim. Using dynamic buffer limiting to protect against belligerent flows in high-speed networks. In Proceedings of IEEE ICNP '01, Riverside, CA, November 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. C. Estan and G. Varghese. New directions in traffic measurement and accounting. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '02, Pittsburgh, PA, Aug. 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. K. Fall and S. Floyd. Simulation-based comparison of Tahoe, Reno and SACK TCP. ACM Computer Comm. Review, 5(3):5--21, July 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. A. Feldmann, A. C. Gilbert, P. Huang, and W. Willinger. Dynamics of IP traffic: A study of the role of variability and the impact of control. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '99, Vancouver, British Columbia, September 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. W. Feng, D. Kandlur, D. Saha, and K. Shin. Stochastic fair BLUE: A queue management algorithm for enforcing fairness. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM '01, Anchorage, Alaska, June 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. S. Floyd and V. Jacobson. On traffic phase effects in packet-switched gateways. Internetworking: Research and Experience, 3(3):115--156, September 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. S. Floyd and V. Jacobson. Random early detection gateways for congestion avoidance. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 1(4):397--413, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Floyd and E. Kohler. Internet research needs better models. In Proceedings of HOTNETS '02, Princeton, New Jersey, October 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. S. Floyd, J. Madhavi, M. Mathis, and M. Podolsky. An extension to the selective acknowledgement (SACK) option for TCP, July 2000. Internet RFC 2883. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Hoe. Improving the start-up behavior of a congestion control scheme for TCP. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '96, Stanford University, CA, August 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. V. Jacobson. Congestion avoidance and control. ACM Computer Comm. Review, 18(4):314--329, Aug. 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. V. Jacobson. Pathchar: A tool to infer characteristics of Internet paths. ftp://ftp.ee.lbl.gov/pathchar/, Apr. 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. M. Jain and C. Dovrolis. End-to-end available bandwidth: Measurement methodology, dynamics, and relation with TCP throughput. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '02, Pittsburgh, PA, Aug. 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. H. Jiang and C. Dovrolis. Passive estimation of TCP round-trip times. ACM Computer Comm. Review, 32(3):5--21, July 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. K. Lai and M. Baker. Measuring link bandwidths using a deterministic model of packet delay. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '00, Stockholm, Sweden, August 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. D. Lin and R. Morris. Dynamics of Random Early Detection. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '97, Cannes, France, September 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. J. Liu and M. Crovella. Using loss pairs to discover network properties. In Proceedings of IEEE/ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop, San Francisco, CA, Nov. 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. R. Mahajan, S. Floyd, and D. Wetherall. Controlling high-bandwidth flows at the congested router. In Proceedings of IEEE ICNP '01, Riverside, CA, November 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. T. J. Ott, T. V. Lakshman, and L. Wong. SRED: Stabilized RED. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM '99, New York, NY, March 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. R. Pain, B. Prabhakar, and K. Psounis. CHOKe, a stateless active queue management scheme for approximating fair bandwidth allocation. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM '00, Tel Aviv, Israel, March 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. A. Pasztor and D. Veitch. High precision active probing for Internet measurement. In Proceedings of INET '01, Stockholm, Sweden, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. A. Pasztor and D. Veitch. The packet size dependence of packet pair like methods. In Proceedings of IWQoS '02, Miami, FL, May 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. V. Paxson. End-to-end Internet packet dynamics. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 7(3):277--292, June 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. V. Paxson and M. Allman. Computing TCP's retransmission timer, November 2000. Internet RFC 2988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. A. Rangarajan and A. Acharya. ERUF: Early regulation of unresponsive best-effort traffic. In Proceedings of IEEE ICNP '99, Toronto, CA, October 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. A. C. Snoeren, C. Partridge, L. A. Sanchez, C. E. Jones, F. Tchakountio, S. T. Kent, and W. T. Strayer. Hash-based IP traceback. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '01, San Diego, CA, August 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. L. Zhang, S. Shenker, and D. Clark. Observation on the dynamics of a congestion control algorithm: The effects of two-way traffic. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM'91, Zurich, Switzerland, September 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Low-rate TCP-targeted denial of service attacks: the shrew vs. the mice and elephants

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

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

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGCOMM '03: Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications
      August 2003
      432 pages
      ISBN:1581137354
      DOI:10.1145/863955

      Copyright © 2003 ACM

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

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 25 August 2003

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      SIGCOMM '03 Paper Acceptance Rate34of319submissions,11%Overall Acceptance Rate554of3,547submissions,16%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader