nach oben

Erschienen in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

MUST, SHOULD, DON’T CARE: TCP Conformance in the Wild

verfasst von : Mike Kosek, Leo Blöcher, Jan Rüth, Torsten Zimmermann, Oliver Hohlfeld

Erschienen in: Passive and Active Measurement

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Standards govern the SHOULD and MUST requirements for protocol implementers for interoperability. In case of TCP that carries the bulk of the Internets’ traffic, these requirements are defined in RFCs. While it is known that not all optional features are implemented and non-conformance exists, one would assume that TCP implementations at least conform to the minimum set of MUST requirements. In this paper, we use Internet-wide scans to show how Internet hosts and paths conform to these basic requirements. We uncover a non-negligible set of hosts and paths that do not adhere to even basic requirements. For example, we observe hosts that do not correctly handle checksums and cases of middlebox interference for TCP options. We identify hosts that drop packets when the urgent pointer is set or simply crash. Our publicly available results highlight that conformance to even fundamental protocol requirements should not be taken for granted but instead checked regularly.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Don’t Forget to Lock the Front Door! Inferring the Deployment of Source Address Validation of Inbound Traffic

Nächstes Kapitel Extortion or Expansion? An Investigation into the Costs and Consequences of ICANN’s gTLD Experiments

RFC 793bis-Draft14 states: “Must be zero in generated segments and must be ignored in received segments, if corresponding future features are unimplemented by the sending or receiving host.” [27].

Contiki-NG TCP URG Pull Request. https://github.com/contiki-ng/contiki-ng/pull/1173

Contiki-NG: The OS for Next Generation IoT Devices. https://github.com/contiki-ng

Contiki OS. https://github.com/contiki-os

Cowboyku. https://github.com/heroku/cowboyku

Dataset to “MUST, SHOULD, DON’T CARE: TCP Conformance in the Wild”. https://doi.org/10.18154/RWTH-2020-00809

Heroku platform. https://www.heroku.com/

lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack. http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/lwip/

Seastar. https://github.com/scylladb/seastar

Seastar: Virtio device reports features not supported by the OS. https://github.com/scylladb/seastar/issues/719

10.

tcp(7) - Linux man page. https://linux.die.net/man/7/tcp

11.

TCPM Mailinglist: RFC793bis draft 14 reserved bits: problem statement. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/s0LtY3Ce3QBBAkJ_DuSH5VDNFMY

12.

TCPM Mailinglist: RFC793bis draft 14 reserved bits: proposal. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/_jpUQx0AjByR3UOgyX88RWoTxL0

13.

uIP. https://github.com/adamdunkels/uip

14.

Vegur: Http proxy library. https://github.com/heroku/vegur

15.

Virtio: Paravirtualized drivers for KVM/Linux. https://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Virtio

16.

Alashwali, E.S., Szalachowski, P., Martin, A.: Does “www.” mean better transport layer security? In: ACM International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES) (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3339252.3339277

17.

Alexa Internet: About us. https://www.alexa.com/about

18.

Bauer, S., Beverly, R., Berger, A.: Measuring the state of ECN readiness in servers, clients, and routers. In: ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC) (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/2068816.2068833

19.

Beverly, R.: A robust classifier for passive TCP/IP fingerprinting. In: Barakat, C., Pratt, I. (eds.) PAM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3015, pp. 158–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24668-8_16CrossRef

20.

Bradner, S.O.: Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirement levels. RFC 2119, March 1997. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC2119

21.

Cardwell, N., et al.: packetdrill: Scriptable network stack testing, from sockets to packets. In: USENIX Annual Technical Conference (ATC) (2013). https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc13/technical-sessions/presentation/cardwell

22.

Carpenter, B., Brim, S.: Middleboxes: taxonomy and issues (2002). https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC3234

23.

Craven, R., Beverly, R., Allman, M.: A middlebox-cooperative TCP for a non end-to-end internet. In: ACM SIGCOMM (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2619239.2626321

24.

Detal, G., Hesmans, B., Bonaventure, O., Vanaubel, Y., Donnet, B.: Revealing middlebox interference with tracebox. In: ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC) (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2504730.2504757

25.

Durumeric, Z., Adrian, D., Mirian, A., Bailey, M., Halderman, J.A.: A search engine backed by internet-wide scanning. In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2810103.2813703

26.

Durumeric, Z., Wustrow, E., Halderman, J.A.: ZMap: Fast Internet-wide scanning and its security applications. In: USENIX Security Symposium (2013). https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity13/technical-sessions/paper/durumeric

27.

Eddy, W.: Transmission control protocol specification. Internet-draft draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-14. Internet Engineering Task Force, July 2019. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-14. Work in Progress

28.

Edeline, K., Donnet, B.: A bottom-up investigation of the transport-layer ossification. In: Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis Conference (TMA) (2019). https://doi.org/10.23919/TMA.2019.8784690

29.

Floyd, S., Ramakrishnan, D.K.K., Black, D.L.: The addition of explicit congestion notification (ECN) to IP. RFC 3168, September 2001. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC3168

30.

Fyodor: Remote OS detection via TCP/IP stack fingerprinting (1998). https://nmap.org/nmap-fingerprinting-article.txt

31.

Gilligan, R.E., McCann, J., Bound, J., Thomson, S.: Basic socket interface extensions for IPv6. RFC 3493, March 2003. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC3493

32.

Honda, M., Nishida, Y., Raiciu, C., Greenhalgh, A., Handley, M., Tokuda, H.: Is it still possible to extend TCP? In: ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC) (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/2068816.2068834

33.

HTTP Archive: About HTTP Archive. https://httparchive.org/about

34.

Knutsen, A., Ramaiah, A., Ramasamy, A.: TCP option for transparent middlebox negotiation (2013). https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ananth-middisc-tcpopt-02

35.

Kühlewind, M., Walter, M., Learmonth, I.R., Trammell, B.: Tracing internet path transparency. In: Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis Conference (TMA) (2018). https://doi.org/10.23919/TMA.2018.8506532

36.

Kühlewind, M., Neuner, S., Trammell, B.: On the state of ECN and TCP options on the internet. In: Roughan, M., Chang, R. (eds.) PAM 2013. LNCS, vol. 7799, pp. 135–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36516-4_14CrossRef

37.

Langley, A.: Probing the viability of TCP extensions (2008). http://www.imperialviolet.org/binary/ecntest.pdf

38.

Mandalari, A.M., Lutu, A., Briscoe, B., Bagnulo, M., Alay, O.: Measuring ECN++: good news for ++, bad news for ECN over mobile. IEEE Commun. Mag. 56(3), 180–186 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2018.1700739CrossRef

39.

Mandalari, A.M., Bagnulo, M., Lutu, A.: TCP Fast Open: initial measurements. In: ACM CoNEXT Student Workshop (2015)

40.

Marinos, I., Watson, R.N., Handley, M.: Network stack specialization for performance. In: ACM SIGCOMM (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2619239.2626311

41.

Marinos, I., Watson, R.N., Handley, M., Stewart, R.R.: Disk, Crypt, Net: rethinking the stack for high-performance video streaming. In: ACM SIGCOMM (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3098822.3098844

42.

Medina, A., Allman, M., Floyd, S.: Measuring interactions between transport protocols and middleboxes. In: ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC) (2004). https://doi.org/10.1145/1028788.1028835

43.

Medina, A., Allman, M., Floyd, S.: Measuring the evolution of transport protocols in the internet. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 35(2), 37–52 (2005)CrossRef

44.

Paasch, C.: Network support for TCP fast open. Presentation at NANOG 67 (2016)

45.

Padhye, J., Floyd, S.: On inferring TCP behavior. In: ACM SIGCOMM (2001). https://doi.org/10.1145/383059.383083

46.

Piraux, M., De Coninck, Q., Bonaventure, O.: Observing the evolution of QUIC implementations. In: ACM CoNEXT Workshop on the Evolution, Performance, and Interoperability of QUIC (EPIQ) (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3284850.3284852

47.

Postel, J.: Transmission control protocol. RFC 793, September 1981. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC0793

48.

Rüth, J., Hohlfeld, O.: Demystifying TCP initial window configurations of content distribution networks. In: Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis Conference (TMA) (2018). https://doi.org/10.23919/TMA.2018.8506549

49.

Rüth, J., Bormann, C., Hohlfeld, O.: Large-scale scanning of TCP’s initial window. In: ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC) (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3131365.3131370

50.

Rüth, J., Kunze, I., Hohlfeld, O.: TCP’s initial window—deployment in the wild and its impact on performance. IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag. (TNSM) (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSM.2019.2896335CrossRef

51.

Rüth, J., Zimmermann, T., Hohlfeld, O.: Hidden treasures – recycling large-scale internet measurements to study the internet’s control plane. In: Choffnes, D., Barcellos, M. (eds.) PAM 2019. LNCS, vol. 11419, pp. 51–67. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15986-3_4CrossRef

52.

Scheitle, Q., et al.: A long way to the top: significance, structure, and stability of internet top lists. In: ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC) (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3278532.3278574

53.

Smart, M., Malan, G.R., Jahanian, F.: Defeating TCP/IP stack fingerprinting. In: USENIX Security Symposium (2000)

54.

Stevens, W.R., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., Jinmei, T.: Advanced sockets application program interface (API) for IPv6. RFC 3542, June 2003. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC3542

55.

Stone, J., Partridge, C.: When the CRC and TCP checksum disagree. In: ACM SIGCOMM (2000). https://doi.org/10.1145/347059.347561

Titel: MUST, SHOULD, DON’T CARE: TCP Conformance in the Wild
verfasst von: Mike Kosek
Leo Blöcher
Jan Rüth
Torsten Zimmermann
Oliver Hohlfeld
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Passive and Active Measurement
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-44080-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-44081-7

Copyright-Jahr: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44081-7_8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"