This is a 3-part series which introduces and analyzes Cisco’s implementation for Autonomic Network. In the 1st part, the technology is introduced and we have an overview about communication flow. In the 2nd part, Cisco’s proprietary protocol is reverse engineered 😉 then finally in the 3rd part, multiple vulnerabilities will be disclosed for the first time. If you’re aware of the technology, you can skip directly to part 2 where the action begins!
Autonomic Network is Cisco’s vision for the future of smart networks. Autonomic systems have the ability to self-manage themselves. In other words, autonomic systems are smart enough to configure and secure themselves, optimize the running processes and re-run the failed processes. Cisco engineers in collaboration with IETF defined the Autonomic Networks main components and features through multiple RFCs found in the ANIMA workgroup. Cisco has deployed the Autonomic Network capabilities on their systems since 2014 and multiple big companies started to integrate and make use of Autonomic Network features within their systems. Continue reading “Autonomic Network Overview – Part 1”
After seeing Christopher’s post I decided to create a proof using GNS3 and Virtualbox.
The aim is to perform the exact attacking using Antonios Atlasis’ Chiron tools and run a Wireshark packet capture to prove the hop limit drops below 255.
As you may have already noticed, Cisco released an urgent security advisory describing an IPv6 Neighbor Discovery DoS Vulnerability in several flavors of Cisco’s operating systems. Currently IOS-XR, XE and NX-OS are affected while ASA and “classic” IOS are under investigation. At first glance, it might look like yet another IPv6 DoS vulnerability. Looking closer, Cisco is mentioning an unauthenticated, remote attacker due to insufficient processing logic for crafted IPv6 NDP packets that are sent to an affected device. Following the public discussion about the vulnerability, it seems that these packets will reach the, probably low rate-limited, LPTS filter/queue on IOS XR devices “crowding” out legitimate NDP packets resulting in a DoS for IPv6 traffic, or in general a high CPU load as these packets will be processed by the CPU. More details are currently not available, but this might indicate the affected systems aren’t doing proper message validation checks on NDP packets (in addition to the LPTS filter/queue problem).
some of you may have seen my last blog post about the preparation of the Troopers network. Today I want to give you a little teaser on what to expect for the talk I will present during the IPv6 Security Summit. As the title implies, it’s not only about building a secure IPv6 WiFi, but also a reliable one. One might think that there aren’t many differences in comparison to IPv4, but the heavy reliance on multicast of IPv6 does have implications for Wi-Fi networks in general. Continue reading “#TR16 IPv6 Security Summit Teaser: Building a Reliable and Secure IPv6 WiFi Network”
I am currently preparing the Troopers network in a lab environment to ensure that we all will have a smooth Wi-Fi experience during Troopers. I wanted to spice things up a little bit for the Wi-Fi deployment (more on that in a following blogpost) and get rid of IPv4 wherever possible. Our Wi-Fi infrastructure consists of typical Cisco Access Points (1602) and a 2504 Wireless LAN Controller. Beginning with WLC image 8.0 it is finally supported to establish the CAPWAP tunnel between the AP and the WLC over IPv6, which is awesome and I wanted to implement it right away. Continue reading “DHCPv6 Option 52 on Cisco DHCPv6 Server”
this is a short write up about the Maintenance Operation Protocol (MOP), an ancient remote management protocol from the DECnet protocol suite. It’s old, rarely used and in most cases not needed at all. But as we stumbled across this protocol in some network assessments, it seems like a lot of network admins and other users don’t know about it. Even various hardening guides we’ve seen don’t mention MOP at all.
When we wrote our initial blogpost regarding the evasion of Cisco ACLs by (Ab)Using IPv6, where we described (known to Cisco) cases of Access Control Lists (ACL) circumvention, we also suggested some mitigation techniques including the blocking of some (if not all) IPv6 Extension Headers.
Almost a month later, we got a comment from Matej Gregr that, even if the ACLs of certain Cisco Switches are configured to block IPv6 Extension headers like Hop-by-Hop or Destination Options headers, this does not actually happen/work as expected. Of course this made us re-visit the lab in the interim ;-).
During our blogpost regarding DHCPv6 Guard evasion, one of the side-effects was that Access Control Lists (ACLs) configured to block access to UDP ports 546 can be evaded by abusing (again) IPv6 Extension headers. Having that in mind, we decided to check the effectiveness of Cisco IPv6 ACLs under various scenarios. Our goal was to examine whether the IPv6 ACLs of Cisco routers can be evaded, as well as under which conditions this can take place. To this end, several representative scenarios from enterprise environments or other potential ones are examined.
Given that Enno and I are network geeks, and that I am responsible for setting up the Troopers Wifi network I was curious which components might be used at Cisco Live and which IPv6 related configuration was done for the Wifi network to ensure a reliable network and reduce the chatty nature of IPv6. Andrew Yourtchenko (@ayourtch) already did an amazing job last year at Cisco Live Europe explaining in detail (at the time session BRKEWN-2666) the intricacies of IPv6 in Wifi networks, and how to optimize IPv6 for these networks. He was also a great inspiration for me when setting up the Troopers Wifi network a couple of weeks later. Thank You!