nanog mailing list archives

Re: Is it time to abandon bogon prefix filters?


From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () cs columbia edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:41:22 -0400

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:49:38 -0400 (EDT)
Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com> wrote:

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Randy Bush wrote:
my read is that the 60% was an alleged 60% of attacks came from
*all* bogon space.  this now seems in the low single digit
percentge.  of that, the majority is from 1918 space.

Although I've disagreed with Rob about the configuration of bogon
filters, especially on unmanaged (or semi-managed) routers, it is
important to remember attacks and bogus packets are not naturally
occuring phenomenon. The attacker chooses the attack vector and
target, usually based on effectiveness and vulnerability but often on
ease for the attacker.

Packet and especially source address hygiene can be very useful for
highly managed equipement.  However, bogon filters have often become
more a source of recurring security consultant maintenance revenue
than effective packet controls.  Understanding the operational
maintenance demands is also an important part of implementing good
security controls.

For unmanaged and semi-managed routers, I'd suggest strict out-bound 
packet controls (i.e. be conservative in what you send) because you 
already need to make operational updates when they change.  But
consider using inbound controls that require less extensive recurring
maintenance, e.g. only filtering martians (i.e. 0/8, 127/8,
255.255.255.255/32, etc) instead of updating bogons (i.e. changing
reserved and unallocated) every few months.

Martians plus 1918 space, I'd say, though that requires knowing which
are border interfaces.

Other than that, I agree 100% -- bogon filters have little security
relevance for most sites.  Furthermore, as the allocated address space
increases, the percentage of actual bogon space decreases and the rate
of false positives -- packets that are rejected that shouldn't be --
will increase.  Security?  Remember that availability is a security
issue, too.


                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb


Current thread: