Author: hangguo

Categories
Papers Publications

new journal paper “Detecting IoT Devices in the Internet” in IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking

We have published a new journal paper “Detecting IoT Devices in the Internet” in IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, available at https://www.isi.edu/~johnh/PAPERS/Guo20c.pdf

Figure 5 from [Guo20c] showing per-device-type AS penetrations from 2013 to 2018 for 16 of the 23 device types we studies (omitting 7 device types appearing in less than10 ASes)

From the abstract of our journal paper:

Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks launched from compromised Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices have shown how vulnerable the Internet is to largescale DDoS attacks. To understand the risks of these attacks requires learning about these IoT devices: where are they? how many are there? how are they changing? This paper describes three new methods to find IoT devices on the Internet: server IP addresses in traffic, server names in DNS queries, and manufacturer information in TLS certificates. Our primary methods (IP addresses and DNS names) use knowledge of servers run by the manufacturers of these devices. Our third method uses TLS certificates obtained by active scanning. We have applied our algorithms to a number of observations. With our IP-based algorithm, we report detections from a university campus over 4 months and from traffic transiting an IXP over 10 days. We apply our DNS-based algorithm to traffic from 8 root DNS servers from 2013 to 2018 to study AS-level IoT deployment. We find substantial growth (about 3.5×) in AS penetration for 23 types of IoT devices and modest increase in device type density for ASes detected with these device types (at most 2 device types in 80% of these ASes in 2018). DNS also shows substantial growth in IoT deployment in residential households from 2013 to 2017. Our certificate-based algorithm finds 254k IP cameras and network video recorders from 199 countries around the world.

We make operational traffic we captured from 10 IoT devices we own public at https://ant.isi.edu/datasets/iot/. We also use operational traffic of 21 IoT devices shared by University of New South Wales at http://149.171.189.1/.

This journal paper is joint work of Hang Guo and  John Heidemann from USC/ISI.

Categories
Publications Technical Report

new technical report: IoTSTEED: Bot-side Defense to IoT-based DDoS Attacks (Extended)

We have released a new technical report IoTSTEED: Bot-side Defense to IoT-based DDoS Attacks (Extended) as ISI-TR-738, available at https://www.isi.edu/~hangguo/papers/Guo20a.pdf.

From the abstract:

We show IoTSTEED runs
well on a commodity router: memory usage is small (4% of 512MB) and the router forwards traffic at full uplink rates despite about 50% of CPU usage.

We propose IoTSTEED, a system running in edge routers to defend against Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks launched from compromised Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices. IoTSTEED watches traffic that leaves and enters the home network, detecting IoT devices at home, learning the benign servers they talk to, and filtering their traffic to other servers as a potential DDoS attack. We validate IoTSTEED’s accuracy and false positives (FPs) at detecting devices, learning servers and filtering traffic with replay of 10 days of benign traffic captured from an IoT access network. We show IoTSTEED correctly detects all 14 IoT and 6 non-IoT devices in this network (100% accuracy) and maintains low false-positive rates when learning the servers IoT devices talk to (flagging 2% benign servers as suspicious) and filtering IoT traffic (dropping only 0.45% benign packets). We validate IoTSTEED’s true positives (TPs) and false negatives (FNs) in filtering attack traffic with replay of real-world DDoS traffic. Our experiments show IoTSTEED mitigates all typical attacks, regardless of the attacks’ traffic types, attacking devices and victims; an intelligent adversary can design to avoid detection in a few cases, but at the cost of a weaker attack. Lastly, we deploy IoTSTEED in NAT router of an IoT access network for 10 days, showing reasonable resource usage and verifying our testbed experiments for accuracy and learning in practice.

We share 10-day operational traffic captured from 14 IoT devices we own at https://ant.isi.edu/datasets/iot/ (see IoT_Operation_Traces-20200127) and release source code for IoTSTEED at https://ant.isi.edu/software/iotsteed/index.html.

This technical report is joint work of Hang Guo and John Heidemann from USC/ISI.

Categories
Publications Technical Report

new technical report “Peek Inside the Closed World: Evaluating Autoencoder-Based Detection of DDoS to Cloud ”

We have released a new technical report “Peek Inside the Closed World: Evaluating Autoencoder-Based Detection of DDoS to Cloud” as an ArXiv technical report 1912.05590, available at https://www.isi.edu/~hangguo/papers/Guo19a.pdf

We study 4 cloud IPs (SR1VP1 to 3 and SR2VP1) that are under attack. SR1VP3 sees a large number of mostly short DDoS events (71% of its 49 events being 1 second or less). SR1VP1 and SR1VP2 see smaller numbers of longer DDoS events (median duration for their 20 and 27 events are 121 and 140 seconds). SR2VP1 sees DDoS events of broad range of durations (from 1 second to more than 14 hours).

From the abstract of our technical report:

From the abstract:

Machine-learning-based anomaly detection (ML-based AD) has been successful at detecting DDoS events in the lab. However published evaluations of ML-based AD have only had limited data and have not provided insight into why it works. To address limited evaluation against real-world data, we apply autoencoder, an existing ML-AD model, to 57 DDoS attack events captured at 5 cloud IPs from a major cloud provider. To improve our understanding for why ML-based AD works or not works, we interpret this data with feature attribution and counterfactual explanation. We show that our version of autoencoders work well overall: our models capture nearly all malicious flows to 2 of the 4 cloud IPs under attacks (at least 99.99%) but generate a few false negatives (5% and 9%) for the remaining 2 IPs. We show that our models maintain near-zero false positives on benign flows to all 5 IPs. Our interpretation of results shows that our models identify almost all malicious flows with non-whitelisted (non-WL) destination ports (99.92%) by learning the full list of benign destination ports from training data (the normality). Interpretation shows that although our models learn incomplete normality for protocols and source ports, they still identify most malicious flows with non-WL protocols and blacklisted (BL) source ports (100.0% and 97.5%) but risk false positives. Interpretation also shows that our models only detect a few malicious flows with BL packet sizes (8.5%) by incorrectly inferring these BL sizes as normal based on incomplete normality learned. We find our models still detect a quarter of flows (24.7%) with abnormal payload contents even when they do not see payload by combining anomalies from multiple flow features. Lastly, we summarize the implications of what we learn on applying autoencoder-based AD in production.problme?Machine-learning-based anomaly detection (ML-based AD) has been successful at detecting DDoS events in the lab. However published evaluations of ML-based AD have only had limited data and have not provided insight into why it works. To address limited evaluation against real-world data, we apply autoencoder, an existing ML-AD model, to 57 DDoS attack events captured at 5 cloud IPs from a major cloud provider. To improve our understanding for why ML-based AD works or not works, we interpret this data with feature attribution and counterfactual explanation. We show that our version of autoencoders work well overall: our models capture nearly all malicious flows to 2 of the 4 cloud IPs under attacks (at least 99.99%) but generate a few false negatives (5% and 9%) for the remaining 2 IPs. We show that our models maintain near-zero false positives on benign flows to all 5 IPs. Our interpretation of results shows that our models identify almost all malicious flows with non-whitelisted (non-WL) destination ports (99.92%) by learning the full list of benign destination ports from training data (the normality). Interpretation shows that although our models learn incomplete normality for protocols and source ports, they still identify most malicious flows with non-WL protocols and blacklisted (BL) source ports (100.0% and 97.5%) but risk false positives. Interpretation also shows that our models only detect a few malicious flows with BL packet sizes (8.5%) by incorrectly inferring these BL sizes as normal based on incomplete normality learned. We find our models still detect a quarter of flows (24.7%) with abnormal payload contents even when they do not see payload by combining anomalies from multiple flow features. Lastly, we summarize the implications of what we learn on applying autoencoder-based AD in production.

This technical report is joint work of Hang Guo and John Heidemann from USC/ISI and Xun Fan, Anh Cao and Geoff Outhred from Microsoft

Categories
Publications Technical Report

new technical report “Detecting IoT Devices in the Internet (Extended)”

We have released a new technical report “Detecting IoT Devices in the Internet (Extended)” as ISI-TR-726.

ISP-Level Deployment for  26 IoT Device Types. From Figure 2 of [Guo18c].
From the abstract of our technical report:

Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks launched from compromised Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices have shown how vulnerable the Internet is to large-scale DDoS attacks. To understand the risks of these attacks requires learning about these IoT devices: where are they? how many are there? how are they changing? This paper describes three new methods to find IoT devices on the Internet: server IP addresses in traffic, server names in DNS queries, and manufacturer information in TLS certificates. Our primary methods (IP addresses and DNS names) use knowledge of servers run by the manufacturers of these devices. We have developed these approaches with 10 device models from 7 vendors. Our third method uses TLS certificates obtained by active scanning. We have applied our algorithms to a number of observations. Our IP-based algorithms see at least 35 IoT devices on a college campus, and 122 IoT devices in customers of a regional IXP. We apply our DNSbased algorithm to traffic from 5 root DNS servers from 2013 to 2018, finding huge growth (about 7×) in ISPlevel deployment of 26 device types. DNS also shows similar growth in IoT deployment in residential households from 2013 to 2017. Our certificate-based algorithm finds 254k IP cameras and network video recorders from 199 countries around the world.

We make operational traffic we captured from 10 IoT devices we own public at https://ant.isi.edu/datasets/iot/. We also use operational traffic of 21 IoT devices shared by University of New South Wales at http://149.171.189.1/.

This technical report is joint work of Hang Guo and  John Heidemann from USC/ISI.

Categories
Papers Publications

New workshop paper “IP-Based IoT Device Detection”

We have published a new paper “IP-Based IoT Device Detection” in the Second ACM Workshop on Internet-of-Things Security and Privacy (IoTS&P 2018) in Budapest, Hungary, co-located with SIGCOMM 2018.

IoT devices we detect in use at a campus (Table 3 from [Guo18b])
From the abstract of our  paper:

Recent IoT-based DDoS attacks have exposed how vulnerable the Internet can be to millions of insufficiently secured IoT devices. To understand the risks of these attacks requires
learning about these IoT devices—where are they, how many are there, how are they changing? In this paper, we propose
a new method to find IoT devices in Internet to begin to assess this threat. Our approach requires observations of flow-level network traffic and knowledge of servers run by
the manufacturers of the IoT devices. We have developed our approach with 10 device models by 7 vendors and controlled
experiments. We apply our algorithm to observations from 6 days of Internet traffic at a college campus and partial traffic
from an IXP to detect IoT devices.

We make operational traffic we captured from 10 IoT devices we own public at https://ant.isi.edu/datasets/iot/. We also use operational traffic of 21 IoT devices shared by University of New South Wales at http://149.171.189.1/.

This paper is joint work of Hang Guo and  John Heidemann from USC/ISI.

Categories
Papers Publications

new conference paper “Detecting ICMP Rate Limiting in the Internet” in PAM 2018

We have published a new conference “Detecting ICMP Rate Limiting in the Internet” in PAM 2018 (the Passive and Active Measurement Conference) in Berlin, Germany.

Figure 4 from [Guo18a] Confirming a block is rate limited with additional probing
Figure 4 from [Guo18a] confirming a bock is rate limited, comparing experimental results with models of rate-limited and non-rate-limited behavior.
From the abstract of our conference paper:

Comparing model and experimental effects of rate limiting (Figure 4 from [Guo18a] )
ICMP active probing is the center of many network measurements. Rate limiting to ICMP traffic, if undetected, could distort measurements and create false conclusions. To settle this concern, we look systematically for ICMP rate limiting in the Internet. We create FADER, a new algorithm that can identify rate limiting from user-side traces with minimal new measurement traffic. We validate the accuracy of FADER with many different network configurations in testbed experiments and show that it almost always detects rate limiting. With this confidence, we apply our algorithm to a random sample of the whole Internet, showing that rate limiting exists but that for slow probing rates, rate-limiting is very rare. For our random sample of 40,493 /24 blocks (about 2% of the responsive space), we confirm 6 blocks (0.02%!) see rate limiting at 0.39 packets/s per block. We look at higher rates in public datasets and suggest that fall-off in responses as rates approach 1 packet/s per /24 block is consistent with rate limiting. We also show that even very slow probing (0.0001 packet/s) can encounter rate limiting of NACKs that are concentrated at a single router near the prober.

Datasets we used in this paper are all public. ISI Internet Census and Survey data (including it71w, it70w, it56j, it57j and it58j census and survey) are available at https://ant.isi.edu/datasets/index.html. ZMap 50-second experiments data are from their WOOT 14 paper and can be obtained from ZMap authors upon request.

This conference report is joint work of Hang Guo and  John Heidemann from USC/ISI.

Categories
Publications Technical Report

new technical report “Detecting ICMP Rate Limiting in the Internet”

We have released a new technical report “Detecting ICMP Rate Limiting in the Internet” as an ISI technical report ISI-TR-717.

From the abstract of our technical report:

Comparing model and experimental effects of rate limiting (Figure 2.a from [Guo17a] )

Active probing with ICMP is the center of many network measurements, with tools like ping, traceroute, and their derivatives used to map topologies and as a precursor for security scanning. However, rate limiting of ICMP traffic has long been a concern, since undetected rate limiting to ICMP could distort measurements, silently creating false conclusions. To settle this concern, we look systematically for ICMP rate limiting in the Internet. We develop a model for how rate limiting affects probing, validate it through controlled testbed experiments, and create FADER, a new algorithm that can identify rate limiting from user-side traces with minimal requirements for new measurement traffic. We validate the accuracy of FADER with many different network configurations in testbed experiments and show that it almost always detects rate limiting. Accuracy is perfect when measurement probing ranges from 0 to 60 times the rate limit, and almost perfect (95%) with up to 20% packet loss. The worst case for detection is when probing is very fast and blocks are very sparse, but even there accuracy remains good (measurements 60 times the rate limit of a 10% responsive block is correct 65% of the time). With this confidence, we apply our algorithm to a random sample of whole Internet, showing that rate limiting exists
but that for slow probing rates, rate-limiting is very, very rare. For our random sample of 40,493 /24 blocks (about 2\% of the responsive space), we confirm 6 blocks (0.02%!) see rate limiting
at 0.39 packets/s per block. We look at higher rates in public datasets
and suggest that fall-off in responses as rates approach 1 packet/s per /24 block (14M packets/s from the prober to the whole Internet),
is consistent with rate limiting. We also show that even very slow probing (0.0001 packet/s) can encounter rate limiting of NACKs that are concentrated at a single router near the prober.

Datasets we used in this paper are all public. ISI Internet Census and Survey data (including it71w, it70w, it56j, it57j and it58j census and survey) are available at https://ant.isi.edu/datasets/index.html. ZMap 50-second experiments data are from their WOOT 14 paper and can be obtained from ZMap authors upon request.

This technical report is joint work of Hang Guo and  John Heidemann from USC/ISI.