Linux bridges – can iptables be used against MiM attacks based on ARP spoofing ? – II

In the last article
Linux bridges – can iptables be used against MiM attacks based on ARP spoofing ? – I
we saw that iptables rules with options like

-m physdev --physdev-in/out device

may help in addition to other netfilter tools, which work on network level 2, to block redirected traffic to a "man in the middle system" on a bridge.

Tools like FWbuilder support the creation of such "physdev"-related rules as soon as bridge devices are marked as bridged in the interface definition process for the firewall host. However, we have also seen that we need to bind IP addresses to certain bridge ports. This in turn requires knowledge about a predictable IP-to-port-configuration. Such a requirement may be an obstacle for using iptables in scenarios with many virtual guests on one or several Linux bridges of a virtualization host as it reduces flexibility for automated IP address assignment.

Before we discuss administrative aspects in a further article, let us expand our iptables rules to a more complex situation:
In this article we discuss a scenario with 2 linked Linux bridges "virbr4" and "virbr6" plus the host attached to "virbr4". This provides us with a virtual infrastructure for which we need to construct a more complex, but more general set of rules in comparison to what we discussed in the last article. We will look at the required rules and their order. Testing of the rules will be done in a forthcoming article.

Two coupled bridges and the host attached via veth devices

You see my virtual bridge setup in the following drawing.

(Note for those who read the article before: I have exchanged the picture to make it consistent with a forthcoming article. The port for kali2 has been renamed to "vk42").

bridge3

The small blue rectangles inside the bridges symbolize standard Linux tap devices - whereas the RJ45 like rectangles symbolize veth devices. veth pairs deliver a convenient way on a Linux system to link bridges and to attach the host to them in a controllable way. As a side effect one can avoid to assign the bridge itself an IP address. See:
Fun with veth devices, Linux virtual bridges, KVM, VMware – attach the host and connect bridges via veth

In the drawing you recognize our bridge "virbr6" and its guests from the last article. The new bridge "virbr4" is only equipped with one guest (kali2); this is sufficient for our test case purposes. Of course, you could have many more guests there in realistic scenarios. Note that attaching certain groups of guests to distinct bridges also occurs in physical reality for a variety of reasons.

Two types of ports

For the rest of this article we call ports as vethb2 on virbr6, vethb1 and vmh1 on virbr4 "border ports" of their respective bridges. Such border ports

  • connect a bridge to another bridges,
  • connect a bridge to the virtualization host
  • or connect the bridge to hosts on external real Ethernet segments.

We remind the reader that it always is the perspective of the bridge that decides about the INcoming or OUTgoing direction of an Ethernet packet via a specific port when we define IN/OUT iptables rules.

Therefore, packets crossing a border port in the IN direction always come from outside the bridge. Packets leaving the port OUTwards may however come from guests of the bridge itself AND from guests outside other border ports of the very same bridge.

In contrast to border ports we shall call a port of a bridge with just one defined guest behind it a "guest port". [In our test case the bridge connection of guests is realized with tap devices because this is required by KVM. In the case of LXC and docker containers we would rather see veth-pairs.]

Multiple bridges on one host - how are the iptables rules probed?

Just from looking at the sketch we see a logical conundrum, which has a significant impact on the setup of iptables rules on a host with multiple bridges in place:

A packet created at one of the ports may leave the bridge where it has been created and travel in and through a neighboring bridge via border ports. But when and how are port related rules tested as the packet travels - lets e.g. say from kali5 to the guest at "vnet0" or to the host at "vmh2"?

  • Bridge for bridge - IN-Port-rules, then OUT-port-rules on the same first bridge => afterwards IN-port-rules/OUT-port-rules again - but this time for the ports of the next entered bridge?
  • Or: iptables rules are checked only once, but globally and for all bridges - with some knowledge of port-MAC-relations of the different bridges included?

If the latter were true just one passed ACCEPT rule on one single bridge port would lead to an overall acceptance of a packet despite the fact that the packet possibly will cross further bridges afterward. Such a behavior would seem unreasonable - but who knows ...

So the basic question is:

After having been checked on a first bridge, having been accepted for leaving one border port of this first bridge and then having entered a second linked bridge via a corresponding border port - will the packet be checked again against all denial and acceptance rules of the second bridge? Will the packet with its transportation attributes be injected again into the whole set of iptables rules?

It is obvious that the answer would have an impact of how we need to define our rules. Especially during port flooding, which we already observed in the tests described in our first article.

Tests of the order of iptables rules probing for ports of multiple bridges on a packet's path

As a first test we do something very simple: we define some iptables rules for ICMP pings formally in the following logical order: We first deny a passage through vethb1 on virbr4 before we allow the packet to pass vethb2 on virbr6:

bridge vibr4 rule 15:  src 192.168.50.14, dest 192.168.50.1 - ICMP IN vethb1 => DENY
bridge vibr6 rule 16:  src 192.168.50.14, dest 192.168.50.1 - ICMP OUT vethb2 => ALLOW

 
and then we test the order of how these rules are passed by logging them.

To avoid any wrong or missing ARP information on the involved guest/host systems and missing MAC-port-relations in the "forward databases" [FWB] of the bridges we first clear any iptables rules and try some pings before sending ping packets. Then we activate the rules and get for ping packets sent from kali4 to the host:

2016-02-27T12:09:33.295145+01:00 mytux kernel: [ 5127.067043] RULE 16 -- ACCEPT IN=virbr6 OUT=virbr6 PHYSIN=vk64 PHYSOUT=vethb2 MAC=96:b0:a9:7c:73:7d:52:54:00:74:60:4a:08:00 SRC=192.168.50.14 DST=192.168.50.1 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=22031 DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=1711 SEQ=1 
2016-02-27T12:09:33.295158+01:00 mytux kernel: [ 5127.067062] RULE 15 -- DENY IN=virbr4 OUT=virbr4 PHYSIN=vethb1 PHYSOUT=vmh1 MAC=96:b0:a9:7c:73:7d:52:54:00:74:60:4a:08:00 SRC=192.168.50.14 DST=192.168.50.1 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=22031 DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=1711 SEQ=1 
2016-02-27T12:09:34.302140+01:00 mytux kernel: [ 5128.075040] RULE 16 -- ACCEPT IN=virbr6 OUT=virbr6 PHYSIN=vk64 PHYSOUT=vethb2 MAC=96:b0:a9:7c:73:7d:52:54:00:74:60:4a:08:00 SRC=192.168.50.14 DST=192.168.50.1 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=22131 DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=1711 SEQ=2 
2016-02-27T12:09:34.302153+01:00 mytux kernel: [ 5128.075056] RULE 15 -- DENY IN=virbr4 OUT=virbr4 PHYSIN=vethb1 PHYSOUT=vmh1 MAC=96:b0:a9:7c:73:7d:52:54:00:74:60:4a:08:00 SRC=192.168.50.14 DST=192.168.50.1 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=22131 DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=1711 SEQ=2

 
Now we do a reverse test: We allow the incoming direction over port vk64 of virbr6 before we deny the incoming package over vethb1 on virbr4:

bridge vibr6 rule :  src 192.168.50.14, dest 192.168.50.1 - IN vk64 => ALLOW
bridge vibr4 rule :  src 192.168.50.14, dest 192.168.50.1 - IN vethb1 => DENY

 
We get

2016-02-27T14:02:32.821286+01:00 mytux kernel: [11913.962828] RULE 15 -- ACCEPT IN=virbr6 OUT=virbr6 PHYSIN=vk64 PHYSOUT=vethb2 MAC=96:b0:a9:7c:73:7d:52:54:00:74:60:4a:08:00 SRC=192.168.50.14 DST=192.168.50.1 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=21400 DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=2104 SEQ=1 
2016-02-27T14:02:32.821307+01:00 mytux kernel: [11913.962869] RULE 16 -- DENY IN=virbr4 OUT=virbr4 PHYSIN=vethb1 PHYSOUT=vmh1 MAC=96:b0:a9:7c:73:7d:52:54:00:74:60:4a:08:00 SRC=192.168.50.14 DST=192.168.50.1 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=21400 DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=2104 SEQ=1 
2016-02-27T14:02:33.820257+01:00 mytux kernel: [11914.962965] RULE 15 -- ACCEPT IN=virbr6 OUT=virbr6 PHYSIN=vk64 PHYSOUT=vethb2 MAC=96:b0:a9:7c:73:7d:52:54:00:74:60:4a:08:00 SRC=192.168.50.14 DST=192.168.50.1 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=21494 DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=2104 SEQ=2 
2016-02-27T14:02:33.820275+01:00 mytux kernel: [11914.962987] RULE 16 -- DENY IN=virbr4 OUT=virbr4 PHYSIN=vethb1 PHYSOUT=vmh1 MAC=96:b0:a9:7c:73:7d:52:54:00:74:60:4a:08:00 SRC=192.168.50.14 DST=192.168.50.1 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=21494 DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=2104 SEQ=2 

 
So to our last test:

bridge vibr6 rule :  src 192.168.50.14, dest 192.168.50.1 - IN vk64 => ALLOW
bridge vibr6 rule :  src 192.168.50.14, dest 192.168.50.1 - IN vethb2 => DENY
bridge vibr4 rule :  src 192.168.50.14, dest 192.168.50.1 - IN vethb1 => DENY

 
We get:

2016-02-27T14:26:08.964616+01:00 mytux kernel: [13331.634200] RULE 15 -- ACCEPT IN=virbr6 OUT=virbr6 PHYSIN=vk64 PHYSOUT=vethb2 MAC=96:b0:a9:7c:73:7d:52:54:00:74:60:4a:08:00 SRC=192.168.50.14 DST=192.168.50.1 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=27122 DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=2218 SEQ=1 
2016-02-27T14:26:08.964633+01:00 mytux kernel: [13331.634232] RULE 17 -- DENY IN=virbr4 OUT=virbr4 PHYSIN=vethb1 PHYSOUT=vmh1 MAC=96:b0:a9:7c:73:7d:52:54:00:74:60:4a:08:00 SRC=192.168.50.14 DST=192.168.50.1 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=27122 DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=2218 SEQ=1 
2016-02-27T14:26:09.972621+01:00 mytux kernel: [13332.643587] RULE 15 -- ACCEPT IN=virbr6 OUT=virbr6 PHYSIN=vk64 PHYSOUT=vethb2 MAC=96:b0:a9:7c:73:7d:52:54:00:74:60:4a:08:00 SRC=192.168.50.14 DST=192.168.50.1 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=27347 DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=2218 SEQ=2 
2016-02-27T14:26:09.972637+01:00 mytux kernel: [13332.643605] RULE 17 -- DENY IN=virbr4 OUT=virbr4 PHYSIN=vethb1 PHYSOUT=vmh1 MAC=96:b0:a9:7c:73:7d:52:54:00:74:60:4a:08:00 SRC=192.168.50.14 DST=192.168.50.1 LEN=84 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=27347 DF PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=2218 SEQ=2 

 

Intermediate conclusions

We can conclude the following points :

  • A packet is probed per bridge - in the order of how multiple bridges of the host are passed by the packet.
  • An ALLOW rule for a port on one bridge does not overrule a DENY rule for a port on a second bridge which the package may pass on its way.
  • A packet is tested both for IN/OUT conditions of a FORWARD rule for each bridge it passes.
  • If we split IN and OUT rules on a bridge (as we need to do within some tools as FWbuilder) than we must probe the OUT rules first to guarantee the prevention of illegal packet transport.

For the rest of the article we shall follow the same rule we already used as a guide line in the previous article: Our general iptables policy is that a packet will be denied if it is not explicitly accepted by one of the tested rule.

Blocking of border ports in port flooding situations

During our tests in the last article we have seen that port flooding situations may occur - depending among other things on the "setaging" parameter of the bridge and the resulting deletion of stale entries in the "Forward Database" [FWD] of a bridge. Flooding of veth based border ports may be critical for packet transmission and may have to be blocked in some cases:

E.g. it would be unreasonable to transfer packets logically meant for hosts beyond port vmh1 of virbr4 over vethb1/2 to virbr6. We would stop such packets already via OUT DENY rules for vethb1:

bridge vibr4 rule :  src "guest of virbr4", dest "no guest of virbr6" - OUT vethb1 => DENY

 

Rules regarding packets just crossing and passing a bridge

Think about a bridge "virbrx" linked on its both sides to two other bridges "virbr_left" and "virbr_right". In such a scenario packets could arrive at virbrx from bridge virbr_right, enter the intermediate bridge virbrx and leave it at once again for the third bridge virbr_left - because it never was destined to any guest of bridge virbrx.

For such packets we need at least one ACCEPT rule om virbrx - either on the IN direction of the border port of virbrx against virbr_right or on the OUT direction at the border port to virbr_left.

Again, we cling to our policy of the last article:
We define DENY rules for outgoing packets at all ports - also for border ports - and put these DENY rules to the top of the iptables list; then we define DENY rules for ports which are passed in IN direction; only after that we define ACCEPT rules for incoming packets for all ports of a bridge - including border ports - and set these rules below/after the DENIAL rules. This should provide us with a consistent handling also of packets crossing and passing bridges.

Grouping of guests/hosts

From looking at the drawing above we also understand the following point: In order to handle packets at border ports connecting two bridges we have the choice to block packets at either border port - i.e. before the OUTgoing port passage on the first bridge OR before the INcoming port passage on the second. We shall do the blocking at the port in the packets OUTgoing direction. Actually, there would be no harm in setting up reasonable DENY rules for both ports. Then we would safely cover all types of situations.

Anyway - we also find that the rules for border ports require a certain grouping of the guests and hosts:

  • Group 1: Guests attached to the bridge of the border port.
  • Group 2: Guests on the IN side of the border port of a bridge - i.e. the internal side of the bridge. This group includes Group 1 plus external guests of further bridges beyond other border ports of the very same bridge.
  • Group 3:Guests on the outgoing side of a border port - i.e. the side to the next connected bridge. This group contains hosts of Group 1 for the next connected bridge and/or groups of external hosts on the OUT side of all other border ports of the connected bridge.

These groups can easily be formed per bridge by tools like FWbuilder. Without going into details: Note that FWbuilder handles the overall logical OR/AND switching during a negation of multiple groups of hosts correctly when compiling iptables rules.

Overall rules order in case of multiple and connected bridges

Taking into account the results of the first article in this series I suggest the following order of iptables rules:

  • We first define OUT DENY rules for all guest ports of all bridges - with ports grouped by bridges just to keep the overview. These rules are the most important ones to prevent ARP spoofing and a resulting packet redirection.
  • We then define all OUT DENY rules for border ports of all bridges - first grouped by bridges and then per bridge and ports grouped by hosts for the OUTgoing direction. These rules cover also port flooding situations with respect to neighboring linked bridges.
  • We then define IN DENY rules for incoming packets over border ports. These rules may in addition to the previous rules prevent implausible packet transport.
  • Now we apply OUT DENY and IN DENY rules for Ethernet devices on the virtualization host. Such rules must must not be forgotten and can be placed herein the rules' sequence.
  • We then define IN ACCEPT rules on individual guest ports - ports again grouped by bridges.
  • We eventually define IN ACCEPT rules on bridge border ports - note that such rules are required for packets just passing an intermediate bridge without being destined to a guest of the bridge.
  • IN ACCEPT rules for the virtualization hosts's Ethernet interfaces must not be forgotten and can be placed at the end.

How does that look like in FWbuilder?

Before looking at the pics note that we have defined the host groups

  • br6_grp to contain kali3, kali4, kali5,
  • br4_grp to contain only kali2,
  • ext_grp to contain the host and some external web server "lamp".

With this we get the following 7 groups of rules:

full_1

full_2

full_3

full_4

full_5

full_6

full_7

Despite the host grouping : this makes quite a bunch of rules! But yet not uncontrollable ...

Enough for today. I hope that tests being performed in a third article of this series will not proof me wrong. I am confident .... See
Linux bridges – can iptables be used against MiM attacks based on ARP spoofing ? – III

Ein Gedanke zu “Linux bridges – can iptables be used against MiM attacks based on ARP spoofing ? – II

  1. A reader has written me an email. He had found that vethb1 and vethb2 were associated with the wrong bridges in the picture. The reader was right. I, therefore, exchanged the drawing on March, 17th, 2016.

Die Kommentarfunktion ist geschlossen.