Electrical computers and digital processing systems: support – Multiple computer communication using cryptography – Packet header designating cryptographically protected data
Reexamination Certificate
2000-11-16
2004-09-07
Sheikh, Ayaz (Department: 2135)
Electrical computers and digital processing systems: support
Multiple computer communication using cryptography
Packet header designating cryptographically protected data
C709S238000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06789190
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The invention pertains to network data transmission controls. More particularly, the invention relates to systems for minimizing the effects of packet flooding attacks directed against computers or routers connected to a network.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Various types of systems have been developed for handling unwanted network data transmission incorporating a number of different technologies. U.S. Pat. No. 5,581,559 issued to Crayford et al. discloses a method that verifies the integrity of data transmitted over a network by comparing the destination address for a data packet with end station addresses stored on network repeaters. Where the destination address fails to match the stored end station addresses, the data packet will be disrupted.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,044,402 issued to Jacobson et al., describes a system in which the only data packets that are transmitted between source and destination network addresses are those that satisfy the blocking policies stored by the blocking data structure. Thus only, “pre-approved” data can flow through such a control mechanism. U.S. Pat. No. 5,455,865, issued to Perlman discloses a system that relies upon a stored list of acceptable packet identifiers at each node in the network. U.S. Pat. No. 5,353,353 issued to Vijeh et al. describes a system that determines the acceptability of data packets based upon a destination address/source address match and will disrupt any packet not satisfying these criteria. U.S. Pat. No. 5,850,515 issued to Lo et al. discloses a system that uses source and destination address matching to determine if packets should be transmitted to an end station or the end station disabled from participating in the network. It also employs a system where an end station can be disabled by a program that determines that a certain number of unauthorized packets have been detected. While other variations exist, the above-described designs for handling unwanted network data transmissions are typical of those encountered in the prior art.
The primary objective of the present invention is to defend against “packet flooding attacks” in which an attacker tries to use up all the bandwidth to the victim by sending data of little or no value (at least to the victim), thereby making more valuable communication with the victim slow or unreliable. A secondary objective is to defend against a related class of attacks in which the attacker tries to use up some other resource by sending more requests of some particular type to the victim than the victim can handle.
One way to view all these attacks is that a resource is being allocated in an unfair way. Well-behaved users request reasonable amounts, while attackers request unreasonable amounts. The most straight-forward allocation mechanism, which might be called “first come first served”, ends up allocating almost all of the resource to the attackers. A more “fair” allocation would reduce the impact of an attacker to that of a normal user.
There are two obvious impediments to the “fair service” goal above. One is lack of a reliable way to associate incoming packets with those users among whom bandwidth should be fairly allocated. The other is lack of control over what packets arrive. The solution described here to both of these problems requires help from the routers that forward packets to the victim.
The defense is distributed among cooperating sites and routers. A set of transitively connected cooperating machines is called a “cooperating neighborhood”. The quality of the defense is related to the size of the cooperating neighborhood, a larger neighborhood providing better defense. Within the neighborhood it is possible to trace the forwarding path of packets. The association of packets with the “users” is approximated by associating packets with “places” in the cooperating neighborhood from which those packets are forwarded. That is, service will be allocated in a fair (or otherwise reasonable) manner among these places. A “place” in this sense is typically a particular interface from which a packet arrived at a cooperating router.
One such place is likely to be shared by many actual users. An attack will deny service to those users sharing the same place. The advantage of a large number of such places is that each place is shared by fewer users, so an attack will deny service to fewer users. It is advantageous to a user who wants to communicate with a particular machine, to be in the cooperating neighborhood of that machine, since no attacker from another machine can deny him service. Conversely, an attacker wishing to deny service to as many users as possible prefers to share an entry point into the cooperating neighborhood with as many users as possible.
Routers will supply data about the forwarding path of the packets that arrive at a site. The site can use this data to allocate service as described above among the packets that arrive. This would solve the problem of unfair service if the packets that arrived were a fair sample of those that were sent to the site. This may not be the case, however, if routers are unable to forward all the packets they receive. To some extent fair service is limited by network topology, i.e., too many legitimate users trying to share parts of the same path will inevitably suffer relative to users of uncrowded paths. However another potential cause for this problem is a flooding attack against a router. That problem is solved by letting routers allocate their services in a similar way to that described above for sites. That is, they allocate the limited resource of forwarding bandwidth along any given output in a reasonable way among some set of places in the cooperating neighborhood.
The final step in the defense is that cooperating routers will limit the rate at which they forward packets to places that so request. This may not be essential in the allocation of service, but it is useful for limiting the bandwidth used by “unwanted” packets. The rate-limiting request is to be made when a site detects a high rate of unwanted packets coming from one place. This helps the site because it no longer has to process as many unwanted packets. It helps the network by freeing some of the bandwidth for other use.
Even if the traffic is not reduced, the distinction between “wanted” and “unwanted” packets plays an important role in “reasonable” allocation. For a site there are normally some packets (in fact, the great majority) that are expected in a very strong sense. It is reasonable to process these at the highest possible rate. All other packets are not exactly unwanted, but the site is willing to process them at only a limited rate. A reasonable approach is to schedule these as described above (using the places from which they were forwarded) at a limited rate, and regard as “unwanted” those that end up being significantly delayed (or discarded).
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention addresses many of the deficiencies of prior network defense systems and satisfies all of the objectives described above.
A packet flooding defense system for a network providing the desired features may be constructed from the following components. The network includes a plurality of host computers, routers, communication lines and transmitted data packets. Means are provided for classifying data packets received at a host computer as are means for associating a maximum acceptable processing rate with each class of data packet received at the computer. Means are also provided for the computer to find information for packets it receives regarding the path by which the packets came to the computer. Thus, the computer can use the information to allocate the processing rate available for packets of each class in a desired way.
In another variant, a packet flooding defense system for a network including a plurality of host computers, routers, communication lines and transmitted data packets includes means for classifying data packets received at a host computer and means for associating a maximum acceptable processing rate with each class of data
Baum Ronald
Belasco David A.
Belasco Jacobs & Townsley LLP
Computing Services Support Solutions, Inc.
Sheikh Ayaz
LandOfFree
Packet flooding defense system does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Packet flooding defense system, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Packet flooding defense system will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3235419