Where Have All the Firewalls Gone? Security Consequences of Residential IPv6 Transition
Erik Rye, Dave Levin, Robert Beverly
Abstract
IPv4 NAT has limited the spread of IoT botnets considerably by default-denying bots' incoming connection requests to in-home devices unless the owner has explicitly allowed them. As the Internet transitions to majority IPv6, however, residential connections no longer require the use of NAT. This paper therefore asks: has the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 ultimately made residential networks more vulnerable to attack, thereby empowering the next generation of IPv6-based IoT botnets?
To answer this question, we introduce a large-scale IPv6 scanning methodology that, unlike those that rely on computationally intensive algorithms, can be run on low-resource devices common in IoT botnets. We use this methodology to perform the largest-scale measurement of IPv6 residential networks to date, and compare which devices are publicly accessible to comparable IPv4 networks. We received responses from 93,832,220 distinct IPv6 addresses, 14,901,892 of which are inside of residential networks (i.e., not the externalfacing gateway IP). These residential network internal addresses span 4,412 ASes across 144 countries. These responses come from protocols commonly exploited by IoT botnets (including telnet and FTP), as well as protocols typically associated with end-user devices (including iPhone-Sync and IPP). Compared with IPv4, we reach 11× more HP printers over IPv6 than Shodan finds across the entire IPv4 Internet, and thousands of iPhones and smart lights whose services IPv4 NAT made unreachable by default. Collectively, our results show that NAT has indeed acted as the de facto firewall of the Internet, and the IPv4-to-IPv6 transition of residential networks is opening up new devices to attack. Finally, we discuss potential mitigations to prevent in-home network reachability as IPv6 adoption continues to grow.
• Security and privacy → Network security.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 1546ff4d-e592-4432-b213-887f2d90b375Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on7
- Understanding the Mirai BotnetManos Antonakakis, Tim April, Michael D. Bailey, Matt Bernhard et al.USENIX Security 2017 · 2,003 citations
- Measurement and Analysis of Hajime, a Peer-to-peer IoT BotnetStephen Herwig, Katura Harvey, George Hughey, Richard Roberts et al.NDSS 2019 · 168 citations
- Don't Forget to Lock the Back Door! A Characterization of IPv6 Network Security PolicyJakub Czyz, Matthew J. Luckie, Mark Allman, Michael D. BaileyNDSS 2016 · 87 citations
- IPv6 Hitlists at Scale: Be Careful What You Wish ForErik C. Rye, Dave LevinSIGCOMM 2023 · 38 citations
- Understanding Routing-Induced Censorship Changes GloballyAbhishek Bhaskar, Paul PearceCCS 2024 · 4 citations
Related papers
- On Using Application-Layer Middlebox Protocols for Peeking Behind NAT GatewaysTeemu Rytilahti, Thorsten HolzNDSS 2020
- All Things Considered: An Analysis of IoT Devices on Home NetworksDeepak Kumar, Kelly Shen, Benton Case, Deepali Garg et al.USENIX Security 2019 · 189 citations
- Enumerating Active IPv6 Hosts for Large-Scale Security Scans via DNSSEC-Signed Reverse ZonesKevin Borgolte, Shuang Hao, Tobias Fiebig, Giovanni VignaS&P 2018 · 48 citations
- Pinpointing Hidden IoT Devices via Spatial-temporal Traffic FingerprintingXiaobo Ma, Jian Qu, Jianfeng Li, John C. S. Lui et al.INFOCOM 2020 · 48 citations
- The Circle Of Life: A Large-Scale Study of The IoT Malware LifecycleOmar Alrawi, Charles Lever, Kevin Valakuzhy, Ryan Court et al.USENIX Security 2021 · 109 citations
