Securing BGP ASAP: ASPA and other Post-ROV Defenses
Justin Furuness, Cameron Morris, Reynaldo Morillo, Arvind Kasiliya, Bing Wang, Amir Herzberg
Abstract
—Before the adoption of Route Origin Validation (ROV), prefix and subprefix hijacks were the most effective and common attacks on BGP routing. Recent works show that ROV adoption is increasing rapidly; with sufficient ROV adoption, prefix and subprefix attacks become ineffective. We study this changing landscape and in particular the Autonomous System Provider Authorization (ASPA) proposal, which focuses on route leakage but also foils some other attacks. Using recent measurements of real-world ROV adoption, we evaluate its security impact. Our simulations show substantial impact: already today , prefix hijacks are less effective than forged-origin hijacks, and the effectiveness of subprefix hijacks is much reduced. Therefore, we expect attackers to move to forged-origin hijacks and other post-ROV attacks ; we present a new, powerful post-ROV attack, first-ASN-stripping . We present extensive evaluations of different post-ROV defenses and attacks. Our results show that ASPA significantly protects against post-ROV attacks, even in partial adoption. It dramatically improves upon the use of only ROV or of BGPsec, Path-End, OTC, and EdgeFilter. BGP-iSec has even better protection but requires public-key operations to export/import announcements. We also present ASPAwN, an extension that further improves ASPA’s performance. Our results show that contrary to prior works [74], [95], ASPA is effective even when tier-1 ASes are not adopting, hence motivating ASPA adoption at edge and intermediate ASes. On the other hand, we find that against accidental route leaks, the simpler, standardized OTC mechanism is as effective as ASPA.
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 b2333d96-589d-49aa-b11e-6e07793f6b78Cited by top-tier papers3
- PathProb: Probabilistic Inference and Path Scoring for Enhanced and Flexible BGP Route Leak DetectionYingqian Hao, Hui Zou, Lu Zhou, Yuxuan Chen et al.NDSS 2026 · 1 citation
- ASRogue: Manipulating ASRank-Inferred AS RelationshipsYi Xu, Yihao Chen, Ke Xu, Qi Li et al.USENIX Security 2026
- EZ-SAVE: Evaluation of Easy-to-Deploy Source Address Validation PoliciesNicholas Scaglione, Justin Furuness, Yossi Gilad, Hemi Leibowitz et al.NSDI 2026
Builds on4
- Are We There Yet? On RPKI's Deployment and SecurityYossi Gilad, Avichai Cohen, Amir Herzberg, Michael Schapira et al.NDSS 2017 · 108 citations
- ROV++: Improved Deployable Defense against BGP HijackingReynaldo Morillo, Justin Furuness, Cameron Morris, James Breslin et al.NDSS 2021
- Keep Your Friends Close, but Your Routeservers Closer: Insights into RPKI Validation in the InternetTomas Hlavacek, Haya Schulmann, Niklas Vogel, Michael WaidnerUSENIX Security 2023
- DISCO: Sidestepping RPKI's Deployment BarriersTomas Hlavacek, Ítalo Cunha, Yossi Gilad, Amir Herzberg et al.NDSS 2020
Related papers
- Understanding the Stealthy BGP Hijacking Risk in the ROV EraYihao Chen, Qi Li, Ke Xu, Zhuotao Liu et al.NDSS 2026
- A System to Detect Forged-Origin BGP HijacksThomas Holterbach, Thomas Alfroy, Amreesh Phokeer, Alberto Dainotti et al.NSDI 2024 · 21 citations
- Understanding Route Origin Validation (ROV) Deployment in the Real World and Why MANRS Action 1 Is Not FollowedLancheng Qin, Li Chen, Dan Li, Honglin Ye et al.NDSS 2024
- ImpROV: Measurement and Practical Mitigation of Collateral Damage in RPKI Route Origin ValidationWeitong Li, Yuze Li, Taejoong ChungUSENIX Security 2025
- iROV: Breaking the Silence of RPKI with Interactive ValidationYounsoo Kim, Seungjin Baek, Weitong Li, Tijay Chung et al.USENIX Security 2026
