A Formal Analysis of SCTP: Attack Synthesis and Patch Verification
Jacob Ginesin, Max von Hippel, Evan Defloor, Cristina Nita-Rotaru, Michael Tüxen
摘要
SCTP is a transport protocol offering features such as multi-homing, multi-streaming, and message-oriented delivery. Its two main implementations were subjected to conformance tests using the PacketDrill tool. Conformance testing is not exhaustive and a recent vulnerability (CVE-2021-3772) showed SCTP is not immune to attacks. Changes addressing the vulnerability were implemented, but the question remains whether other flaws might persist in the protocol design. We study the security of the SCTP design, taking a rigorous approach rooted in formal methods. We create a formal Promela model of SCTP, and define 10 properties capturing the essential protocol functionality based on its RFC specification and consultation with the lead RFC author. Then we show using the Spin model checker that our model satisfies these properties. We define 4 attacker models - Off-Path, where the attacker is an outsider that can spoof the port and IP of a peer; Evil-Server, where the attacker is a malicious peer; Replay, where an attacker can capture and replay, but not modify, packets; and On-Path, where the attacker controls the channel between peers. We modify an attack synthesis tool designed for transport protocols, Korg, to support our SCTP model and four attacker models. We synthesize 14 unique attacks using the attacker models - including the CVE vulnerability in the Off-Path attacker model, 4 attacks in the Evil-Server attacker model, an opportunistic ABORT attack in the Replay attacker model, and eight connection manipulation attacks in the On-Path attacker model. We show that the proposed patch eliminates the vulnerability and does not introduce new ones according to our model and protocol properties. Finally, we identify and analyze an ambiguity in the RFC, which we show can be interpreted insecurely. We propose an erratum and show that it eliminates the ambiguity.
问问这篇 Paper
智能体会读完全文。
Lune 把这篇 Paper 索引到了最后一个公式,引用它的顶会 Paper 也一样。你提问,回答直接引用原文。
它引用的顶会 Paper11
- A Formal Analysis of 5G AuthenticationDavid A. Basin, Jannik Dreier, Lucca Hirschi, Sasa Radomirovic 等CCS 2018 · 被引用 428 次
- A Comprehensive Symbolic Analysis of TLS 1.3Cas Cremers, Marko Horvat, Jonathan Hoyland, Sam Scott 等CCS 2017 · 被引用 247 次
- Verified Models and Reference Implementations for the TLS 1.3 Standard CandidateKarthikeyan Bhargavan, Bruno Blanchet, Nadim KobeissiS&P 2017 · 被引用 233 次
- The EMV Standard: Break, Fix, VerifyDavid A. Basin, Ralf Sasse, Jorge Toro-PozoS&P 2021 · 被引用 69 次
- Automated Attack Synthesis by Extracting Finite State Machines from Protocol Specification DocumentsMaria Leonor Pacheco, Max von Hippel, Ben Weintraub, Dan Goldwasser 等S&P 2022 · 被引用 58 次
相关 Paper
- Analyzing Semantic Correctness with Symbolic Execution: A Case Study on PKCS#1 v1.5 Signature VerificationSze Yiu Chau, Moosa Yahyazadeh, Omar Chowdhury, Aniket Kate 等NDSS 2019 · 被引用 20 次
- Principled Unearthing of TCP Side Channel VulnerabilitiesYue Cao, Zhongjie Wang, Zhiyun Qian, Chengyu Song 等CCS 2019 · 被引用 20 次
- Athena: Analyzing and Quantifying Side Channels of Transport Layer ProtocolsFeiyang Yu, Quan Zhou, Syed Rafiul Hussain, Danfeng ZhangUSENIX Security 2024
- MCP Security Bench (MSB): Benchmarking Attacks Against Model Context Protocol in LLM AgentsDongsen Zhang, Zekun Li, Xu Luo, Xuannan Liu 等ICLR 2026 · 被引用 47 次
- HeapHopper: Bringing Bounded Model Checking to Heap Implementation SecurityMoritz Eckert, Antonio Bianchi, Ruoyu Wang, Yan Shoshitaishvili 等USENIX Security 2018 · 被引用 62 次
