Advertisement

The Beauty or The Beast? Attacking Rate Limits of the Xen Hypervisor

  • Johanna UllrichEmail author
  • Edgar Weippl
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9879)

Abstract

Rate limits, i.e., throttling network bandwidth, are considered to be means of protection; and guarantee fair bandwidth distribution among virtual machines that reside on the same Xen hypervisor. In the absence of rate limits, a single virtual machine would be able to (unintentionally or maliciously) exhaust all resources, and cause a denial-of-service for its neighbors.

In this paper, we show that rate limits snap back and become attack vectors themselves. Our analysis highlights that Xen’s rate limiting throttles only outbound traffic, and is further prone to burst transmissions making virtual machines that are rate limited vulnerable to externally-launched attacks. In particular, we propose two attacks: Our side channel allows to infer all configuration parameters that are related to rate limiting functionality; while our denial-of-service attack causes up to 88.3 % packet drops, or up to 13.8 s of packet delay.

Keywords

Cloud Computing Virtual Machine Credit Rate Rate Limit Cloud Provider 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Peter Wurzinger, and Adrian Dabrowski for many fruitful discussions; Rob Sherwood for sharing the original implementation of optimistic acknowledging and David Lobmaier for reimplementing it with respect to current TCP implementations. Further, the authors are grateful to our reviewers for their comments, especially on the aspect of mitigation.

This research was funded by P 842485 and COMET K1, both FFG - Austrian Research Promotion Agency.

References

  1. 1.
    With an eye on Russia, Estonia seeks security in cloud computing, December 2015. http://www.firstpost.com/business/with-an-eye-on-russia-estonia-seeks-security-in-cloud-computing-2535650.html
  2. 2.
    Dou, E., Barr, A.: U.S. Cloud Providers Face Backlash From China’s Censors, March 2015. http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-cloud-providers-face-backlash-from-chinas-censors-1426541126
  3. 3.
    Khan, A., Othman, M., Madani, S., Khan, S.: A survey of mobile cloud computing application models. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials 16(1), 393–413 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ericsson, Connected Vehicle Cloud Under The HoodGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gilpin, L.: How The Cloud Is Revolutionizing Healthcare, December 2015. http://www.forbes.com/sites/lyndseygilpin/2015/12/01/how-the-cloud-is-revolutionizing-healthcare/
  6. 6.
    Departement of Commerce, 2015 Top Markets Report Cloud Computing - A Market Assessment Tool for U.S. Exporterts (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    FCA paves the way for cloud computing in UK financial services, November 2015. http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2015/november/fca-paves-the-way-for-cloud-computing-in-uk-financial-services/
  8. 8.
    Finnegan, M.: How Tesco Bank has adopted AWS cloud as ‘business as usual’ in eight months, November 2015. http://www.computerworlduk.com/cloud-computing/how-tesco-bank-has-adopted-aws-cloud-as-business-as-usual-in-eight-months-3629767/
  9. 9.
    Barham, P., Dragovic, B., Fraser, K., Hand, S., Harris, T., Ho, A., Neugebauer, R., Pratt, I., Warfield, A.: Xen and the art of virtualization. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP 2003, pp. 164–177 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mather, T., Kumaraswamy, S., Latif, S.: Cloud security and privacy: an enterprise perspective on risks and compliance. O’Reilly Media Inc., Sebastopol (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ristenpart, T., Tromer, E., Shacham, H., Savage, S.: Hey, you, get off of my cloud: exploring information leakage in third-party compute clouds. In: 16th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 199–212 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herzberg, A., Shulman, H., Ullrich, J., Weippl, E.: Cloudoscopy: services discovery and topology mapping. In: ACM Cloud Computing Security Workshop, pp. 113–122 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Okamura, K., Oyama, Y.: Load-based covert channels between Xen virtual machines. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 173–180 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xu, Y., Bailey, M., Jahanian, F., Joshi, K., Hiltunen, M., Schlichting, R.: An exploration of l2 cache covert channels in virtualized environments. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Workshop on Cloud Computing Security Workshop, pp. 29–40 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Varadarajan, V., Kooburat, T., Farley, B., Ristenpart, T., Swift, M.M.: Resource-freeing attacks: improve your cloud performance (at your neighbor’s expense). In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 281–292 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bates, A., Mood, B., Pletcher, J., Pruse, H., Valafar, M., Butler, K.: Detecting co-residency with active traffic analysis techniques. In: ACM Cloud Computing Security Workshop, pp. 1–12 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bates, A., Mood, B., Pletcher, J., Pruse, H., Valafar, M., Butler, K.: On detecting co-resident cloud instances using network flow watermarking techniques. Int. J. Inf. Secur. 13(2), 171–189 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Adamczyk, B., Chydzinski, A.: On the performance isolation across virtual network adapters in Xen. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Cloud Comput. GRIDs Virtual, CLOUD COMPUTING 2011, pp. 222–227 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mei, L., Lv, X.: Optimization of network bandwidth allocation in Xen. In: 2015 IEEE 17th International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC), 2015 IEEE 7th International Symposium on Cyberspace Safety and Security (CSS), 2015 IEEE 12th International Conferen on Embedded Software and Systems (ICESS), pp. 1558–1566, August 2015Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li, C., Xi, S., Lu, C., Gill, C.D., Guerin, R.: Prioritizing soft real-time network traffic in virtualized hosts based on Xen. In: 21st IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium, pp. 145–156, April 2015Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rossow, C.: Amplification hell: revisiting network protocols for DDoS abuse. In: Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS) (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sherwood, R., Bhattacharjee, B., Braud, R.: Misbehaving TCP receivers can cause internet-wide congestion collapse. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS), pp. 383–392 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xu, Y., Musgrave, Z., Noble, B., Bailey, M.: Bobtail: avoiding long tails in the cloud. In: Presented as Part of the 10th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 2013), pp. 329–341 (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xu, Y., Bailey, M., Noble, B., Jahanian, F.: Small is better: avoiding latency traps in virtualized data centers. In: Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Cloud Computing, SOCC 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Varadarajan, V., Ristenpart, T., Swift, M.: Scheduler-based defenses against Cross-VM side-channels. In: 23rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 2014), pp. 687–702, August 2014Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bowers, K.D., van Dijk, M., Juels, A., Oprea, A., Rivest, R.L.: How to tell if your cloud files are vulnerable to drive crashes. In: 18th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 501–514 (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Benson, K., Dowsley, R., Shacham, H.: Do you know where your cloud files are? In: 3rd ACM Cloud Computing Security Workshop, pp. 73–82 (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kadloor, S., Gong, X., Kiyavash, N., Tezcan, T., Borisov, N.: Low-cost side channel remote traffic analysis attack in packet networks. In: IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), pp. 1–5, May 2010Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kadloor, S., Kiyavash, N., Venkitasubramaniam, P.: Mitigating timing based information leakage in shared schedulers. In: IEEE INFOCOM, pp. 1044–1052 (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alarifi, S., Wolthusen, S.D.: Robust coordination of cloud-internal denial of service attacks. In: 2013 Third International Conference on Cloud and Green Computing (CGC), pp. 135–142, September 2013Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ficco, M., Rak, M.: Stealthy denial of service strategy in cloud computing. IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. 3(1), 80–94 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liu, H.: A new form of DOS attack in a cloud and its avoidance mechanism. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Workshop on Cloud Computing Security Workshop, CCSW 2010, pp. 65–76 (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shea, R., Liu, J.: Understanding the impact of denial of service attacks on virtual machines. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 20th International Workshop on Quality of Service, IWQoS 2012, pp. 27:1–27:9 (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shea, R., Liu, J.: Performance of virtual machines under networked denial of service attacks: experiments and analysis. IEEE Syst. J. 7(2), 335–345 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ferriman, B., Hamed, T., Mahmoud, Q.H.: Storming the cloud: a look at denial of service in the Google App Engine. In: 2015 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC), pp. 363–368, February 2015Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chonka, A., Xiang, Y., Zhou, W., Bonti, A.: Cloud security defence to protect cloud computing against HTTP-DoS and XMLAQ2DoS attacks. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 34(4), 1097–1107 (2011)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yan, Q., Yu, F.R.: Distributed denial of service attacks in software-defined networking with cloud computing. IEEE Commun. Mag. 53(4), 52–59 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sanaei, Z., Abolfazli, S., Gani, A., Buyya, R.: Heterogeneity in mobile cloud computing: Taxonomy and open challenges. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials 16(1), 369–392 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lampe, U., Kieselmann, M., Miede, A., Zöller, S., Steinmetz, R.: A tale of millis and nanos: time measurements in virtual and physical machines. In: Lau, K.-K., Lamersdorf, W., Pimentel, E. (eds.) ESOCC 2013. LNCS, vol. 8135, pp. 172–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Broomhead, T., Cremean, L., Ridoux, J., Veitch, D.: Virtualize everything but time. In: USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 2010) (2010)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ullmann, M., Vogeler, M.: Delay attacks: implication on NTP and PTP time synchronization. In: 2009 International Symposium on Precision Clock Synchronization for Measurement, Control and Communication, October 2009Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rasti, R., Murthy, M., Weaver, N., Paxson, V.: Temporal lensing and its application in pulsing denial-of-service attacks. In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 187–198, May 2015Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang, G., Ng, T.S.E.: The impact of virtualization on network performance of amazon EC2 data center. In: INFOCOM, 2010 Proceedings IEEE, pp. 1–9, March 2010Google Scholar
  45. 45.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SBA ResearchViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations