IPv6 - 8 security concerns

IPv6 - 8 security concerns

By Danny McPherson, CSO, Verisign Inc | Jun 7, 2011

Although vendor-written, this contributed piece does not advocate a position that is particular to the author's employer.
 
Feb. 3, 2011, came and went without much fanfare, but it was a milestone for Internet stakeholders, whether they knew it or not. On that Thursday, the last available IPv4 addresses were allocated by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Though some Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have a reasonable inventory of IP addresses that could last another year or two, the days of "new" IPv4 address allocations are largely over.


 
Now that we're out of IPv4 allocations, it's time to get serious about adopting the next generation of Internet Protocol, IPv6. With a 128-bit address space (compared to IPv4's 32-bit space), IPv6 can accommodate the ongoing and exponential growth of the Internet, which currently is adding about a million new devices every hour. In fact, compared with the 4.3 billion IP addresses that IPv4 allows, IPv6 will enable another 340 trillion, trillion, trillion addresses -- enough to accommodate global Internet demand for the foreseeable future.


 
Coupled with the continued deployment of DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC), IPv6 will ultimately provide the stable and secure base for the future Internet. But for the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 to be successful, everyone from infrastructure operators and service providers to application developers and users will have to work together on a range of activities, including:


 
• supporting and developing IPv6 capabilities and establishing functional IPv4 parity;


 
• debugging issues with new IPv6-only software and applications;


 
• refining interworking and transitional co-existence with IPv4.


 
A crucial part of that effort will involve security. IPv6 represents new territory for most Internet stakeholders, and its rollout will introduce some unique security challenges. While the following list is by no means comprehensive, it does point to eight considerations and problem areas that the industry will need to address as IPv6 adoption continues. Because we're still in the early stages, the solutions to some of these risks will only come after real-world use leads to proven best practices.


 
* Translating from IPv4 to IPv6, transactions may become vulnerable. Because IPv4 and IPv6 are not "bits on the wire" compatible, protocol translation is seen as one path to wider deployment and adoption. Translating traffic from IPv4 to IPv6 will inevitably result in mediating transactions as they move through the network. Think of a mail sorter at a post office transfer facility that must open every IPv4 envelope to put each letter in an IPv6 one to ensure it reaches the correct address, at times changing content in the documents contained within in order to coincide with the new IPv6 external envelop information. Each time this happens, an opportunity arises for a poor implementation or a bad actor to tickle or exploit a potential vulnerability. Additionally, it compromises the end-to-end principle by introducing middle boxes that must maintain transaction state and complicates the network. In general, security staff should pay attention to security aspects of all translation and transition mechanisms (to include tunneling), and only enable such mechanisms explicitly after they have been thoroughly evaluated.


 
 
 

Add comment

Post a Comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Verification Code
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
 

knowledge_central_tab

 
 
Knowledge Central
Trusted Mobility Index
The mobile ecosystem of devices, services and networks is at a critical inflection point.While the mobile revolution is unleashing massive opportunities in both emerging and mature economies, it is also increasing in complexity and confusion. The reality is the lightning-fast adoption of powerful, smart devices is outpacing society’s ability to secure them. Today, trust in mobility hangs in the balance.
The state of the Internet, Q4, 2011
Geography appears to play a role in frequency of observed attacks on specific ports. For example, Port 23 (Telnet) is a favorite target for attacks observed to be originating from South Korea and Turkey, where it accounted for more than five times the number of attacks targeting the next most popular port (445 in both countries). Other instances of geography-based port targeting include observed attacks centered on Port 1433 (Microsoft SQL Server) in China and on Port 80 (WWW/HTTP) in Indonesia.
 
 
 
HID Global deploys a centralized, web-based IP access control solution at Fuxi Power Plant
Unable to meet the needs for real-time monitoring with its traditional patrol system, China's Fuxi Power Plant has deployed HID Global's VertX V2000.
StubHub: How to spot fraud before it happens
Whenever a list of log-on credentials is dumped onto the Web, retailers get hit with waves of automated attacks. Here's how ticket marketplace StubHub fights the threat.