翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ IPC Alpine Skiing World Cup
・ IPC Athletics European Championships
・ IPC Athletics World Championships
・ IPC Biathlon and Cross-Country Skiing World Championships
・ IPC Healthcare
・ IPC Ice Sledge Hockey European Championships
・ IPC Ice Sledge Hockey World Championships
・ IPC Powerlifting World Championships
・ IPC Shooting World Championships
・ IP reader
・ Ip River
・ IP set
・ IP shuffling
・ IP Systems
・ IP Tomar Rugby
IP traceback
・ IP tunnel
・ IP Virtual Server
・ Ip Wai-ming
・ Ip Wischin
・ Ip Yut Kin
・ Ip'Efthini Mou
・ Ip, Sălaj
・ IP-2
・ IP-Box
・ IP-DECT
・ IP-guard
・ IP-XACT
・ Ip.access
・ IP2Location


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

IP traceback : ウィキペディア英語版
IP traceback
IP traceback is a name given to any method for reliably determining the origin of a packet on the Internet. Due to the trusting nature of the IP protocol, the source IP address of a packet is not authenticated. As a result, the source address in an IP packet can be falsified (IP address spoofing) allowing for denial-of-service attacks (DoS) or one-way attacks (where the response from the victim host is so well known that return packets need not be received to continue the attack). The problem of finding the source of a packet is called the IP traceback problem. IP traceback is a critical ability for identifying sources of attacks and instituting protection measures for the Internet. Most existing approaches to this problem have been tailored toward DoS attack detection. Such solutions require high numbers of packets to converge on the attack path(s).
== Probabilistic packet marking ==

Savage et al. suggested probabilistically marking packets as they traverse routers through the Internet. They propose that the router mark the packet with either the router’s IP address or the edges of the path that the packet traversed to reach the router.
For the first alternative, marking packets with the router's IP address, analysis shows that in order to gain the correct attack path with 95% accuracy as many as 294,000 packets are required. The second approach, edge marking, requires that the two nodes that make up an edge mark the path with their IP addresses along with the distance between them. This approach would require more state information in each packet than simple node marking but would converge much faster. They suggest three ways to reduce the state information of these approaches into something more manageable.〔
The first approach is to XOR each node forming an edge in the path with each other. Node ''a'' inserts its IP address into the packet and sends it to ''b''. Upon being detected at ''b'' (by detecting a 0 in the distance), ''b'' XORs its address with the address of ''a''. This new data entity is called an edge id and reduces the required state for edge sampling by half.
Their next approach is to further take this edge id and fragment it into ''k'' smaller fragments. Then, randomly select a fragment and encode it, along with the fragment offset so that the correct corresponding fragment is selected from a downstream router for processing.
When enough packets are received, the victim can reconstruct all of the edges the series of packets traversed (even in the presence of multiple attackers).〔
Due to the high number of combinations required to rebuild a fragmented edge id, the reconstruction of such an attack graph is computationally intensive according to research by Song and Perrig. Furthermore, the approach results in a large number of false positives. As an example, with only 25 attacking hosts in a DDoS attack the reconstruction process takes days to build and results in thousands of false positives.
Accordingly, Song and Perrig propose the following traceback scheme: instead of encoding the IP address interleaved with a hash, they suggest encoding the IP address into an 11 bit hash and maintain a 5 bit hop count, both stored in the 16-bit fragment ID field. This is based on the observation that a 5-bit hop count (32 max hops) is sufficient for almost all Internet routes. Further, they suggest that two different hashing functions be used so that the order of the routers in the markings can be determined. Next, if any given hop decides to mark it first checks the distance field for a 0, which implies that a previous router has already marked it. If this is the case, it generates an 11-bit hash of its own IP address and then XORs it with the previous hop. If it finds a non-zero hop count it inserts its IP hash, sets the hop count to zero and forwards the packet on. If a router decides not to mark the packet it merely increments the hop count in the overloaded fragment id field.〔
Song and Perrig identify that this is not robust enough against collisions and thus suggest using a set of independent hash functions, randomly selecting one, and then hashing the IP along with a FID or function id and then encoding this. They state that this approach essentially reduces the probability of collision to (1/(211)m). For further details see Song and Perrig.〔

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「IP traceback」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.