Forwarding Accountability: A Challenging Necessity of the Future Data Plane

@inproceedings{Pappas2015ForwardingAA,
  title={Forwarding Accountability: A Challenging Necessity of the Future Data Plane},
  author={Christos Pappas and Raphael M. Reischuk and Adrian Perrig},
  booktitle={iNetSeC},
  year={2015}
}
Forwarding accountability mechanisms pinpoint the sending/forwarding properties of traffic to the entities that send and forward the traffic along a path. In this paper, we take flooding attacks as a use case and describe a proposal to hold senders accountable for the sending rates of their flows. Furthermore, we describe the corresponding challenges, potential solutions, and briefly present the literature in the area of forwarding accountability. 

D2.1 5G Security: Current Status and Future Trends

TLDR
This deliverable aims to provide a basis for the identification of use cases and the development of 5G security enablers in INSPIRE-5Gplus and describes future trends and technologies in 5G networks, their limitations, and gaps related to the security of5G networks.

References

SHOWING 1-9 OF 9 REFERENCES

Accountability as a Service

TLDR
This work designs a scheme for allowing accountability services, rather than connectivity-providing ISPs, to vouch for traffic, allowing victims to report abuse, filter abusive traffic, and isolate malicious senders.

FAIR: Forwarding Accountability for Internet Reputability

TLDR
A "suspicious bit" for packet headers -- an application that builds on top of FAIR's proofs of misbehavior and flags packets to warn other entities in the network is proposed.

Loss and Delay Accountability for the Internet

TLDR
Audit is proposed, an explicit accountability interface, through which ISPs can pro-actively supply feedback to traffic sources on loss and delay, at administrative-domain granularity, and is resistant to ISP lies and can be implemented with a modest NetFlow modification.

Path-quality monitoring in the presence of adversaries

TLDR
This paper designs and analyzes path-quality monitoring protocols that reliably raise an alarm when the packet-loss rate and delay exceed a threshold, even when an adversary tries to bias monitoring results by selectively delaying, dropping, modifying, injecting, or preferentially treating packets.

Transparency Instead of Neutrality

TLDR
It is argued that the network layer should provide transparency, i.e., low-level loss and delay information that is admissible in court and can be used as a building block by regulators to reason about ISP neutrality at a higher level.

Cisco Policing and Shaping Overview

  • ”http://bit.ly/1HOHr9V”
  • 2015

Intel Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) New Instruction Set

  • ”https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/article/165683/ aes-wp-2012-09-22-v01.pdf”
  • 2010

Policing and Shaping Overview

    Q1 State of the Internet - Security Report

    • ”http://bit.ly/1RhrFWs”
    • 2015