Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks

Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com> Tue, 22 March 2011 08:28 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=cAj+pb/CbUgYhQM7xHPRG6cvcHZNKjsccW9QvcXSPoFbOh+k/212UGx5D9TuS+WhsG 5CIzM12hRgDrcQZPF7PcK//VlWGs3CBWNCy2RYHWlqeVr8PvFKYpTW+yHyI8cC9bxUXg knxZsl4G2PeEUGiWelMI8P439uhFI0FImXpVM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <008c01cbe83d$fb4763c0$f1d62b40$@a-star.edu.sg>
References: <AANLkTikW+MfR_R4A+g2+o=BZDnsAoOmfLHNgiOm4Z_-n@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikGc4JDgzBivYQNGfPTzf8r75L_od2etQMq3Rm5@mail.gmail.com> <008c01cbe83d$fb4763c0$f1d62b40$@a-star.edu.sg>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:30:19 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikeEOd_-w9GrSNX8keajJ-iizEiht8h36Q1fZ-B@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
To: QIU Ying <qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f2ca38f77ee0049f0e0d27
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks
Precedence: list

Hi Qiu,

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:05 AM, QIU Ying <qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg> wrote:

> This topic is interesting.
>
>
>
> But I am afraid that there is an efficient way to prevent this kind of DOS
> attacks because the mobile node must wake up from sleep to receive and
> process these required messages before simply drop them.
>
>
>
> Could you please provide more details?
>
>
>

I am not entering in the solution space, various solutions may be possible.
You cannot simply drop the incoming packets as you suggested because you
would become unreachable in this case. The attacker can spoof source IP
addresses so you cannot differentiate between malicious and legitimate
packets.

Regards,

Pars



> Regards
>
> Qiu Ying
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Pars Mutaf
> *Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2011 7:07 PM
> *To:* mext@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks
>
>
>
> Some details that may not be obvious:
>
> The victim consumes energy for:
>
> - Receiving the messages (continuously waking up from sleep mode)
> - Processing them and preparing reply packets (L2 and L3)
> - Sending replies (L2 ACKs and upper layer replies e.g. SIP or TCP replies)
>
> Sending replies especially consumes more energy. It was shown that in
> 802.11 sending 1 bit over the air consumes as much as executing 1,000 CPU
> instructions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pars
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if solutions to energy consumption attacks on battery
> powered mobile hosts would be of interest to IETF Mobile IPv6 community.
>
> The attack consists of sending frequent request packets e.g. SIP INVITE or
> TCP SYN to a victim's home address.
>
> For example, experiments showed that the battery of a mobile phone with
> 802.11 access can be remotely consumed in 3 hours (full battery). Attacks on
> phones using an outdoor technology would result in more energy consumption
> because of the longer distance to the base station.
>
> The victim becomes unusable.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pars
>
>
>  Institute for Infocomm Research disclaimer: "This email is confidential
> and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete
> it and notify us immediately. Please do not copy or use it for any purpose,
> or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you."
>

[MEXT] Energy consumption attacks Pars Mutaf
Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks Pars Mutaf
Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks QIU Ying
Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks Julien Laganier
Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks Pars Mutaf
Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks Pars Mutaf
Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks Pars Mutaf