Search this website:


Conditions Change. Adapt Faster. Learn more > Conditions Change. Adapt Faster. Learn more >

IPv6 Presents a Security Paradox for the Network

By Danny McPherson is Chief Security Officer (CSO) for Verisign.

 

Date: 3 Dec 2012

The capabilities IPv6 provides will enhance online security, but the shift to the new Internet address scheme may also present risks if not properly managed. Previously, Internet security was largely an after-thought for the early Internet, as its primary purpose was to facilitate open, end-to-end, any-to-any communications and information exchange for bridging and accelerating research efforts. Today, we have a much more complex online ecosystem that spans billions of users across the globe and serves not only as an engine for e-commerce, but as an engine for all commerce.

 

The Internet protocol suite has become the de facto standard for global Internet services and consumers, but it also serves as a near ubiquitous substrate for running critical network infrastructure and business critical applications. Transportation, financial systems, emergency services, utilities, and government applications are just a few examples of services that need absolute availability and robust security. But having robust security is only one part of the solution.

 

At the micro level, the migration of personally identifiable information and proprietary intellectual property online has influenced IPv6 protocol architects to bake additional security into the stack. For example, IPSec is mandatory to implement in IPv6 compliant protocol stacks, while secure neighbour discovery capabilities, privacy addresses, and unique local addresses (ULA) all provide additional security enhancements. While these additional security measures are good for end users, they can present some real challenges for network administrators. For example, one of the biggest - but arguably easiest-to-remedy - pitfalls is that today most networking equipment and end systems are shipped with IPv6 enabled by default. This is ideal to foster IPv6 deployment, but puts the onus on network administrators to have a plan in place to proactively manage IPv6, as leaving IPv6 turned on by default can create security holes if not properly managed.

 

In an Internet environment with no bad actors it is perfectly reasonable and even requisite to enable IPv6 by default in order to rapidly deploy. However, if network managers aren’t ready for IPv6 in their operating environments, meaning full functional parity from a security and operational perspective, then they really need to disable IPv6 entirely and deploy new devices and hardware in a very calculated manner.

 

With IPv6 usage on the rise, it is critical that networks, equipment, and systems are implemented appropriately to help securely enable its full potential and prevent the creation of inadvertent security issues. Some such issues that have been observed include IPv6 being used to compromise systems “under the radar” of IPv4-only sensors and  IPv6 being expressly enabled by miscreants in order to exfiltrate data, facilitate malware propagation, and enable botnet C&C infrastructure and distributed denial of service attacks.

Other considerations for securely implementing IPv6 include the following:

 

Translating IPv4 to IPv6 (because it will take some time before all systems are running on v6, and some may never run IPv6) itself can be a pitfall. This is because IPv4 and IPv6 are not “bits on the wire” compatible; translating traffic from IPv4 to IPv6 will inevitably result in middle boxes mediating transactions as packets move through the network. Like a mail sorter at a post office transfer facility, transferring payloads from IPv4 to IPv6 packets creates an opportunity for a poor implementation or a bad actor to exploit a potential vulnerability.

Unlike IPv4′s variable header size, IPv6 has a 40-byte fixed header, but introduces add-on “extension headers” that may be chained and require complex processing by various systems that handle the packet. These chains could overwhelm firewalls and security gateways. They could even introduce router forwarding performance degradation and be a potential vector for distributed denial of service and other attacks.

 

During a long period of “transitional coexistence,” IPv6 adoption may require large network address translation protocol translation (NAT-PT) devices, end system or intermediate translation devices and protocols. But these devices complicate the network and could break useful functions like geo-location or tools that security administrators use to identify and mitigate malicious network behaviours, including blacklists (e.g., spam and phishing) and traffic filters.

Because of IPv6′s sparse address space, active scanning of infrastructure for unauthorized or vulnerable systems is much more complex than with IPv4. These capabilities need to be augmented with network access controls and active measurement systems that trigger vulnerability scanning.



ShareThis

« Previous article

Next article »

Tags:

More Exclusive News

The Holy Grail of datacentre TCO: understanding the cost of delivering a service

6 Jul 2015
By Zahl Limbuwala, CEO, Romonet.

Hackers are using DDoS to profile your network

6 Jul 2015
By Dave Larson, CTO of Corero Network Security.

Stop being an IT company; do what you’re good at

6 Jul 2015
By Simon Osman, CEO of iFollowOffice.

Managing through a website outage and coming out on top

6 Jul 2015
By John Miecielica, Director of Product Management for TeamQuest Corporation. 

It's never too late to review your DR plan

6 Jul 2015
By Steve Harcourt, Senior Information Security Consultant of Redstor.

SDN: definitions, benefits, and misconceptions

6 Jul 2015
By Brian Levy, CTO EMEA, Brocade.

Clear outlooks from the Cloud - Giving CFOs assured enterprise visibility

29 Jun 2015
By Mario Spanicciati, Executive Vice President of BlackLine, a provider of automated financial processing software and solutions. He is also the firm’s Executive Director EMEA. 

Not all storage is created equal

29 Jun 2015
By Gavin McLaughlin VP Strategy and Communications.

The keys to preserving information security and risk management

29 Jun 2015
By Chris Sigley, General Manager of Redstor.

Making finance lead the way

29 Jun 2015
By Zahl Limbuwala, CEO, Romonet.

How to avoid ransomware attacks

29 Jun 2015
By Steve Harcourt, Senior Information Security Consultant, Redstor.

Leveraging the Internet of Things to create new opportunities for Real Time Communications

29 Jun 2015
By Federico Descalzo, Italtel Vice President and Chief Marketing Technology Officer.

Key considerations when moving data backup from tape to disk with data deduplication

22 Jun 2015
For decades, IT organisations have performed nightly backup of all their data to tape, which has been used primarily due to low cost. The retention of most organisations is typically 12 weeks onsit...

How do you avoid cloud evaporation?

22 Jun 2015
Written by William Rabie, Head of Cloud, EMEA & APAC, iland.

Content providers are winning - why not do the same?

22 Jun 2015
The latest blog from Willy Rietveld, TE Connectivity. (W.Rietveld@TE.com)

Recruitment

Latest IT jobs from leading companies.

 

Click here for full listings»