A Methodology for Evaluating Wireless Network Security Protocols David Rager Kandaraj Piamrat.
-
Upload
alicia-peters -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of A Methodology for Evaluating Wireless Network Security Protocols David Rager Kandaraj Piamrat.
A Methodology for A Methodology for Evaluating Wireless Evaluating Wireless Network Security Network Security
Protocols Protocols
David RagerDavid Rager
Kandaraj PiamratKandaraj Piamrat
OutlineOutline
► IntroductionIntroduction►Explanation of TermsExplanation of Terms►Evaluation MethodologyEvaluation Methodology►Analysis of WEP, WPA, and RSNAnalysis of WEP, WPA, and RSN►Graphical ResultsGraphical Results►Conclusion Conclusion
IntroductionIntroduction
►Difference properties of wireless Difference properties of wireless network comparing to wired networknetwork comparing to wired network
►Two lines of defense in wireless Two lines of defense in wireless network securitynetwork security Preventive approachPreventive approach Intrusion Detection and Response Intrusion Detection and Response
approachapproach
►WEP WPA RSNWEP WPA RSN
Explanation of TermsExplanation of Terms
►WEP – Wired Equivalent Protocol WEP – Wired Equivalent Protocol
(attempt #1)(attempt #1)►WPA – Wi-Fi Protected Access (attempt #2)WPA – Wi-Fi Protected Access (attempt #2)►RSN – Robust Secure Network (attempt #3)RSN – Robust Secure Network (attempt #3)►EAP – Extensible Authentication Protocol►TKIP – Temporal Key Integrity Protocol ►AES – Advanced Encryption Standard
Explanation of Terms (cont.)Explanation of Terms (cont.)
►CCMP – Counter mode with Cipher block Chaining Message authentication code Protocol
►ICV – Integrity Check Value►MIC – Message Integrity Check ►RADIUS – Remote Authentication Dial
in User Service►IV – Initialization Vector
Evaluation MethodologyEvaluation Methodology
►Authentication CapabilityAuthentication Capability►Encryption StrengthEncryption Strength► Integrity GuaranteesIntegrity Guarantees►Prevention of AttacksPrevention of Attacks► Identity ProtectionIdentity Protection►Ease and Cost of ImplementationEase and Cost of Implementation►Power ConsumptionPower Consumption►Novel IdeasNovel Ideas
Authentication capabilityAuthentication capability
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Type of authentication
Key with challenge response
Key with challenge
response and MAC address
Credentials based
Number of authentication
servers
One Three (# faults permitted) * 3
+ 1
Use of new authentication mechanisms
None - Use of EAP (802.11X)[tech-faq]
Known MITM attacks
One or more - None
Encryption StrengthEncryption Strength
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Key type Static key - Dynamic key
Cipher key type RC4 - AES
Cipher key length 40 or 104 bit encryption
128 bit encryption 128 bit encryption + 64 bit
authentication
Key lifetime 24-bit IV - 48-bit IV
Time used to crack Few hours Few days Centuries
Encrypted packet needed to crack
Few millions - Few trillions
Can be recovered by cryptanalysis
Yes - No
Key management used
None Static EAP
Integrity GuaranteesIntegrity Guarantees
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Integrity of message header
None Michael CCM
Integrity of the data
CRC-32 Michael CCM
Prevention of AttacksPrevention of Attacks
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Replay attack prevention
None - IV sequence , Per-packet key
mixing
DoS cookie No - Yes
Number of known attacks prevented
None Some of them All of them
Minimizes damage No - Yes
Identity ProtectionIdentity Protection
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Group identity revealed to
Entire network All parties Specific parties
Specific identity revealed to
Entire network All parties Specific parties
Ease and Cost of Ease and Cost of ImplementationImplementation
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Computation cost High Medium Low
Incremental installation No - Yes
Number of messages exchanged
300 30 3
Number of actors involved
Many actors - Few actors
Packet key Mixing function Concatenated No need
Additional server hardware
Yes - No
Additional network infrastructure
Yes - No
Number of gates in client device
High - Low
Lines of Code High - Low
Power ConsumptionPower Consumption
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Clients use low power
No - Yes
Client can detect attacks and enter low-
power mode
No - Yes
Novel IdeasNovel Ideas
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Determines physical location
No - Yes
Analysis of WEPAnalysis of WEP
Authentication capabilityAuthentication capability
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Type of authentication
Key with challenge response
Key with challenge
response and MAC address
Credentials based
Number of authentication
servers
One Three (# faults permitted) * 3 + 1
Use of new authentication mechanisms
None - Use of EAP (802.11X)[tech-
faq]
Known MITM attacks
One or more - None
Encryption StrengthEncryption Strength
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Key type Static key - Dynamic key
Cipher key type RC4 - AES
Cipher key length 40 or 104 bit encryption
128 bit encryption 128 bit encryption + 64 bit authentication
Key lifetime 24-bit IV - 48-bit IV
Time used to crack Few hours Few days Centuries
Encrypted packet needed to crack
Few millions - Few trillions
Can be recovered by cryptanalysis
Yes - No
Key management used
None Static EAP
Integrity GuaranteesIntegrity Guarantees
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Integrity of message header
None Michael CCM
Integrity of the data
CRC-32 Michael CCM
Prevention of AttacksPrevention of Attacks
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Replay attack prevention
None - IV sequence , Per-packet key mixing
DoS cookie No - Yes
Number of known attacks prevented
None Some of them All of them
Identity ProtectionIdentity Protection
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Group identity revealed to
Entire network All parties Specific parties
Specific identity revealed to
Entire network All parties Specific parties
Ease and Cost of Ease and Cost of ImplementationImplementation
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Computation cost High Medium Low
Incremental installation No - Yes
Number of messages exchanged
300 30 3
Number of actors involved
Many actors - Few actors
Packet key Mixing function Concatenated No need
Additional server hardware
Yes - No
Additional network infrastructure
Yes - No
Number of gates in client device
High - Low
Lines of Code High - Low
Power ConsumptionPower Consumption
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Clients use low power
No - Yes
Client can detect attacks and enter low-power mode
No - Yes
Novel IdeasNovel Ideas
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Determines physical location
No - Yes
Scores of WEPScores of WEP
► Authentication Capability (0/8)Authentication Capability (0/8)► Encryption Strength (0/16)Encryption Strength (0/16)► Integrity Guarantees (0/4)Integrity Guarantees (0/4)► Prevention of Attacks (0/6)Prevention of Attacks (0/6)► Identity Protection (4/4)Identity Protection (4/4)► Ease and Cost of Implementation (17/18)Ease and Cost of Implementation (17/18)► Power Consumption (2/4)Power Consumption (2/4)► Novel Ideas (0/2)Novel Ideas (0/2)
Total Score = 2.44/8 = Total Score = 2.44/8 = 30.56 30.56 %%
Analysis of WPAAnalysis of WPA
Authentication capabilityAuthentication capability
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Type of authentication
Key with challenge response
Key with challenge
response and MAC address
Credentials based
Number of authentication
servers
One Three (# faults permitted) * 3 + 1
Use of new authentication mechanisms
None - Use of EAP (802.11X)[tech-
faq]
Known MITM attacks
One or more - None
Encryption StrengthEncryption Strength
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Key type Static key - Dynamic key
Cipher key type RC4 - AES
Cipher key length 40 or 104 bit encryption
128 bit encryption 128 bit encryption + 64 bit authentication
Key lifetime 24-bit IV - 48-bit IV
Time used to crack Few hours Few days Centuries
Encrypted packet needed to crack
Few millions - Few trillions
Can be recovered by cryptanalysis
Yes - No
Key management used
None Static EAP
Integrity GuaranteesIntegrity Guarantees
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Integrity of message header
None Michael CCM
Integrity of the data
CRC-32 Michael CCM
Prevention of AttacksPrevention of Attacks
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Replay attack prevention
None - IV sequence , Per-packet key mixing
DoS cookie No - Yes
Number of known attacks prevented
None Some of them All of them
Identity ProtectionIdentity Protection
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Group identity revealed to
Entire network All parties Specific parties
Specific identity revealed to
Entire network All parties Specific parties
Ease and Cost of Ease and Cost of ImplementationImplementation
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Computation cost High Medium Low
Incremental installation No - Yes
Number of messages exchanged
300 30 3
Number of actors involved
Many actors - Few actors
Packet key Mixing function Concatenated No need
Additional server hardware
Yes - No
Additional network infrastructure
Yes - No
Number of gates in client device
High - Low
Lines of Code High - Low
Power ConsumptionPower Consumption
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Clients use low power
No - Yes
Client can detect attacks and enter low-power mode
No - Yes
Novel IdeasNovel Ideas
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Determines physical location
No - Yes
Scores of WPAScores of WPA
► Authentication Capability (6/8)Authentication Capability (6/8)► Encryption Strength (14/16)Encryption Strength (14/16)► Integrity Guarantees (2/4)Integrity Guarantees (2/4)► Prevention of Attacks (4/6)Prevention of Attacks (4/6)► Identity Protection (0/4)Identity Protection (0/4)► Ease and Cost of Implementation (5/18)Ease and Cost of Implementation (5/18)► Power Consumption (1/4)Power Consumption (1/4)► Novel Ideas (0/2)Novel Ideas (0/2)
Total Score = 3.32/8 = Total Score = 3.32/8 = 41.4941.49 % %
Analysis of RSNAnalysis of RSN
Authentication capabilityAuthentication capability
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Type of authentication
Key with challenge response
Key with challenge response and MAC address
Credentials based
Number of authentication
servers
One Three (# faults permitted) * 3 + 1
Use of new authentication mechanisms
None - Use of EAP (802.11X)[tech-
faq]
Known MITM attacks
One or more - None
Encryption StrengthEncryption Strength
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Key type Static key - Dynamic key
Cipher key type RC4 - AES
Cipher key length 40 or 104 bit encryption
128 bit encryption 128 bit encryption + 64 bit authentication
Key lifetime 24-bit IV - 48-bit IV
Time used to crack Few hours Few days Centuries
Encrypted packet needed to crack
Few millions - Few trillions
Can be recovered by cryptanalysis
Yes - No
Key management used
None Static EAP
Integrity GuaranteesIntegrity Guarantees
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Integrity of message header
None Michael CCM
Integrity of the data
CRC-32 Michael CCM
Prevention of AttacksPrevention of Attacks
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Replay attack prevention
None - IV sequence , Per-packet key mixing
DoS cookie No - Yes
Number of known attacks prevented
None Some of them All of them
Identity ProtectionIdentity Protection
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Group identity revealed to
Entire network All parties Specific parties
Specific identity revealed to
Entire network All parties Specific parties
Ease and Cost of Ease and Cost of ImplementationImplementation
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Computation cost High Medium Low
Incremental installation No - Yes
Number of messages exchanged
300 30 3
Number of actors involved
Many actors - Few actors
Packet key Mixing function Concatenated No need
Additional server hardware
Yes - No
Additional network infrastructure
Yes - No
Number of gates in client device
High - Low
Lines of Code High - Low
Power ConsumptionPower Consumption
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Clients use low power
No - Yes
Client can detect attacks and enter low-power mode
No - Yes
Novel IdeasNovel Ideas
Consideration 0(bad) 1(fair) 2(good)
Determines physical location
No - Yes
Scores of RSNScores of RSN
► Authentication Capability (6/8)Authentication Capability (6/8)► Encryption Strength (15/16)Encryption Strength (15/16)► Integrity Guarantees (4/4)Integrity Guarantees (4/4)► Prevention of Attacks (4/6)Prevention of Attacks (4/6)► Identity Protection (0/4)Identity Protection (0/4)► Ease and Cost of Implementation (4/18)Ease and Cost of Implementation (4/18)► Power Consumption (2/4)Power Consumption (2/4)► Novel Ideas (0/2)Novel Ideas (0/2)
Total Score = 4.08/8 = Total Score = 4.08/8 = 50.9550.95 % %
Graphical ResultsGraphical Results
Comparison of categorical Comparison of categorical performanceperformance
Comparison of Categorical Performance
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Authentication Capability
Encryption Strength
Integrity Guarantees
Prevention of Attacks
Identity Protection
Ease and Cost of Implementation
Power Consumption
Novel Ideas
Pe
rfo
rma
nc
e C
ate
go
ry
% of Points
WEP
WPA
RSN
Main contributors to each Main contributors to each protocol’s successprotocol’s success
Main Contributors to Each Protocol's Success
WEP WPA RSN
Protocol
% o
f P
oin
ts
Novel Ideas
Power Consumption
Ease and Cost ofImplementation
Identity Protection
Prevention of Attacks
Integrity Guarantees
Encryption Strength
Authentication Capability
ConclusionConclusion
►We have defined specific metrics for We have defined specific metrics for protocol evaluation.protocol evaluation.
►We evaluate different wireless security We evaluate different wireless security protocol based on these metrics.protocol based on these metrics.
►Questions ?Questions ?