Measuring and Mitigating the Risk of IP Reuse on Public Clouds
April 11, 2022 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐ IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Eric Pauley, Ryan Sheatsley, Blaine Hoak, Quinn Burke, Yohan Beugin, Patrick McDaniel
arXiv ID
2204.05122
Category
cs.CR: Cryptography & Security
Citations
20
Venue
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
Public clouds provide scalable and cost-efficient computing through resource sharing. However, moving from traditional on-premises service management to clouds introduces new challenges; failure to correctly provision, maintain, or decommission elastic services can lead to functional failure and vulnerability to attack. In this paper, we explore a broad class of attacks on clouds which we refer to as cloud squatting. In a cloud squatting attack, an adversary allocates resources in the cloud (e.g., IP addresses) and thereafter leverages latent configuration to exploit prior tenants. To measure and categorize cloud squatting we deployed a custom Internet telescope within the Amazon Web Services us-east-1 region. Using this apparatus, we deployed over 3 million servers receiving 1.5 million unique IP addresses (56% of the available pool) over 101 days beginning in March of 2021. We identified 4 classes of cloud services, 7 classes of third-party services, and DNS as sources of exploitable latent configurations. We discovered that exploitable configurations were both common and in many cases extremely dangerous; we received over 5 million cloud messages, many containing sensitive data such as financial transactions, GPS location, and PII. Within the 7 classes of third-party services, we identified dozens of exploitable software systems spanning hundreds of servers (e.g., databases, caches, mobile applications, and web services). Lastly, we identified 5446 exploitable domains spanning 231 eTLDs-including 105 in the top 10,000 and 23 in the top 1000 popular domains. Through tenant disclosures we have identified several root causes, including (a) a lack of organizational controls, (b) poor service hygiene, and (c) failure to follow best practices. We conclude with a discussion of the space of possible mitigations and describe the mitigations to be deployed by Amazon in response to this study.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
๐ Similar Papers
In the same crypt โ Cryptography & Security
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Models
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
The Limitations of Deep Learning in Adversarial Settings
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Practical Black-Box Attacks against Machine Learning
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Distillation as a Defense to Adversarial Perturbations against Deep Neural Networks
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models
Died the same way โ ๐ป Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted