Anja Feldmann

Apoorv Shukla, Kevin Hudemann, Zsolt Vági et al.

Is it possible to patch software bugs in P4 programs without human involvement? We show that this is partially possible in many cases due to advances in software testing and the structure of P4 programs. Our insight is that runtime verification can detect bugs, even those that are not detected at compile-time, with machine learning-guided fuzzing. This enables a more automated and real-time localization of bugs in P4 programs using software testing techniques like Tarantula. Once the bug in a P4 program is localized, the faulty code can be patched due to the programmable nature of P4. In addition, platform-dependent bugs can be detected. From P4_14 to P4_16 (latest version), our observation is that as the programmable blocks increase, the patchability of P4 programs increases accordingly. To this end, we design, develop, and evaluate P6 that (a) detects, (b) localizes, and (c) patches bugs in P4 programs with minimal human interaction. P6 tests P4 switch non-intrusively, i.e., requires no modification to the P4 program for detecting and localizing bugs. We used a P6 prototype to detect and patch seven existing bugs in eight publicly available P4 application programs deployed on two different switch platforms: behavioral model (bmv2) and Tofino. Our evaluation shows that P6 significantly outperforms bug detection baselines while generating fewer packets and patches bugs in P4 programs such as switch.p4 without triggering any regressions.

Tobias Fiebig, Franziska Lichtblau, Florian Streibelt et al.

Today's Internet utilizes a multitude of different protocols. While some of these protocols were first implemented and used and later documented, other were first specified and then implemented. Regardless of how protocols came to be, their definitions can contain traps that lead to insecure implementations or deployments. A classical example is insufficiently strict authentication requirements in a protocol specification. The resulting Misconfigurations, i.e., not enabling strong authentication, are common root causes for Internet security incidents. Indeed, Internet protocols have been commonly designed without security in mind which leads to a multitude of misconfiguration traps. While this is slowly changing, to strict security considerations can have a similarly bad effect. Due to complex implementations and insufficient documentation, security features may remain unused, leaving deployments vulnerable. In this paper we provide a systematization of the security traps found in common Internet protocols. By separating protocols in four classes we identify major factors that lead to common security traps. These insights together with observations about end-user centric usability and security by default are then used to derive recommendations for improving existing and designing new protocols---without such security sensitive traps for operators, implementors and users.