RPKI has software vulnerabilities, inconsistent specifications, and operational challenges making it an attractive target for attackers.
53 vulnerabilities were found in RPKI software packages, including persistent DoS, authentication bypass, and remote-code-execution attacks.
Supply chain attacks could embed backdoors in open source RPKI components, making it difficult to keep software patched.
Lack of automation tools makes misconfigurations possible, hindering the protocol's benefits.
The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) protocol, designed to fix problems caused by the Border Gateway Protocol's (BGP) weaknesses, has its own set of issues. According to a pre-press paper from German researchers Haya Schulmann and Niklas Vogel of Germany's National Research Center for Applied Cybersecurity and Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, RPKI has "software vulnerabilities, inconsistent specifications, and operational challenges" that make it an attractive target for attackers.
RPKI was introduced as a solution to the security concerns of BGP, which is responsible for managing the routes that traffic can traverse across the internet. The newer protocol theoretically fixes this by adding Route Origin Validation (ROV) and Route Origin Authorization (ROA), techniques that allow network operators to verify that advertised routes are authentic and represent accurate BGP announcements. However, the researchers found that RPKI is far from being fully mature.
The paper highlights at least 53 vulnerabilities in RPKI software packages, including persistent Denial of Service (DoS), authentication bypass, cache poisoning, and remote-code-execution attacks. While many of these vulnerabilities were swiftly fixed, they raise concerns about the resilience of implementations and the potential existence of other zero-day vulnerabilities.
Furthermore, the researchers worry that supply chain attacks could embed backdoors in open source RPKI components, making it difficult for operators to keep their software patched. They also fear that lack of automation tools means misconfigurations are possible, which can hinder the protocol's benefits – providing verifiable information about routes available.
The authors suggest using their paper as a To-Do list for those who work on RPKI, emphasizing the need for improved stability and addressing operational challenges. The roadmap of the White House to enhance internet routing security is seen as a huge leap for RPKI, but also for internet routing to truly mature and meet the expectations of security, reliability, and scalability.
The implications of this are significant, as RPKI plays a crucial role in ensuring the integrity of BGP. If RPKI's weaknesses are not addressed, it could lead to further attacks on the internet infrastructure, potentially compromising the stability and security of critical networks.
In conclusion, the researchers' findings highlight the need for continued improvement and refinement of RPKI. As the internet continues to evolve, it is essential that protocols like RPKI receive ongoing attention and investment to ensure they remain secure and effective in addressing the complex threats facing the global network.
