Open Stack

Hi John,

Sorry for the delayed response as i was on vacation with no internet
connection (you don't know how much
you miss it until you don't have it).

The work in terms of coding is pretty much done for the reference
implementation.
We initially tried to push it as a security group extension but there is a
strong objection
to change the security group API, so FWaaS can be next best candidate if we
can find support
or other uses of this (like your use case)
(Of course that work will need to be added for supporting the connection
limit, we tried
to  tackle brute force prevention which i personally see as a more
concerning attack vector internally)

Out of curiosity can you describe scenarios of DDoS attacking from an
internal VM ?
I would assume most DDoS will happen from external traffic or a combine
attack from various internal
VM's (and then this might no longer fit as a QoS)

But if you feel this belongs in QoS this can certainly be added on top of
the framework as Miguel suggested.

Thanks
Gal.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:39 AM, John Joyce (joycej) <joycej at cisco.com>
wrote:

>  Gal:
>
>       I had seen the brute force blueprint and noticed how close the use
> case was.  Can you tell me the current status of the work?  Do you feel
> confident it can get into Liberty?  Ideally, we think this fits better with
> QoS.  Also I don’t think of it as providing FWaaS as we see that all VMs
> would be protected by this when enabled, but maybe that is just
> terminology.   We think these protections are critical so we are more
> concerned with having the ability to protect against these cases than the
> specific API or service it falls under.  Yes we would be interested in
> working together to get this pushed through.
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Gal Sagie [mailto:gal.sagie at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:45 PM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Cc:* lionel.zerbib at huawei.com; Derek Chamorro (dechamor); Eran Gampel
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] [QOS] Request for Additional QoS
> capabilities
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> We were trying to push a very similar spec to enhance the security group
> API, we covered both DDoS case
>
> and another use case for brute force prevention (We did a research to
> identify common protocols login behaviour
>
> in order to identify brute force attacks using iptables) and even some UI
> work
>
>
>
> You can view the specs and implementations here:
>
> 1) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/184243/
>
> 2) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154535/
>
> 3) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/151247/
>
> 4) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/161207/
>
>
>
> The spec didn't got approved as there is a strong opinion to keep the
> security group API compatible with Amazon.
>
> I think this and your request fits much more into the FWaaS and if this is
> something you would like to work together on and push
>
> i can help and align the above code to use FWaaS.
>
>
>
> Feel free to contact me if you have any question
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Gal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:58 PM, John Joyce (joycej) <joycej at cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone:
>
>       I would like to test the waters on some new functionality we think
> is needed to protect OpenStack deployments from some overload situations
> due to an excessive user or DDOS scenario.   We wrote this up in the style
> of an RFE.   Please let us know your thoughts and we can proceed with a
> formal RFE with more detail if there are no concerns raised.
>
>
>
>
>
> *What is being requested*
>
> This request is to extend the QOS APIs to include the ability to provide
> connection rate limiting
>
> *Why is it being requested*
>
> There are many scenarios where a VM may be intentionally malicious or
> become harmful to the network due to its rate of initializing TCP
> connections.   The reverse direction of a VM being attacked with an
> excessive amount of TCP connection requests either intentionally or due to
> overload is also problematic.
>
> *Implementation Choices
>
>    There might be a number of ways to implement this,  but one of the
> easiest would appear to be to extend the APIs being developed under:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187513/. An additional rule type
> “connections per-second” could be added.
>
> The dataplane implementation itself may be realized with netfilter and
> conntrack.
>
> *Alternatives
>
> It would be possible to extend the security groups in a similar fashion,
> but due to the addition of rate limiting, QoS seems a more nature fit.
>
> *Who needs it*
>
> Cloud operators have experienced this issue in real deployments in a
> number of cases.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best Regards ,
>
> The G.
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>


-- 
Best Regards ,

The G.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150623/bb1a0fce/attachment.html>