Extending the requirements for traceability

January 12th, 2010 at 14:37 UTC by Richard Clayton

A large chunk of my 2005 PhD thesis explained how “traceability” works; how we can attempt to establish “who did that?” on the Internet.

The basics are that you record an IP address and a timestamp; use the Regional Internet Registry records (RIPE, ARIN etc) to determine which ISP has been allocated the IP address; and then ask the ISP to use their internal records to determine which customer account was allocated the IP address at the relevant instant. All very simple in concept, but hung about — as the thesis explained — by considerable caveats as to whether the simple assumptions involved are actually true in a particular case.

One of the caveats concerned the use of Network Address Translation (NAT), whereby the IP addresses used by internal machines are mapped back and forth to external IP addresses that are visible on the global Internet. The most familiar NAT arrangement is that used by a great many home broadband users, who have one externally facing IP address, yet run multiple machines within the household.

Companies also use NAT. If they own sufficient IP addresses they may map one-to-one between internal and external addresses (usually for security reasons), or they may only have 4 or 8 external IP addresses, and will use some or all of them in parallel for dozens of internal machines.

Where NAT is in use, as my thesis explained, traceability becomes problematic because it is rare for the NAT equipment to generate logs to record the internal/external mapping, and even rarer for those logs to be preserved for any length of time. Without these logs, it is impossible to work out which internal user was responsible for the event being traced. However, in practice, all is not lost because law enforcement is usually able to use other clues to tell them which member of the household, or which employee, they wish to interview first.

Treating NAT with this degree of equanimity is no longer possible, and that’s because of the way in which the mobile telephone companies are providing Internet access.

The shortage of IPv4 addresses has meant that the mobile telcos have not been able to obtain huge blocks of address space to dish out one IP address per connected customer — the way in which ISPs have always worked. Instead, they are using relatively small address blocks and a NAT system, so that the same IP address is being simultaneously used by a large number of customers; often hundreds at a time.

This means that the only way in which they can offer a traceability service is if they are provided with an IP address and a timestamp AND ALSO with the TCP (or UDP) source port number. Without that source port value, the mobile firm can only narrow down the account being used to the extent that it must be one out of several hundred — and since those several hundred will have nothing in common, apart from their choice of phone company, law enforcement (or anyone else who cares) will be unable to go much further.

So, the lesson here is clear — if you are creating logs of activity for security purposes — because you might want to use the information to track someone down — then you must record not only the IP address, but also the source port number.

This will soon be a necessity not just for connections from mobile companies, but for many other Internet access providers as well — because of the expected rise of “Carrier Grade NAT” (or “Large Scale NAT“), as one way of staving off the advent of the different sort of world we will enter when we “run out” of IPv4 addresses — sometime in the next two or three years.

There is currently an “Internet Draft” (a document that might become an RFC one day) that sets out a number of other issues which arise when addresses are routinely shared … though the authors appear unaware that this isn’t something to worry about in 2011, but something that has already been happening for some time, and at considerable “scale”.

In my next article, I’ll discuss what this massive use of NAT means in practice when traceability leads you to a mobile phone user.

Entry filed under: Legal issues, Security engineering

1 comment Add your own

  • 1. rapid  |  December 3rd, 2013 at 17:50 UTC

    whilst this article is 3 years old; it is still relevant. Hutchison Three shares 66,000 handset users through each NAT’d address and (they claim) not to retain any information at all that can trace back to a customer or individual handset. Not even when we can specify time, date, public IP address and source port information.

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Calendar

January 2010
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031