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:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:45 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Cc: [email protected]; 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)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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:
[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe<http://[email protected]?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: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
