Attacks on the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)

Attacks on CoAP Internet-of-Things (IoT) deployments valuing security and privacy, need to use a security protocol such as DTLS, TLS, or OSCORE to protect CoAP. This is especially true for deployments of actuators where attacks often (but not always) have serious consequences. The attacks described in this section are made under the assumption that CoAP is already protected with a security protocol such as DTLS, TLS, or OSCORE, as an attacker otherwise can easily forge false requests and responses.

The Blocking Attack An on-path attacker can block the delivery of any number of requests or responses. The attack can also be performed by an attacker jamming the lower layer radio protocol. This is true even if a security protocol like DTLS, TLS, or OSCORE is used. Encryption makes selective blocking of messages harder, but not impossible or even infeasible. With DTLS and TLS, proxies can read the complete CoAP message, and with OSCORE, the CoAP header and several CoAP options are not encrypted. In all three security protocols, the IP-addresses, ports, and CoAP message lengths are available to all on-path attackers, which may be enough to determine the server, resource, and command. The blocking attack is illustrated in Figures and .

Blocking a response | Code: 0.03 (PUT) | | PUT | Token: 0x47 | | | Uri-Path: lock | | | Payload: 1 (Lock) | | | | X<-----+ Code: 2.04 (Changed) | | 2.04 | Token: 0x47 | | | ]]> While blocking requests to, or responses from, a sensor is just a denial-of-service attack, blocking a request to, or a response from, an actuator results in the client losing information about the server's status. If the actuator e.g., is a lock (door, car, etc.), the attack results in the client not knowing (except by using out-of-band information) whether the lock is unlocked or locked, just like the observer in the famous cat thought experiment. Due to the nature of the attack, the client cannot distinguish the attack from connectivity problems, offline servers, or unexpected behavior from middle boxes such as NATs and firewalls. Remedy: Any IoT deployment of actuators where synchronized state is important need to use confirmable messages and the client need to take appropriate actions when a response is not received and it therefore loses information about the server's status.

The Request Delay Attack An on-path attacker may not only block packets, but can also delay the delivery of any packet (request or response) by a chosen amount of time. If CoAP is used over a reliable and ordered transport such as TCP with TLS or OSCORE (with TLS-like sequence number handling), no messages can be delivered before the delayed message. If CoAP is used over an unreliable and unordered transport such as UDP with DTLS or OSCORE, other messages can be delivered before the delayed message as long as the delayed packet is delivered inside the replay window. When CoAP is used over UDP, both DTLS and OSCORE allow out-of-order delivery and uses sequence numbers together with a replay window to protect against replay attacks against requests. The replay window has a default length of 64 in DTLS and 32 in OSCORE. The attacker can influence the replay window state by blocking and delaying packets. By first delaying a request, and then later, after delivery, blocking the response to the request, the client is not made aware of the delayed delivery except by the missing response. In general, the server has no way of knowing that the request was delayed and will therefore happily process the request. Note that delays can also happen for other reasons than a malicious attacker. If some wireless low-level protocol is used, the attack can also be performed by the attacker simultaneously recording what the client transmits while at the same time jamming the server. The request delay attack is illustrated in .

Delaying a request @ | Code: 0.03 (PUT) | PUT | | Token: 0x9c | | | Uri-Path: lock | | | Payload: 0 (Unlock) | | | .... .... | | | | @----->| Code: 0.03 (PUT) | | PUT | Token: 0x9c | | | Uri-Path: lock | | | Payload: 0 (Unlock) | | | | X<-----+ Code: 2.04 (Changed) | | 2.04 | Token: 0x9c | | | ]]> Where '@' means the attacker is storing and later forwarding the message (@ may alternatively be seen as a wormhole connecting two points in time). While an attacker delaying a request to a sensor is often not a security problem, an attacker delaying a request to an actuator performing an action is often a serious problem. A request to an actuator (for example a request to unlock a lock) is often only meant to be valid for a short time frame, and if the request does not reach the actuator during this short timeframe, the request should not be fulfilled. In the unlock example, if the client does not get any response and does not physically see the lock opening, the user is likely to walk away, calling the locksmith (or the IT-support). If a non-zero replay window is used (the default when CoAP is used over UDP), the attacker can let the client interact with the actuator before delivering the delayed request to the server (illustrated in ). In the lock example, the attacker may store the first "unlock" request for later use. The client will likely resend the request with the same token. If DTLS is used, the resent packet will have a different sequence number and the attacker can forward it. If OSCORE is used, resent packets will have the same sequence number and the attacker must block them all until the client sends a new message with a new sequence number (not shown in ). After a while when the client has locked the door again, the attacker can deliver the delayed "unlock" message to the door, a very serious attack.

Delaying request with reordering @ | Code: 0.03 (PUT) | PUT | | Token: 0x9c | | | Uri-Path: lock | | | Payload: 0 (Unlock) | | | +------------>| Code: 0.03 (PUT) | PUT | | Token: 0x9c | | | Uri-Path: lock | | | Payload: 0 (Unlock) | | | <-------------+ Code: 2.04 (Changed) | | 2.04 | Token: 0x9c | | | .... .... | | | +------------>| Code: 0.03 (PUT) | PUT | | Token: 0x7a | | | Uri-Path: lock | | | Payload: 1 (Lock) | | | <-------------+ Code: 2.04 (Changed) | | 2.04 | Token: 0x7a | | | | @----->| Code: 0.03 (PUT) | | PUT | Token: 0x9c | | | Uri-Path: lock | | | Payload: 0 (Unlock) | | | | X<-----+ Code: 2.04 (Changed) | | 2.04 | Token: 0x9c | | | ]]> While the second attack () can be mitigated by using a replay window of length zero, the first attack () cannot. A solution must enable the server to verify that the request was received within a certain time frame after it was sent or enable the server to securely determine an absolute point in time when the request is to be executed. This can be accomplished with either a challenge-response pattern, by exchanging timestamps between client and server, or by only allowing requests a short period after client authentication. Requiring a fresh client authentication (such as a new TLS/DTLS handshake or an EDHOC key exchange ) mitigates the problem, but requires larger messages and more processing than a dedicated solution. Security solutions based on exchanging timestamps require exactly synchronized time between client and server, and this may be hard to control with complications such as time zones and daylight saving. Wall clock time is not monotonic, may reveal that the endpoints will accept expired certificates, or reveal the endpoint's location. Use of non-monotonic clocks is problematic as the server will accept requests if the clock is moved backward and reject requests if the clock is moved forward. Even if the clocks are synchronized at one point in time, they may easily get out-of-sync and an attacker may even be able to affect the client or the server time in various ways such as setting up a fake NTP server, broadcasting false time signals to radio-controlled clocks, or exposing one of them to a strong gravity field. As soon as client falsely believes it is time synchronized with the server, delay attacks are possible. A challenge response mechanism where the server does not need to synchronize its time with the client is easier to analyze but require more roundtrips. The challenges, responses, and timestamps may be sent in a CoAP option or in the CoAP payload. Remedy: Any IoT deployment of actuators where freshness is important should use the mechanisms specified in unless another application specific challenge-response or timestamp mechanism is used.

The Response Delay and Mismatch Attack The following attack can be performed if CoAP is protected by a security protocol where the response is not bound to the request in any way except by the CoAP token. This would include most general security protocols, such as DTLS, TLS, and IPsec, but not OSCORE. CoAP uses a client generated token that the server echoes to match responses to request, but does not give any guidelines for the use of token with DTLS and TLS, except that the tokens currently "in use" SHOULD (not SHALL) be unique. In HTTPS, this type of binding is always assured by the ordered and reliable delivery, as well as mandating that the server sends responses in the same order that the requests were received. The attacker performs the attack by delaying delivery of a response until the client sends a request with the same token, the response will be accepted by the client as a valid response to the later request. If CoAP is used over a reliable and ordered transport such as TCP with TLS, no messages can be delivered before the delayed message. If CoAP is used over an unreliable and unordered transport such as UDP with DTLS, other messages can be delivered before the delayed message as long as the delayed packet is delivered inside the replay window. Note that mismatches can also happen for other reasons than a malicious attacker, e.g., delayed delivery or a server sending notifications to an uninterested client. The attack can be performed by an attacker on the wire, or an attacker simultaneously recording what the server transmits while at the same time jamming the client. As (D)TLS encrypts the Token, the attacker needs to predict when the Token is resused. How hard that is depends on the CoAP library, but some implementations are known to omit the Token as much as possible and others lets the application chose the Token. If the response is a "piggybacked response", the client may additionally check the Message ID and drop it on mismatch. That doesn't make the attack impossible, but lowers the probability. The response delay and mismatch attack is illustrated in .

Delaying and mismatching response to PUT | Code: 0.03 (PUT) | PUT | | Token: 0x77 | | | Uri-Path: lock | | | Payload: 0 (Unlock) | | | | @<-----+ Code: 2.04 (Changed) | | 2.04 | Token: 0x77 | | | .... .... | | | +----->X | Code: 0.03 (PUT) | PUT | | Token: 0x77 | | | Uri-Path: lock | | | Payload: 0 (Lock) | | | <------@ | Code: 2.04 (Changed) | 2.04 | | Token: 0x77 | | | ]]> If we once again take a lock as an example, the security consequences may be severe as the client receives a response message likely to be interpreted as confirmation of a locked door, while the received response message is in fact confirming an earlier unlock of the door. As the client is likely to leave the (believed to be locked) door unattended, the attacker may enter the home, enterprise, or car protected by the lock. The same attack may be performed on sensors. As illustrated in , an attacker may convince the client that the lock is locked, when it in fact is not. The "Unlock" request may be also be sent by another client authorized to control the lock.

The Request Fragment Rearrangement Attack These attack scenarios show that the Request Delay and Blocking Attacks can be used against block-wise transfers to cause unauthorized operations to be performed on the server, and responses to unauthorized operations to be mistaken for responses to authorized operations. The combination of these attacks is described as a separate attack because it makes the Request Delay Attack relevant to systems that are otherwise not time-dependent, which means that they could disregard the Request Delay Attack. This attack works even if the individual request/response pairs are encrypted, authenticated and protected against the Response Delay and Mismatch Attack, provided the attacker is on the network path and can correctly guess which operations the respective packages belong to. The attacks can be performed on any security protocol where the attacker can delay the delivery of a message unnoticed. This incluses DTLS, IPsec, and most OSCORE configurations. The attacks does not work on TCP with TLS or OSCORE (with TLS-like sequence number handling) as in these cases no messages can be delivered before the delayed message.

Completing an Operation with an Earlier Final Block In this scenario (illustrated in ), blocks from two operations on a POST-accepting resource are combined to make the server execute an action that was not intended by the authorized client. This works only if the client attempts a second operation after the first operation failed (due to what the attacker made appear like a network outage) within the replay window. The client does not receive a confirmation on the second operation either, but, by the time the client acts on it, the server has already executed the unauthorized action.

Completing an operation with an earlier final block POST "incarcerate" (Block1: 0, more to come) | | | <-------------+ 2.31 Continue (Block1: 0 received, send more) | | | +----->@ | POST "valjean" (Block1: 1, last block) | | | +----->X | All retransmissions dropped | | | (Client: Odd, but let's go on and promote Javert) | | | +-------------> POST "promote" (Block1: 0, more to come) | | | | X<-----+ 2.31 Continue (Block1: 0 received, send more) | | | | @------> POST "valjean" (Block1: 1, last block) | | | | X<-----+ 2.04 Valjean Promoted | | | ]]> Remedy: If a client starts new block-wise operations on a security context that has lost packets, it needs to label the fragments in such a way that the server will not mix them up. A mechanism to that effect is described as Request-Tag . Had it been in place in the example and used for body integrity protection, the client would have set the Request-Tag option in the "promote" request. Depending on the server's capabilities and setup, either of four outcomes could have occurred:

The server could have processed the reinjected POST "valjean" as belonging to the original "incarcerate" block; that's the expected case when the server can handle simultaneous block transfers.
The server could respond 5.03 Service Unavailable, including a Max-Age option indicating how long it prefers not to take any requests that force it to overwrite the state kept for the "incarcerate" request.
The server could decide to drop the state kept for the "incarcerate" request's state, and process the "promote" request. The reinjected POST "valjean" will then fail with 4.08 Request Entity incomplete, indicating that the server does not have the start of the operation any more.

Injecting a Withheld First Block If the first block of a request is withheld by the attacker for later use, it can be used to have the server process a different request body than intended by the client. Unlike in the previous scenario, it will return a response based on that body to the client. Again, a first operation (that would go like "Girl stole apple. What shall we do with her?" - "Set her free.") is aborted by the proxy, and a part of that operation is later used in a different operation to prime the server for responding leniently to another operation that would originally have been "Evil Queen poisoned apple. What shall we do with her?" - "Lock her up.". The attack is illustrated in .

Injecting a withheld first block @ | POST "Girl stole apple. Wh" | | | (Block1: 0, more to come) (Client: We'll try that one later again; for now, we have something more urgent:) | | | +-------------> POST "Evil Queen poisened apple. Wh" | | | (Block1: 0, more to come) | | | | @<-----+ 2.31 Continue (Block1: 0 received, send more) | | | | @------> POST "Girl stole apple. Wh" | | | (Block1: 0, more to come) | | | | X<-----+ 2.31 Continue (Block1: 0 received, send more) | | | <------@ | 2.31 Continue (Block1: 0 received, send more) | | | +-------------> POST "at shall we do with her?" | | | (Block1: 1, last block) | | | <-------------+ 2.05 "Set her free." | | | (Block1: 1 received and this is the result) ]]> The remedy described in works also for this case. Note that merely requiring that blocks of an operation should have incrementing sequence numbers would be insufficient to remedy this attack.

Attack difficulty The success of any fragment rearrangement attack has multiple prerequisites:

A client sends different block-wise requests that are only distinguished by their content. This is generally rare in typical CoRE applications, but can happen when the bodies of FETCH requests exceed the fragmentation threshold, or when SOAP patterns are emulated.
A client starts later block-wise operations after an earlier one has failed. This happens regularly as a consequence of operating in a low-power and lossy network: Losses can cause failed operation (especially when the network is unavailable for time exceeding the "few expected round-trips" they may be limited to per ), and the cost of reestablishing a security context.
The attacker needs to be able to determine which packets contain which fragments. This can be achieved by an on-path attacker by observing request timing, or simply by observing request sizes in the case when a body is split into precisely two blocks.

It is not a prerequisite that the resulting misassembled request body is syntactically correct: As the server erroneously expects the body to be integrity protected from an authorized source, it might be using a parser not suitable for untrusted input. Such a parser might crash the server in extreme cases, but might also produce a valid but incorrect response to the request the client associates the response with. Note that many constrained applications aim to minimize traffic and thus employ compact data formats; that compactness leaves little room for syntactically invalid messages. The attack is easier if the attacker has control over the request bodies (which would be the case when a trusted proxy validates the attacker's authorization to perform two given requests, and an attack on the path between the proxy and the server recombines the blocks to a semantically different request). Attacks of that shape can easily result in reassembled bodies chosen by the attacker, but no services are currently known that operate in this way. Summarizing, it is unlikely that an attacker can perform any of the fragment rearrangement attacks on any given system -- but given the diversity of applications built on CoAP, it is easily to imagine that single applications would be vulnerable. As block-wise transfer is a basic feature of CoAP and its details are sometimes hidden behind abstractions or proxies, application authors can not be expected to design their applications with these attacks in mind, and mitigation on the protocol level is prudent.

The Relay Attack Yet another type of attack can be performed in deployments where actuator actions are triggered automatically based on proximity and without any user interaction, e.g., a car (the client) constantly polling for the car key (the server) and unlocking both doors and engine as soon as the car key responds. An attacker (or pair of attackers) may simply relay the CoAP messages out-of-band, using for examples some other radio technology. By doing this, the actuator (i.e., the car) believes that the client is close by and performs actions based on that false assumption. The attack is illustrated in . In this example the car is using an application specific challenge-response mechanism transferred as CoAP payloads.

Relay attack (the client is the actuator) | ......... +----->| Code: 0.02 (POST) | POST | | POST | Token: 0x3a | | | | Uri-Path: lock | | | | Payload: JwePR2iCe8b0ux (Challenge) | | | | |<-----+ ......... |<-----+ Code: 2.04 (Changed) | 2.04 | | 2.04 | Token: 0x3a | | | | Payload: RM8i13G8D5vfXK (Response) | | | | ]]> The consequences may be severe, and in the case of a car, lead to the attacker unlocking and driving away with the car, an attack that unfortunately is happening in practice. Remedy: Getting a response over a short-range radio cannot be taken as proof of proximity and can therefore not be used to take actions based on such proximity. Any automatically triggered mechanisms relying on proximity need to use other stronger mechanisms to establish proximity. Mechanisms that can be used are: measuring the round-trip time and calculating the maximum possible distance based on the speed of light, or using radio with an extremely short range like NFC (centimeters instead of meters). Another option is to include geographical coordinates (from e.g., GPS) in the messages and calculate proximity based on these, but in this case the location measurements need to be very precise and the system need to make sure that an attacker cannot influence the location estimation. Some types of global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) receivers are vulnerable to spoofing attacks.