|author||Peter Wu <email@example.com>||2020-03-02 23:18:54 +0000|
|committer||Peter Wu <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2020-03-02 23:18:54 +0000|
doc: initial draft of wireshark-dissection-and-reassembly.md
Before making the reassembly API (epan/reassembly.c) even more complicated, and to solve TCP reassembly problems with TCP/TLS/HTTP2, let's have a look at potential solutions, possibly from the literature.
1 files changed, 134 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/wireshark-dissection-and-reassembly.md b/doc/wireshark-dissection-and-reassembly.md
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+# Wireshark dissection and reassembly
+Wireshark's current dissection engine and stream reassembly functionality has
+been the same for a long time, but it is showing its age. This document
+describes the current implementation (Wireshark 3.2.x), related research, and
+attempts to provide a solution for identifies problems.
+The primary unit of work is a frame, sometimes referred to as packet. These are
+passed to the frame dissector which will:
+- Add metadata such as timing.
+- Pass the buffer to the next dissector. The dissector is usually Ethernet or
+ IP, depending on how the capture file was created.
+- Once done, any post-dissectors will be invoked with the same buffer.
+The "next dissector" above will typically parse some data, and pass the
+remaining data to the next. This is the case for Ethernet -> IPv4/IPv6 -> TCP
+for example. All of these are currently done serially, the next packet cannot be
+processed until the current one is finished. One reason is that the dissection
+of subsequent packets may depend on previous ones. This limits parallel
+processing, something which is also made difficult due to implementation details
+such as use of global data.
+Aside from per-packet processing, dissectors may maintain state:
+- The TCP dissector reconstructs flows, performing reassembly of TCP segments.
+- The TLS dissector reconstructs a TLS handshake and uses the information to
+ build a cipher for decrypting application data. This decrypted application
+ data is remembered for later use.
+- The DNS dissector remembers message identifiers to find retransmissions and to
+ calculate response times.
+- The WireGuard dissector processes handshake messages and creates a cipher for
+ a session. Decrypted data is not saved due to memory usage concerns, instead
+ decryption is performed every time the packet is accessed. This is possible
+ because a single packet contains the counter value required for decryption.
+ The TLS dissector on the other hand cannot read the counter from a TLS record.
+Reliable TCP stream reassembly is required for proper functionality of
+higher-level protocols. Typically, the initial part of a higher-level PDU (such
+as the start of HTTP/1.1 headers) are aligned with a TCP segment payload. If all
+headers fit in a single TCP segment, then the HTTP dissector is able to dissect
+the full headers without further state. However, if the HTTP request is split
+over multiple segments, then these segments have to be collected and merged
+based on their sequence numbers. This introduces its own share of problems:
+- TCP segments may be overlapping.
+- TCP segments may appear out of order. Out-of-order SYN or (more likely) FIN
+ may result in wrongly reconstructed streams
+ ([Bug 16289](https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16289)).
+- TCP segments may be missing from the capture file.
+- TCP segments may be duplicated due to retransmission.
+- TCP segments may be overlapping, and contain conflicting data. Either due to
+ bitflips or malicious actors in a network.
+- The packet capture could start in midst of a sessions. If multiple HTTP
+ messages are sent over one stream, the start of a TCP segment may not
+ coincidence with the start of a HTTP message. That means that the stream
+ cannot be recovered from a naive assumption.
+Assuming a mechanism that properly reassembles the above complete TCP stream
+into a sequential stream, the higher-level protocols may bring additional
+problems. Consider TLS:
+- TLS records can be split over multiple TCP segments.
+- Multiple TLS records may be present in one TCP segment.
+- The start of a TLS record may not coincidence with the start of a TCP segment.
+- Decrypted application data may not be uniquely identifiable by the frame
+ number (the position of a packet in the capture file).
+And after TLS, the next application data protocol may also bring additional
+problems. Consider HTTP/2:
+- HTTP/2 multiplexes a TCP/TLS stream into multiple logical streams which are
+ contained in HTTP/2 frames.
+- A single TLS record might contain multiple HTTP/2 stream frames which are
+ identified by a 31-bit Stream Identifier.
+- HTTP/2 stream frames may be split over multiple TLS records.
+- The frame number may not uniquely identify a HTTP/2 frame.
+Finally, all of the previous network protocols may not be useful to the
+end-user. They may be more interested in data such as reconstructed HTML, CSS,
+in the exact TCP segment. On the other hand, the start of a TCP segment, a TLS
+record, or a HTTP/2 frame may be interesting for performance measurements. For
+that to happen, precise tracking of the individual protocol data parts may be
+necessary. This may be complicated by out-of-order receipt of TCP segments,
+especially when multiple PDUs are in flight.
+Wireshark has features to handle aggregates of individual packets:
+- "Follow TCP Stream" reads through a whole capture and extracts a single TCP
+- "Export Objects" may be used to extract HTTP objects (HTML, CSS, etc.), IMF
+ (email data from SMTP), etc.
+- A Follow HTTP/2 Stream is available since Wireshark 3.2, but merges data from
+ other streams in the reassembled packet
+ ([Bug 16093](https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16093)).
+The state tracking required for the above functionality requires resources,
+trading off memory cost against CPU time. With new protocols such as QUIC and
+HTTP/3, the complexity of decryption, providing stream reassembly and accurate
+metadata such as timing seem to warrant significant dissection engine changes in
+order to simplify the implementation of new features.
+Large objects such as Docker image layers and videos also require more efficient
+- Memoization to speed up reassembly.
+- Reduce memory usage by sharing buffers where possible.
+- Consider folding or eliding fields. For example, a large object of hundreds of
+ megabytes likely consists of several 100k TCP segments, displaying all of
+ these in a single view is impossible.
+To speed up processing, parallelism is needed. In the common case with no
+malicious packets, packet processing should be postponed until flow
+reconstruction has happened.
+## Related work
+This section covers other works from which lessons can potentially be learned.
+Passive TCP Reconstruction and Forensic Analysis with tcpflow, 2013-09
+binpac: A yacc for Writing Application Protocol Parsers, 2006-10