Multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) attacks (MP-BGP)¶
Attack pattern¶
Multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) is a widely deployed networking technology that uses labels instead of network addresses to route traffic optimally via shorter pathways. While MPLS offers significant benefits for traffic engineering and quality of service, it introduces unique attack vectors that can compromise network security, availability, and integrity. MPLS attacks typically target the control plane, data plane, or management interfaces of MPLS networks.
1. MPLS infrastructure attacks [OR]
1.1 Label spoofing and manipulation [OR]
1.1.1 Forged label injection
1.1.1.1 Inserting malicious labels into MPLS packets
1.1.1.2 Label stack manipulation to redirect traffic
1.1.1.3 Creating invalid label combinations
1.1.2 Label distribution protocol exploitation
1.1.2.1 LDP session hijacking
1.1.2.2 Forged label mapping messages
1.1.2.3 Label withdrawal attacks
1.2 Control plane attacks [OR]
1.2.1 Routing protocol targeting
1.2.1.1 BGP/MPLS IP VPN route distribution attacks
1.2.1.2 Route target manipulation
1.2.1.3 Route distinguisher spoofing
1.2.2 RSVP-TE exploitation
1.2.2.1 Reservation request spoofing
1.2.2.2 Path message manipulation
1.2.2.3 Bandwidth reservation exhaustion
1.3 Data plane attacks [OR]
1.3.1 Label switched path hijacking
1.3.1.1 Unauthorised LSP creation
1.3.1.2 LSP rerouting attacks
1.3.1.3 Traffic interception via LSP manipulation
1.3.2 MPLS tunnelling exploitation
1.3.2.1 Tunnel header manipulation
1.3.2.2 Label stack depth attacks
1.3.2.3 Time-to-live field exploitation
1.4 VPN targeting [OR]
1.4.1 MPLS VPN attacks
1.4.1.1 VPN route injection
1.4.1.2 Route leakage between VPNs
1.4.1.3 VPN isolation bypass
1.4.2 Layer 2 VPN exploitation
1.4.2.1 VPLS MAC address spoofing
1.4.2.2 Pseudowire manipulation
1.4.2.3 Ethernet over MPLS attacks
1.5 Management plane attacks [OR]
1.5.1 MPLS MIB exploitation
1.5.1.1 SNMP-based configuration manipulation
1.5.1.2 Tunnel parameter modification
1.5.1.3 Performance data manipulation
1.5.2 Traffic engineering database attacks
1.5.2.1 TED manipulation for path calculation
1.5.2.2 Resource availability falsification
1.5.2.3 Constraint-based routing exploitation
1.6 QoS and traffic class exploitation [OR]
1.6.1 Quality of service manipulation
1.6.1.1 EXP field modification for priority manipulation
1.6.1.2 Bandwidth reservation attacks
1.6.1.3 Traffic class reassignment
1.6.2 Traffic engineering bypass
1.6.2.1 Constraint avoidance attacks
1.6.2.2 Affinity attribute manipulation
1.6.2.3 Administrative weight modification
1.7 Inter-provider attacks [OR]
1.7.1 AS boundary exploitation
1.7.1.1 Inter-AS VPN manipulation
1.7.1.2 Route target filtering bypass
1.7.1.3 Multi-provider trust exploitation
1.7.2 Carrier's carrier attacks
1.7.2.1 Hierarchical VPN exploitation
1.7.2.2 Label distribution between providers
1.7.2.3 Backbone service manipulation
1.8 Denial of service attacks [OR]
1.8.1 Resource exhaustion
1.8.1.1 Label space exhaustion
1.8.1.2 LSP state table overflow
1.8.1.3 Control plane saturation
1.8.2 Path disruption
1.8.2.1 LSP tearing attacks
1.8.2.2 Fast reroute exploitation
1.8.2.3 Make-before-break manipulation
1.9 Advanced persistent threats [OR]
1.9.1 Stealthy label manipulation
1.9.1.1 Low-rate label spoofing
1.9.1.2 Time-based attack synchronisation
1.9.1.3 Detection evasion techniques
1.9.2 Multi-vector MPLS attacks
1.9.2.1 Combined control and data plane attacks
1.9.2.2 Cross-protocol exploitation
1.9.2.3 Coordinated multi-point attacks
1.10 Legacy integration attacks [OR]
1.10.1 ATM-MPLS integration exploitation
1.10.1.1 ATM virtual circuit to MPLS label manipulation
1.10.1.2 Interworking function attacks
1.10.1.3 Cell-to-packet translation vulnerabilities
1.10.2 Frame relay MPLS exploitation
1.10.2.1 DLCI to label mapping attacks
1.10.2.2 FRF.16 implementation vulnerabilities
1.10.2.3 Legacy protocol tunnelling attacks
Why it works¶
Protocol complexity: MPLS integrates multiple networking technologies (Layer 2 and Layer 3), creating a large attack surface.
Trust-based operations: MPLS relies on trust relationships between routers and switches, particularly in label distribution.
Limited authentication: Many MPLS control protocols lack strong authentication mechanisms by default.
Visibility challenges: MPLS traffic is often not deeply inspected by security devices due to label-based forwarding.
Inter-provider dependencies: Multi-provider MPLS implementations create complex trust relationships that can be exploited.
Legacy integration: Support for legacy technologies (ATM, Frame Relay) introduces historical vulnerabilities.
Mitigation¶
MPLS security hardening¶
Action: Implement comprehensive security controls for MPLS infrastructure
How:
Enable authentication for all MPLS control protocols (LDP, RSVP-TE)
Implement route target constraints for VPN environments
Use label allocation policies to prevent exhaustion
Configuration example (LDP authentication):
mpls ldp neighbour 192.0.2.1 password MPLS-S3cureP@ss
Control plane protection¶
Action: Secure MPLS control plane operations
How:
Implement rate limiting for LDP and RSVP-TE messages
Use control plane policing (CoPP) to protect management interfaces
Enable loop detection and path verification
Best practice: Regular audit of label switching databases and routing information bases
VPN security measures¶
Action: Enhance security for MPLS VPN environments
How:
Implement route filtering between VPNs
Use unique route distinguishers and targets
Enable VPN monitoring and anomaly detection
Configuration example (VPN route filtering):
ip vrf CUSTOMER-A
route-target export 65001:100
route-target import 65001:100
route-target filtering
Management security¶
Action: Secure MPLS management interfaces
How:
Implement secure management protocols (SSH, SNMPv3)
Use role-based access control for MPLS configuration
Regularly update MIB implementations and management software
Tools: Network management systems with MPLS-TE MIB support
Monitoring and detection¶
Action: Implement comprehensive monitoring for MPLS networks
How:
Deploy MPLS-aware network monitoring tools
Implement flow monitoring for label-switched paths
Use anomaly detection for traffic engineering parameters
Configuration example (MPLS monitoring):
mpls traffic-eng tunnels
mpls traffic-eng auto-tunnel backup
mpls traffic-eng fast-reroute
Inter-provider security¶
Action: Enhance security for multi-provider MPLS environments
How:
Implement strict route filtering at AS boundaries
Use secure inter-provider signalling protocols
Establish clear security policies for carrier’s carrier environments
Best practice: Regular security audits with interconnection partners
Regular security audits¶
Action: Conduct comprehensive MPLS security assessments
How:
Review label distribution policies
Verify VPN isolation mechanisms
Test fast reroute and protection mechanisms
Tools: MPLS-specific security testing tools and scripts
Encryption and authentication¶
Action: Implement additional security layers for sensitive traffic
How:
Use IPsec encryption for critical LSPs
Implement MACsec for physical link protection
Deploy application-layer encryption where appropriate
Configuration example (MPLS with IPsec):
crypto ipsec transform-set MPLS-TRANSFORM esp-aes 256 esp-sha-hmac
crypto map MPLS-MAP 10 ipsec-isakmp
set peer 203.0.113.1
set transform-set MPLS-TRANSFORM
match address MPLS-ACL
Key insights from real-world MPLS implementations¶
MPLS VPN isolation: Properly configured MPLS VPNs provide strong isolation between customers, but misconfigurations can lead to route leakage.
Performance impacts: MPLS can significantly improve network performance by reducing latency through label switching instead of complex routing table lookups.
Hybrid deployments: Many organisations use a combination of MPLS and other technologies like SD-WAN, creating additional security considerations.
Future trends and recommendations¶
SD-WAN integration: As software-defined WAN technologies evolve, integration with MPLS will require new security approaches.
Automated security: Machine learning-based systems will become essential for detecting anomalies in MPLS networks.
Zero trust architectures: Implementing zero trust principles in MPLS environments will enhance security.
Conclusion¶
MPLS attacks exploit vulnerabilities in label distribution, VPN isolation, and traffic engineering features. Comprehensive mitigation requires protocol security, monitoring, access controls, and regular auditing. As MPLS continues to evolve and integrate with new technologies, maintaining robust security practices is essential for protecting critical network infrastructure.