Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Unconsidered Installations: Discovering IoT Deployments in the IPv6 Internet

Markus Dahlmanns, Felix Heidenreich, Johannes Lohmöller, Jan Pennekamp, Klaus Wehrle, Martin Henze

TL;DR

This paper examines how to discover IPv6-reachable IoT deployments and derives that the available address sources are a good starting point for finding IoT deployments, and shows that using two address generators is sufficient to cover most found deployments.

Abstract

Internet-wide studies provide extremely valuable insight into how operators manage their Internet of Things (IoT) deployments in reality and often reveal grievances, e.g., significant security issues. However, while IoT devices often use IPv6, past studies resorted to comprehensively scan the IPv4 address space. To fully understand how the IoT and all its services and devices is operated, including IPv6-reachable deployments is inevitable-although scanning the entire IPv6 address space is infeasible. In this paper, we close this gap and examine how to best discover IPv6-reachable IoT deployments. To this end, we propose a methodology that allows combining various IPv6 scan direction approaches to understand the findability and prevalence of IPv6-reachable IoT deployments. Using three sources of active IPv6 addresses and eleven address generators, we discovered 6658 IoT deployments. We derive that the available address sources are a good starting point for finding IoT deployments. Additionally, we show that using two address generators is sufficient to cover most found deployments and save time as well as resources. Assessing the security of the deployments, we surprisingly find similar issues as in the IPv4 Internet, although IPv6 deployments might be newer and generally more up-to-date: Only 39% of deployments have access control in place and only 6.2% make use of TLS inviting attackers, e.g., to eavesdrop sensitive data.

Unconsidered Installations: Discovering IoT Deployments in the IPv6 Internet

TL;DR

This paper examines how to discover IPv6-reachable IoT deployments and derives that the available address sources are a good starting point for finding IoT deployments, and shows that using two address generators is sufficient to cover most found deployments.

Abstract

Internet-wide studies provide extremely valuable insight into how operators manage their Internet of Things (IoT) deployments in reality and often reveal grievances, e.g., significant security issues. However, while IoT devices often use IPv6, past studies resorted to comprehensively scan the IPv4 address space. To fully understand how the IoT and all its services and devices is operated, including IPv6-reachable deployments is inevitable-although scanning the entire IPv6 address space is infeasible. In this paper, we close this gap and examine how to best discover IPv6-reachable IoT deployments. To this end, we propose a methodology that allows combining various IPv6 scan direction approaches to understand the findability and prevalence of IPv6-reachable IoT deployments. Using three sources of active IPv6 addresses and eleven address generators, we discovered 6658 IoT deployments. We derive that the available address sources are a good starting point for finding IoT deployments. Additionally, we show that using two address generators is sufficient to cover most found deployments and save time as well as resources. Assessing the security of the deployments, we surprisingly find similar issues as in the IPv4 Internet, although IPv6 deployments might be newer and generally more up-to-date: Only 39% of deployments have access control in place and only 6.2% make use of TLS inviting attackers, e.g., to eavesdrop sensitive data.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 17 sections, 3 figures, 2 tables.

Figures (3)

  • Figure 1: Comparison of seedlists and number of generated addresses from generators on specific seedlist leading to previously unknown deployments.
  • Figure 2: Normalized hitrate and uniqueness of generators. Addresses often overlap, but 6Scan has a high hitrate.
  • Figure 3: Security issues of IPv6 deployments in comparison to IPv4. IPv6 installations have similar issues.