Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling and Verifying Basic Modules of Floodlight

  • Published:
Mobile Networks and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Software-Defined Networking (SDN) is an emerging networking paradigm that provides flexible network programmability and reduces the complexity of network management and control. OpenFlow Protocol is the best-known southbound interface of SDN. As one of the most popular OpenFlow controllers, Floodlight is famous for its excellent basic modules, which are used by many other mainstream controllers. Due to the popularity and widespread use of the Floodlight’s modules, it is important to analyze them in a formal framework. In this paper, we focus on six modules of Floodlight that are mainly responsible for pushing decisions and discovering topology. In order to verify whether these modules meet two important requirements, including Decision Pushed Correctly and Rule Installed Once, we propose a system model that formalizes these modules as well as hosts and switches using Communicating Sequential Processes (CSP). Moreover, we add two types of attacks: Link Fabrication and Host Hijacking, which aim at poisoning the topology information collected by a controller, to construct a second system model. Finally, we implement these two system models in Process Analysis Toolkit (PAT), a model checker, to verify whether our models cater for four assertions based on two requirements and if Floodlight is vulnerable to these two attacks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ONF. https://www.opennetworking.org

  2. Floodlight. http://www.projectfloodlight.org/floodlight

  3. LLDP. IEEE Std 802.1AB-2016 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.1AB- 2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7433915

  4. Al-Shaer E, Al-Haj S (2010) Flowchecker: Configuration analysis and verification of federated openflow infrastructures. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Workshop on Assurable and Usable Security Configuration, SafeConfig ’10, pp 37–44

  5. Canini M, Venzano D, Peresíni P, Kostic D, Rexford J (2012) A Nice way to test openflow applications. In: Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, NSDI 2012, San Jose, CA, USA, April 25-27, 2012, pp 127–140

  6. Hoare CAR (1985) Communicating sequential processes. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Hong S, Xu L, Wang H, Gu G (2015) Poisoning network visibility in software-defined networks: New attacks and countermeasures. In: 22Nd annual network and distributed system security symposium, NDSS 2015, san diego, california, USA, February 8-11, 2015

  8. Jammal M, Singh T, Shami A, Asal R, Li Y (2014) Software defined networking: State of the art and research challenges. Comput Netw 72:74–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Khan S, Gani A, Wahab AWA, Guizani M, Khan MK (2017) Topology discovery in software defined networks: threats, taxonomy, and state-of-the-art. IEEE Commun Surv Tutorials 19(1):303–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kreutz D, Ramos FMV, Veríssimo PJE, Rothenberg CE, Azodolmolky S, Uhlig S (2015) Software-defined networking: A comprehensive survey. Proc IEEE 103(1):14–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lowe G, Roscoe AW (1997) Using CSP to detect errors in the TMN protocol. IEEE Trans Software Eng 23(10):659–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mai H, Khurshid A, Agarwal R, Caesar M, Godfrey B, King ST (2011) Debugging the data plane with anteater. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2011 Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communications, Toronto, ON, Canada, August 15-19, 2011, pp 290–301

  13. Mazur T, Lowe G (2014) Csp-based counter abstraction for systems with node identifiers. Sci Comput Program 81:3–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. McKeown N, Anderson T, Balakrishnan H, Parulkar GM, Peterson LL, Rexford J, Shenker S, Turner JS (2008) Openflow: enabling innovation in campus networks. Comput Commun Rev 38(2):69–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Roscoe AW (2010) Understanding concurrent systems. Texts in computer science. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Si Y, Sun J, Liu Y, Dong JS, Pang J, Zhang SJ, Yang X (2014) Model checking with fairness assumptions using PAT. Frontiers Comput Sci 8(1):1–16

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Son S, Shin S, Yegneswaran V, Porras PA, Gu G (2013) Model checking invariant security properties in openflow. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications, ICC 2013, Budapest, Hungary, June 9-13, 2013, pp 1974–1979

  18. Sun J, Liu Y, Dong JS, Pang J (2009) PAT: towards flexible verification under fairness. In: Computer aided verification, 21st international conference, CAV 2009, Grenoble, France, June 26 - July 2, 2009. Proceedings, pp 709–714

  19. Sun J, Liu Y, Dong JS, Liu Y, Shi L, Andrė É (2013) Modeling and verifying hierarchical real-time systems using stateful timed CSP. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 22(1):3:1–3:29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wu X, Zhu H (2016) Formalization and analysis of the REST architecture from the process algebra perspective. Future Generation Comp Syst 56:153–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yeung WL (2007) Csp-based verification for web service orchestration and choreography. Simulation 83(1):65–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Trustworthy Computing, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China

    Shuangqing Xiang, Huibiao Zhu, Wanling Xie & Lili Xiao

  2. School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Xi Wu

  3. College of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China

    Huibiao Zhu

  4. Nguyen Tat Thanh University, 300A Nguyen Tat Thanh Street, Ward 13, District 4, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Phan Cong Vinh

Authors
  1. Shuangqing Xiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xi Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Huibiao Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wanling Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lili Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Phan Cong Vinh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huibiao Zhu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xiang, S., Wu, X., Zhu, H. et al. Modeling and Verifying Basic Modules of Floodlight. Mobile Netw Appl 24, 100–114 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-018-1141-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-018-1141-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation