July 2, 2022

 A Multi-pronged Strategy for Securing Internet Routing

By Henry Birge-Lee, Nick Feamster, Mihir Kshirsagar, Prateek Mittal, Jennifer Rexford

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is conducting an inquiry into how it can help protect against security vulnerabilities in the internet routing infrastructure. A number of large communication companies have weighed in on the approach the FCC should take. 

CITP’s Tech Policy Clinic convened a group of experts in information security, networking, and internet policy to submit an initial comment offering a public interest perspective to the FCC. This post summarizes our recommendations on why the government should take a multi-pronged strategy to promote security that involves incentives and mandates. Reply comments from the public are due May 11.

The core challenge in securing the internet routing infrastructure is that the original design of the network did not prioritize security against adversarial attacks. Instead, the original design focused on how to route traffic through decentralized networks with the goal of delivering information packets efficiently, while not dropping traffic. 

At the heart of this routing system is the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), which allows independently-administered networks (Autonomous Systems or ASes) to announce reachability to IP address blocks (called prefixes) to neighboring networks. But BGP has no built-in mechanism to distinguish legitimate routes from bogus routes. Bogus routing information can redirect internet traffic to a strategic adversary, who can launch a variety of attacks, or the bogus routing can lead to accidental outages or performance issues. Network operators and researchers have been actively developing measures to counteract this problem.

At a high level, the current suite of BGP security measures depend on building systems to validate routes. But for these technologies to work, most participants have to adopt them or the security improvements will not be realized. In other words, it has many of the hallmarks of a “chicken and egg” situation. As a result, there is no silver bullet to address routing security.

Instead, we argue, the government needs a cross-layer strategy that embraces pushing different elements of the infrastructure to adopt security measures that protect legitimate traffic flows using a carrot-and-stick approach. Our comment identifies specific actions Internet Service Providers, Content Delivery Networks and Cloud Providers, Internet Exchange Points, Certificate Authorities, Equipment Manufacturers, and DNS Providers should take to improve security. We also recommend that the government funds and supports academic research centers that collect real-time data from a variety of sources that measure traffic and how it is routed across the internet.  

We anticipate several hurdles to our recommended cross-layer approach: 

First, to mandate the cross-layer security measures, the FCC has to have regulatory authority over the relevant players. And, to the extent a participant does not fall under the FCC’s authority, the FCC should develop a whole-of-government approach to secure the routing infrastructure.

Second, large portions of the internet routing infrastructure lie outside the jurisdiction of the United States. As such, there are international coordination issues that the FCC will have to navigate to achieve the security properties needed. That said, if there is a sufficient critical mass of providers who participate in the security measures, that could create a tipping point for a larger global adoption.

Third, the package of incentives and mandates that the FCC develops has to account for the risk that there will be recalcitrant small and medium sized firms who might undermine the comprehensive approach that is necessary to truly secure the infrastructure.

Fourth, while it is important to develop authenticated routes for traffic to counteract adversaries, there is an under-appreciated risk from a flipped threat model – the risk that an adversary takes control of an authenticated node and uses that privileged position to disrupt routing. There are no easy fixes to this threat – but an awareness of this risk can allow for developing systems to detect such actions, especially in international contexts.  

How to constructively review a research paper

Any piece of research can be evaluated on three axes:

  • Correctness/validity — are the claims justified by evidence?
  • Impact/significance — how will the findings affect the research field (and the world)?
  • Novelty/originality — how big a leap are the ideas, especially the methods, compared to what was already known?

There are additional considerations such as the clarity of the presentation and appropriate citations of prior work, but in this post I’ll focus on the three primary criteria above. How should reviewers weigh these three components relative to each other? There’s no single right answer, but I’ll lay out some suggestions.

First, note that the three criteria differ greatly in terms of reviewers’ ability to judge them:

  • Correctness can be evaluated at review time, at least in principle.
  • Impact can at best be predicted at review time. In retrospect (say, 10 years after publication), informed peers will probably agree with each other about a paper’s impact.
  • Novelty, in contrast to the other two criteria, seems to be a fundamentally subjective notion.

We can all agree that incorrect papers should not be accepted. Peer review would lose its meaning without that requirement. In practice, there are complications ranging from the difficulty of verifying mathematical proofs to the statistical nature of research claims; the latter has led to replication crises in many fields. But as a principle, it’s clear that reviewers shouldn’t compromise on correctness.

Should reviewers even care about impact or novelty?

It’s less obvious why peer review should uphold standards of (predicted) impact or (perceived) novelty. If papers weren’t filtered for impact, presumably it would burden readers by making it harder to figure out which papers to pay attention to. So peer reviewers perform a service to readers by rejecting low-impact papers, but this type of gatekeeping does collateral damage: many world-changing discoveries were initially rejected as insignificant.

The argument for novelty of ideas and methods as a review criterion is different: we want to encourage papers that make contributions beyond their immediate findings, that is, papers that introduce methods that will allow other researchers to make new discoveries in the future.

In practice, novelty is often a euphemism for cleverness, which is a perversion of the intent. Readers aren’t served by needlessly clever papers. Who cares about cleverness? People who are evaluating researchers: hiring and promotion committees. Thus, publishing in a venue that emphasizes novelty becomes a badge of merit for researchers to highlight in their CVs. In turn, forums that publish such papers are seen as prestigious.

Because of this self-serving aspect, today’s peer review over-emphasizes novelty. Sure, we need occasional breakthroughs, but mostly science progresses in a careful, methodical way, and papers that do this important work are undervalued. In many fields of study, publishing is at risk of devolving into a contest where academics impress each other with their cleverness.

There is at least one prominent journal, PLoS One, whose peer reviewers are tasked with checking only correctness, with impact and novelty being left to be sorted out post-publication. But for most journals and peer-reviewed conferences, the limited number of publication slots means that there will inevitably be gatekeeping based on impact and/or novelty.

Suggestions for reviewers

Given this reality, here are four suggestions for reviewers. This list is far from comprehensive, and narrowly focused on the question of weighing the three criteria.

  1. Be explicit about how you rate the paper on correctness, impact, and novelty (and any other factors such as clarity of the writing). Ideally, review forms should insist on separate ratings for the criteria. This makes your review much more actionable for the authors: should they address flaws in the work, try harder to convince the world of its importance, or abandon it entirely?
  2. Learn to recognize your own biases in assessing impact and novelty, and accept that these assessments might be wrong or subjective. Be open to a discussion with other reviewers that might change your mind.
  3. Not every paper needs to maximize all three criteria. Consider accepting papers with important results even if they aren’t highly novel, and conversely, papers that are judged to be innovative even if the potential impact isn’t immediately clear. But don’t reward cleverness for the sake of cleverness; that’s not what novelty is supposed to be about.
  4. Above all, be supportive of authors. If you rated a paper low on impact or novelty, do your best to explain why.


Over the last 150 years, peer review has evolved to be more and more of a competition. There are some advantages to this model, but it makes it easy for reviewers to lose touch with the purpose of peer review and basic norms of civility. Once in a while, we need to ask ourselves critical questions about what we’re doing and how best to do it. I hope this post was useful for such a reflection.


Thanks to Ed Felten and Marshini Chetty for feedback on a draft.


Facebook's Emotional Manipulation Study: When Ethical Worlds Collide

The research community is buzzing about the ethics of Facebook’s now-famous experiment in which it manipulated the emotional content of users’ news feeds to see how that would affect users’ activity on the site. (The paper, by Adam Kramer of Facebook, Jamie Guillory of UCSF, and Jeffrey Hancock of Cornell, appeared in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.)

The main dispute seems to be between people such as James Grimmelmann and Zeynep Tufecki who see this as a clear violation of research ethics; versus people such as Tal Yarkoni who see it as consistent with ordinary practices for a big online company like Facebook.

One explanation for the controversy is the large gap between the ethical standards of industry practice, versus the research community’s ethical standards for human subjects studies.
[Read more…]