Re: Statistical Attack Against Virtual Banks

From: Swift Griggs (ssgriggsat_private)
Date: Wed Feb 09 2000 - 00:42:04 PST

  • Next message: Marc Lehmann: "Re: Tempfile vulnerabilities"

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1
    
    On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Andre L. Dos Santos wrote:
    > Many Virtual Banks rely on a fixed length personal identification
    > number (PIN) to identify a user. Some banks, allow access to all of
    > their online operations after a successful identification, others
    > require additional identification, like social security number, maiden
    > name or an additional PIN.
    
    You don't mention x509 authentication in your analysis at all. IMHO, your
    not doing anything here other than bringing up the age old technique of
    brute forcing weak passwords in a circuitous way.
    
    > 3. Defenses One difficulty when performing this attack is to determine
    > valid account numbers
    
    There is no excuse for a bank not to use x509 client authentication. Sure
    SSL server certificates will help prevent man-in-the-middle attacks, but
    banks _must_ be sure they can trust their clients to be who they claim. In
    order to do this they must create their own certificate authority or
    chained certificate authority. Subsequently they must go through
    reasonable lengths to make sure that all requesters of x509 client
    certificates are indeed their customers and not someone trying to social
    engineer them. To do this it requires time for someone to either verify
    them by calling them at the numbers they gave when they opened their
    account, and asking them personal questions. They must also identify
    themselves with some kind of password, which was set by their customer at
    the time when they generated their CSR. This helps to insure mutual trust.
    	Furthermore, the bank's server must disallow any attempt at
    entering a username and password until they present an x509 client
    certificate that was signed by the bank's CA certificate. Once they get
    that far, they can only guess at their own account (the server will know
    because their client cert will identify them). Additionally a
    multiple-bad-guess-lockout should still be in place. There is little
    danger of DoS attacks here because if someone has managed to steal your
    x509 client certificate _and_ your password to unlock it; odds are they've
    got your bank password too. It can be accomplished with a keyboard logger,
    and physical access to the victim's machine (or something like Back
    Orifice).
    
    Once again crypto helps out a lot. However, possibilities for attack are
    still possible when you consider how easy it is to trick people into
    executing malicious code, then logging their every move. There is a
    difference though, in that you have to pick a target instead of a
    distributed "harvest" type attack which you describe.
    
    - --
    __________________________________________________
    Swift Griggs -  http://voodoomindcontrol.jcius.com
    PGP(GPG) Key ID D38E3D91  | InterNIC Handle SG1991
    Key fingerprint  for  the key that  I use is here:
    010C A7E3 A630 8107 E9A5  F9AD 82D6 BA10 D38E 3D91
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GPG 1.1
    
    iD8DBQE4oShjgta6ENOOPZERAsIIAJkBIbmsugsM2EKNFNXuvH/A7q3zJwCfZYkJ
    Ld8bQBN8KmgMrSkYInpkqME=
    =0hlc
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 15:33:58 PDT