Flawed outbound packet filtering in various personal firewalls

From: Tom Liston (tlistonat_private)
Date: Wed Dec 05 2001 - 15:08:57 PST

  • Next message: Eric Chien: "RE: NAI Webshield SMTP for WinNT MIME header vuln"

    Issue: Outbound filtering in personal firewalls does not block 
    packets that are generated by protocol stacks other than the 
    default Microsoft stack.
    
    Description:  While working to port LaBrea to the Win9x platform, I 
    was faced with the task of creating packets with specific flags, 
    window sizes, etc... In order to accomplish this, I was forced to 
    "roll my own" protocol adapter that would allow me to send TCP 
    packets formatted in specific ways.  As a side effect of this, I found 
    that at least two personal firewalls don't "see" the TCP packets 
    that this "non-standard" protocol adapter generates.
    
    In experimenting further, it was found that the "Lock" or "Block All" 
    settings of those firewalls was also ineffective against TCP packets 
    from non-standard protocol adapters.
    
    Known vulnerable firewalls: ZoneAlarm and ZoneAlarm Pro as of 
    their current revisions and  Tiny Personal Firewall.  Although I 
    cannot test it, I believe all versions prior to the current ones are 
    also vulnerable. 
    
    Vendor responses:  ZoneLabs was initially contacted regarding this 
    issue on November 9th.  Since that time, I've received sporadic 
    updates on their progress in fixing this issue.  As of the present 
    time, I have tested at least one ZoneLabs supplied "fix."  The 
    method of "fixing" this issue, as demonstrated by this "beta" was 
    to silently drop all TCP packets not originating from the standard 
    Windows TCP protocol adapter.  I have explained to Zone Labs that 
    I don't believe this is a valid approach.  
    
    They have, in my estimation, taken this route because they cannot 
    trace the source of packets back through a protocol adapter that 
    they know nothing about.  Any other approach would require that 
    they issue a warning to the user, saying essentially "Some 
    application on your machine has attempted to send a TCP packet.  
    We don't know what that application is... we can't know.... So! Do 
    you want to let it communicate?"  That would tend to tarnish the 
    carefully crafted ZoneAlarm image.
    
    I fully expect to take heat from ZoneLabs for publishing this 
    vulnerability.  However, I will say this: ZoneLabs has, from the 
    outset, done nothing but attempt to duck, mislead and obfuscate 
    the issue.  It has been over three weeks, and I have seen nothing 
    from them but a buggy beta "fix" that essentially breaks NDIS 
    functionality without any warning to the user.  I have asked them to 
    confirm for me in writing their intention to "fix" this issue by silently 
    dropping valid packets.
    
    Tiny Software:  Tiny was also contacted in mid-November, but did 
    not reply.  I have recently re-contacted Tiny, and they have now 
    acknowledged that the problem exists, and have stated that they 
    intend to block "non-standard" protocol access to NDIS, but have 
    yet to reply about how (ie. silent drop, warn the user, etc...) this 
    will be accomplished.
    
    Note: Other personal firewalls might very well be susceptible to this 
    same problem.  I haven't the time or the resources available to test 
    them.
    
    Also troubling is the fact that, in both cases, specially crafted 
    packets can be sent *to* a machine which an application can sniff 
    off the wire.  These packets are ignored by the personal firewalls 
    and there is no warning to the end user.  This makes two-way 
    communication possible with a machine, even when its firewall is 
    set to "Lock" or "Block All" network traffic. 
    
    Please forgive me for jumping on my soap box:  I believe that the 
    real issue at hand has little to do with vulnerabilities and protocol 
    adapters.  The real issue here is marketing.  The entire personal 
    firewall industry has been driven to make claims that it cannot 
    deliver on.  There is a vicious "me too" cycle that drives personal 
    firewall vendors.  Now, there are testing labs and "certifications." 
    (Both TinyPFW and ZoneAlarmPro are certified by ICSA Labs.)  
    This is just insane.  When I look at the concept of "outbound 
    filtering", I see a distinct parallel to "copy protection."  Both 
    concepts suffer from the same, basic flaws.  The problem is in the 
    claims that personal firewall vendors are making and the fact that 
    they're allowed to get away with it.
    
    An application, demonstrating this vulnerability is available at:
    
    http://www.hackbusters.net/ob.html
    
    -TL
    
    
    Tom Liston, GSEC
    Network Administrator
    Prem Magnetics, Inc.
    tlistonat_private
    tlistonat_private
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 06 2001 - 08:57:57 PST