Re: Patrol security bugs

From: Mike Crane (mcraneat_private)
Date: Tue May 07 2002 - 14:07:01 PDT

  • Next message: Summercon Admin: "Summercon 2002 Announce"

    
     ('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
    In-Reply-To: <370DDA89.31976841at_private>
    
    I'm trying to clean up old postings that were never 
    responded to.  These answers should clarify BMC's positions 
    on the posting.
    
    >> 1) Session password encryption weakness :
    >>
    >> The Patrol session password is protected in a way which 
    does not prevent
    >>
    >> from replay attacks. It is possible for an attacker to 
    capture (wire
    >> tapping, network sniffing...) an encrypted password and 
    to provide it to
    >> the
    >> BMC API to connect to the agent. The attacker can then 
    get a shell with
    >> the
    >> agent without the administrator to know it.
    >>
    
    Answer Summary
    Issues are more prevalent if agent/console connections are 
    made on the open Internet.  While it is possible for 
    customers to do this, it isn’t recommended because any 
    vulnerability from TCP/UDP traffic on machines are 
    accessible from outside sources.  However, these types of 
    policy decisions are for customer’s to make.
    
    BMC Software has provided customers options to deal with 
    vulnerabilities of this sort.  Options available are:
    1.	Use PATROL ACLs to reduce what clients that can 
    connect to an agent.
    2.	Use the Enhanced Security Interface (ESI) described 
    in the Patrol API reference manual.  BMC’s enhanced host-to-
    host privacy using Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) 
    encryption layers both higher levels of encryption for data 
    that is transmitted between PATROL components, but the 
    ability to authenticate the connections that are made 
    between PATROL components.
    
    Related BMC Work
    BMC Support Case 204065
    
    PATROL Agent for Windows NT Version 3.2.09 Technical 
    Bulletin, “Alert for possible network layer and denial of 
    service attacks”, that can be found at 
    http://www.bmc.com/supportu/documents/37/67/3767/100019317/i
    ndex.htm.
    
    
    
    >> 2) Patrol frames sealing :
    >>
    >> The algorithm used in Patrol for sealing the frames 
    exchanged is fairly
    >> weak
    >> (enhanced checksum). It is thus quite easy for an 
    attacker to build a
    >> spoofing system which sends faked frames to an agent.
    >>
    
    Answer Summary
    Issues are more prevalent if agent/console connections are 
    made on the open Internet.  While it is possible for 
    customers to do this, it isn’t recommended because any 
    vulnerability from TCP/UDP traffic on machines are 
    accessible from outside sources.  However, these types of 
    policy decisions are for customer’s to make.
    
    A couple of options are available to reduce this 
    vulnerability:
    1.	Use PATROL ACLs to reduce what clients that can 
    connect to an agent.
    2.	Use the Enhanced Security Interface (ESI) described 
    in the Patrol API reference manual.  BMC’s enhanced host to 
    host privacy using Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) 
    encryption layers both higher levels of encryption for data 
    that is transmitted between PATROL components, but the 
    ability to authenticate the connections that are made 
    between PATROL components.
    3.	Validation of inbound packet addresses (on a border 
    router) to addresses valid to utilize your network.
    4.	Disable UDP and only use TCP for communication to 
    an agent
    5.	Segment your Patrol users behind a firewall to 
    limit the usages to the TCP ports.
    
    Related BMC Work
    PATROL Agent for Windows NT Version 3.2.09 Technical 
    Bulletin, “Alert for possible network layer and denial of 
    service attacks”, that can be found at 
    http://www.bmc.com/supportu/documents/37/67/3767/100019317/i
    ndex.htm.
    
    BMC Support Case 204065
    BMC Support Case 333617
    
    >> 3) Service deny on UDP port :
    >>
    >> The UDP ports accept connexion requests and are thus 
    exposed to
    >> ping-pong
    >> from another UDP port (e.g. chargen).
    >>
    
    Answer Summary
    Issues are more prevalent if agent/console connections are 
    made on the open Internet.  While it is possible for 
    customers to do this, it isn’t recommended because any 
    vulnerability from TCP/UDP traffic on machines are 
    accessible from outside sources.  However, these types of 
    policy decisions are for customer’s to make.
    
    Options available to reduce this vulnerability:
    1.	Use the Enhanced Security Interface (ESI) described 
    in the Patrol API reference manual.  BMC’s enhanced host to 
    host privacy using Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) 
    encryption layers both higher levels of encryption for data 
    that is transmitted between PATROL components, but the 
    ability to authenticate the connections that are made 
    between PATROL components.
    2.	Ensure your UDP diagnostic ports are disabled on 
    your agents.
    3.	Validation of inbound packet addresses (on a border 
    router) to addresses valid to utilize your network.
    4.	Disable UDP and only use TCP for communication to 
    an agent
    5.	Segment your Patrol users behind a firewall to 
    limit the usages to the UDP port. 
    
    Related BMC Work
    BMC Support Case 238659
    
    
    Regards, 
    Mike Crane
    BMC Security Architect
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 08 2002 - 23:15:32 PDT