RE: Real Audio Security

From: arkat_private
Date: Thu Jan 20 2000 - 02:03:13 PST

  • Next message: Scott, Richard: "Security in terms of web hosting"

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    
    nuqneH,
    
    Socks (and remote sockets interface as an idea) is a very special kind
    of thing. Actually it has little to do with security (IMHO), but used widely
    as security tool providing false sense of security that is highly dangerous.
    
    Most people think "i have a firewall that supports socks protocol, so i
    just enable it in my applications and everything works!".
    
    Actually it is close to having no firewall at all (except you
    can use private IPs). The only difference
    is that you have remote sockets calls instead of local ones. All your
    protection is application-based and if your application is not written
    properly, you're in danger. So if some stupid piece of software binds a 
    port to listen incoming connections, it can do. If there is a buffer
    overflow in it, you are owned. 
    
    Countermeasures?
    
    Socks5 rfc advises that there should be a "control" connection to the
    same server to permit reverse-connections to an allocated port. It is
    not strictly followed in most implementations, AFAIR. And it will break
    things like irc dcc and some other "client-client" thingies.
    
    Restricting dangerous operations like bind? So say goodbye to all those
    multimedia protocols. Socks will offer no more functionality than NAT does. 
    
    Writing crafty rulesets who is allowed and what to do, maybe in conjunction
    with IP filtering? Maybe, maybe. . I doubt you like it, but if you have
    no choice, then. .
    
    A few notes on "socks" authentication. (Summary: forget it). "ident" should
    not be called authentication at all and username/password one is based on
    cleartext interaction. Stronger authentication options are available for
    kerberized environment only and even if someone is willing to use socks
    in kerberized environment they are not supported by most clients.
    
    So - i prefer a good old appliction level firewall that knows every
    protocol it allows to pass through. Still willing to use socks, eh?
    
    "Moore, James" <James.Mooreat_private> said :
    
    > Got any details on the weaknesses or specific exploits re Socks?
    > 
    > Jim Moore
    > 256.461.4381
    > 
    > ----------- PGP PUBLIC KEY FINGERPRINT ------------
    > 1D9C 3AC3 34E6 EEDF 22B9  7886 7797 6908 048F 049B
    > ---------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > 
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From:	arkat_private [SMTP:arkat_private]
    > > Sent:	Wednesday, January 19, 2000 4:14 AM
    > > To:	James.Mooreat_private
    > > Cc:	phil.cracknellat_private; firewall-wizardsat_private
    > > Subject:	RE: Real Audio Security
    > > 
    > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > > 
    > > nuqneH,
    > > 
    > > You should understand well how does it work and think twice before 
    > > running socks on your firewall. You probably will not, after all.
    > > 
    > > "Moore, James" <James.Mooreat_private> said :
    > > 
    > > > I understand that the socks proxy is finding new applications for this
    > > sort
    > > > of thing (multimedia) due in part, I think, to the difficulty and risks
    > > > associated with passing it through a firewall. I know that NEC
    > > > (www.socks.nec.com) peddles some wares in this space - I haven't had
    > > time to
    > > > find out if there are any alternatives.
    > > > 
    > > > See also http://www.networkworld.com/archive/1999/76451_09-27-1999.html
    > > > 
    > > > Jim Moore
    > > > 256.461.4381
    > > > 
    > > > ----------- PGP PUBLIC KEY FINGERPRINT ------------
    > > > 1D9C 3AC3 34E6 EEDF 22B9  7886 7797 6908 048F 049B
    > > > ---------------------------------------------------
    > > > 
    > > > 
    > > > > -----Original Message-----
    > > > > From:	Cracknell, Phil [SMTP:phil.cracknellat_private]
    > > > > Sent:	Tuesday, January 18, 2000 4:47 AM
    > > > > To:	firewall-wizardsat_private
    > > > > Subject:	Real Audio Security
    > > > > 
    > > > > 
    > > > > Two in one day!
    > > > > 
    > > > > Could someone point me to any research data on the security pitfalls
    > > of
    > > > > Real
    > > > > Audio through a firewall?
    > > > > 
    > > > > Particularly interested in bandwidth issues, use of PN prxy or other.
    > > > > 
    > > > > Thanks
    > > > > 
    > > > > Phil
    > > > > -- 
    
    
                                         _     _  _  _  _      _  _
     {::} {::} {::}  CU in Hell          _| o |_ | | _|| |   / _||_|   |_ |_ |_
     (##) (##) (##)        /Arkan#iD    |_  o  _||_| _||_| /   _|  | o |_||_||_|
     [||] [||] [||]            Do i believe in Bible? Hell,man,i've seen one!
    
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: 2.6.3i
    Charset: noconv
    
    iQCVAwUBOIbdX6H/mIJW9LeBAQEsbwP+KphBr4/dZtnS9tFIZQkq5IxQTwfuz+Cf
    z+M9HDBIGnx71m8vDzPFJrGxOv0CBquvgNktrtn/etuuqd4yUOj2PIMOMuqsJsm0
    6dGIJbIM5ZIpk6RYaE/FgsVPG3H9dNaQlSk4gePh55+Kzh/Ja6SrlfLw08F8Z3AU
    Ad9ipt7oznc=
    =ZPyP
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:58:41 PDT