Re: [fw-wiz] CERT vulnerability note VU# 539363

From: Paul Robertson (probertsat_private)
Date: Wed Oct 16 2002 - 09:18:03 PDT

  • Next message: Paul Robertson: "Re: [fw-wiz] CERT vulnerability note VU# 539363 (fwd)"

    On 16 Oct 2002, Frank Knobbe wrote:
    
    > Not for inbound connections, but doesn't a stateful firewall prevent
    > non-legit outbound connections? If the firewall protecting a web server
    
    Not really...
    
    > were stateless (read packet filter), the web server could establish
    > connections to the outside with a source port of 80, and a backdoor
    > would be able to connect to its master. However, if state is kept, and
    > only inbound connections to port 80 are allowed, then the backdoor can
    > not establish a connection to the outside using source port 80.
    
    Outbound non-ack packets would stop this for a Web server, and if the 
    trojan is able to bind() to port 80 and service inbound requests (not that 
    it's not possible) without fooling the HTTP daemon, then methinks 
    filtering is the least of your problems.
    
    > To me it seems that stateless access control only protects my side from
    > incoming traffic, but I also want to enforce access control on outbound
    > traffic. In order to distinquish between a valid response, and a new
    > connection, isn't state helpful?
    
    It can be, but potentially it can be a problem too- state tables can fill 
    up, where a stateless filter doesn't have that issue.
    
    > I understand that I could filter any packets from the web server (in
    > above example) by denying packets with SYN flag set, so maybe above rant
    > is only valid for UDP. But in general I believe state is useful in
    > access control. Or am I way off? 
    
    I find it slightly useful for UDP, but overall think the added complexity 
    doesn't bring much in the way of protection if you carefully design your 
    architecture.
    
    The performance information that this thread has started IS interesting, 
    and it's started me wondering about the whole "filter on a router vs. 
    firewall" thing again.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Paul
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Paul D. Robertson      "My statements in this message are personal opinions
    probertsat_private      which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
    probertsonat_private Director of Risk Assessment TruSecure Corporation
    
    _______________________________________________
    firewall-wizards mailing list
    firewall-wizardsat_private
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Oct 16 2002 - 09:47:56 PDT