Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(June 1994)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Cisco software update?
From: Brad Passwaters <bjp @ is000796 . bell-atl . com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 94 15:35:09 -0400
To: David Carrel <carrel @ cisco . com>
Cc: Brent Chapman <brent @ GreatCircle . COM>, firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Jun 94 11:35:40 PDT." <199406021835 . LAA01218 @ large . cisco . com>

> No, I think you missed my point.  If indeed the machine is compromised
> (however unlikely) then limiting your source port filter to the archie port
> buys you very very little.  It is trivial for me to write a telnet program
> or RPC-attack-program that uses the archie server port as a source port.
> If many people do trust archie source ports on these servers and allow them
> through their firewalls, then those archie servers become valuable targets
> for crackers.  All I have to do is break into that machine and compile my
> telnet and voila I can get into many networks.

I understand what you are saying but I'm not sure I agree. In your first 
message you said:

If indeed you are so willing to trust this machine, then I suggest that you
should trust ANY source port on it.

My point is that the risk of trusting ANY port on a given machine is MORE
than trusting a single port. Given certain condition exists.  Now while
I admit Brent showed my something sneaky I had not considered. (Thanks
Brent :-) I would be willing to wager that anyone who knocked down an
archie server or interfered with it working would be found out VERY 
quickly.  As another example I would be willing trust NNTP from UUNET
because I have a suspicion that it someone took down there News server to
play games they might notice fairly soon.

> If indeed you are worried about "telnet and RPC packets", then the proper
> course of action (IMHO) is to have your filter match on the destination
> port.  The destination port is under your control (you control what is
> listening on that port).
> 

No one is saying that we can't use destination filters as well.....

> > You should only give as much trust to a host as it needs to
> > do what you want it to do. 
> 
> No, you should only place as much trust in a host as you feel you can
> control, or as much as you are willing to allow it free reign.  I think
> what you really wanted to say was "You should only allow as much _access_
> to a host as it needs to do it's job."  The difference between trust and
> access is that you control access, but you accept trust.  It may be
> reasonable for some to trust the few archie servers to "do the right
> thing".  But that is a big leap of faith for others.

Interesting point and indeed that may be true but I think that in this
case both trust and access are involved. In some cases destination based
filters are unmanagable.

I don't think people are saying source port filtering is perfect but
that it is a tool for design in complex firewalls WHEN good risk analysis
has been performed.

Brad Passwaters					bjp @
 nsm .
 bell-atl .
 com
BAINET Technical Services 			bf5t0p6 @
 bell-atl .
 com (OSIN)
Voice:301-236-6221				FAX:301-236-1061
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...and he never wondered what was right or wrong, he just knew, he just knew"
        David Crosby and Phil Collins "HERO"



References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Cisco as a Firewall point
From: Tony Li <tli @ cisco . com>
Next: Re: Router Preference (spin off from Cisco software update)
From: "John P. Rouillard" <rouilj @ cs . umb . edu>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Cisco software update?
From: Aydin Edguer <edguer @ MorningStar . Com>
Next: Re: Cisco software update?
From: "John P. Rouillard" <rouilj @ cs . umb . edu>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com