OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
From: Tom Liston (tlistonpremmag.com)
Date: Wed Dec 05 2001 - 17:08:57 CST

  • Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

    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.
    tlistonpremmag.com
    tlistonhackbusters.net