OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
From: Mike Crane (mcranebmc.com)
Date: Tue May 07 2002 - 16:07:01 CDT

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

    ('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) In-Reply-To: <370DDA89.31976841cf6.fr>

    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