Re: HTTP AUTH BASIC monowall.

[Jeremy Bishop <requiem () praetor org>]

On Thursday 16 March 2006 06:48, Simon Smith wrote:
<snip>
>     Encoding a username and password combination using base64 is not
> secure, but, I understand why it is encoded in base64. Having said
> that, I am trying to discover/create an alternate method for
> authentication that is secure even if the SSL pipe is compromised. I

Pavel's link on SRP ( http://srp.stanford.edu/ ) is close to what you 
might be looking for.  (That is, a means of password-based 
authentication over an untrusted medium.)

> liked the idea of creating a secondary tunnel within the initial SSL
> tunnel but I am not certain that it would be the best way to do it.

Either your secondary tunnel corrects the issues with the initial tunnel 
or it does not.  If it does there's no need to bother with SSL in the 
first place.  If it doesn't, you're still open to the exact same 
attacks.

<more snippage>
> once a LAN is penetrated. Providing an extra layer of security within
> the SSL tunnel would help to prevent this tool and others like it
> from being compromised so easily. My first thought was on how to
> harden the authentication because the basic auth didn't cut it for
> me. Thats what I am looking for ideas for.

If you secure the authentication alone, an attacker will simply 
piggy-back on your existing session.  E.g., you tell server A to 
reboot, but by the time the command gets to the webserver it happens to 
include a few extra commands.

-- 
Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.
The competent, of course, make it their *first* resort.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/