Security Basics mailing list archives

RE: Cisco Workaround


From: "David Gillett" <gillettdavid () fhda edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:33:53 -0700

  As you point out, #3 (suggested as a workaround in some early
versions of the advisory) is inadequate.  #1 is preferred, and
I'm working on it.
  In the meantime, I've implemented an alternate version of #2 
at our borders.  Instead of blocking these four classes, I've 
permitted only the ones we legitimately use:  ICMP, UDP, TCP,
and for our VPN users, 50 and 51 (ESP and AH, although I can 
never remember for sure which is which).  (Some VPN technologies 
use 47 (GRE), but so far I don't know of anyone using that on 
our network.)
  So far, nobody has stepped forward with a need for any 
additional protocols to cross our borders.

David Gillett


-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt Seifried [mailto:bt () seifried org]
Sent: July 23, 2003 22:11
To: DOUGLAS GULLETT; Alvaro Gordon-Escobar
Cc: firewalls () securityfocus com; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: Re: Cisco Workaround


No. The attack requires N+1 attack packets. N=size of queue, which by
default is 75. The packets can be any of the four protocols 
(i.e. all of one
type, half of one, half of another, etc.). It has also been 
reported that
some other protocols work for this attack, but this has not 
been confirmed.
Read the Cisco advisory, it's quite clear on this.

You can either:

1) upgrade your software
2) firewall these four classes of packets
3) firewall access to the IP's bound to the interfaces (*)

* it has also been reported that packets that timeout, i.e. 
TTL = 0 in the
queue can be used to execute the attack.

1 is of course the optimal solution as it _fixes_ the problem.

Kurt Seifried, kurt () seifried org
A15B BEE5 B391 B9AD B0EF
AEB0 AD63 0B4E AD56 E574
http://seifried.org/security/





--------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Current thread: