full-disclosure - Re: Secure OWA

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:14:40 -0400
From: "Brian Eaton" <eaton.lists@...il.com>
To: "Mark Senior" <senatorfrog@...il.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Secure OWA

On 8/30/06, Mark Senior <senatorfrog@...il.com> wrote:
> I think a possibly better approach, although it doesn't seem like you
> could implement it quite as simply as account lockouts, would be to
> lock out, not the account, but the originating IP address, for a
> duration.

Ever since I read this thread
(http://vegan.net/lb/archive/08-2004/0118.html) on one of the
load-balancer discussion lists I've been skeptical of using IP
addresses for much of anything.  My guess is that if you do things
like ban IPs automatically you run the risk of accidentally locking
out thousands of legit users as well as the one who is misbehaving.

A few of the more interesting comments in the thread:

"...myriad of enterprise networks that load-balance outbound client
connections across proxy servers which are connected to different
ISPs, with totally different source IP..."

"...The AOL client does a split tunnel type thing, where the HTTP gets
tunneled through the UDP conversation to AOL's network and back out
the proxies to the Internet, but the HTTPS (and other stuff) goes
directly from client to server..."

Regards,
Brian

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