bugtraq - Re: Insecure IKE Implementations Clarification

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

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:00:31 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
To: Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@....tjls.com>
Cc: aadams@...urityfocus.com, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Insecure IKE Implementations Clarification

Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

> For what it's worth, the possibility of this general type of attack was
> repeatedly discussed in the IPsec working group and is a major reason
> why XAUTH was abandoned.  The particular password-stealing attack that I 
> describe as been widely discussed among IKE implementors for at least two
> years; other implementors probably independently noticed it at least as
> early as I did, which was three years ago.

And we have technology deployed that solves exactly the same problem in
a reasonable way: SSH.

> What's pretty disturbing is that there is wide understanding of this
> issue among actual protocol implementors, but that Cisco field personnel
> continue to quite plainly tell customers that it does not exist at all,
> even when the risk to those customers is huge.

I have to admit that we were blinded as well.  I didn't look too closely
at XAUTH at that time because it was proprietary software and no
GNU/Linux client was in sight.  We should have forced Cisco to implement
hybrid mode over two years ago, but failed to do so.  I'm sorry about
that mess.