full-disclosure - Possibly a stupid question RPC over HTTP

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20041013223619.51873.qmail@web60808.mail.yahoo.com>
From: sgmasood at yahoo.com (S G Masood)
Subject: Possibly a stupid question RPC over HTTP 

Yeah, it certainly is a security risk in several ways.
Decoding and inspecting HTTPS traffic at the perimeter
before it reaches the server becomes an absolute
necessity if RPC over HTTPS is implemented. Same with
RPC over HTTP.

--
S.G.Masood



--- ASB <abaker@...il.com> wrote:

> You need protocol level inspection (i.e. beyond SPI)
> if you're going
> to monitor that kind of traffic.
> 
> Also, the support for RPC over HTTP (should really
> be HTTPS) is not as
> open ended as you might fear.
> 
> Look at the following: 
>
http://www.google.com/search?q=RPC%20over%20HTTPS%20implement
> 
> 
> - ASB
>   Cheap, Fast, Secure -- Pick Any TWO.
>   http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:41:56 -0700, Daniel Sichel
> <daniels@...derosatel.com> wrote:
> > This may just reflect my ignorance, but I read
> (and found hard to
> > believe) that Microsoft has implemented RPC over
> HTTP. Is this not a
> > HUGE security hole? If I understand it correctly
> it means that good old
> > HTML or XML can invoke a process using standard
> web traffic (port 80)?
> > Is there any permission checking done? what things
> can be invoked by RPC
> > over HTTP? Jeeze, to me it looks like the barn
> door is now wide open. Am
> > I right, and if so, how can I detect RPCs in web
> traffic to block this
> > junk? Can ANY stateful packet filter see this
> stuff or is the pattern
> > too broad in allowed RPCs?
> > 
> > Again, I hope this is not a stupid question or
> inappropriate format for
> > this, as somebody else recently said, there is
> already enough noise on
> > this list. I would hate to see this list
> degenerate, it has been REALLY
> > valuable to me as a network engineer on occaison.
> > 
> > Thanks all,
> > Dan Sichel
> > Ponderosa telephone
> > daniels@...derosatel.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter:
> http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> 



		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com