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  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]
From: jftucker at gmail.com (James Tucker)
Subject: RE: NetWare Screensaver Authentication Bypass
	From The Local Console

Frankly the ability to bypass any authentication procedure by a series
of button presses is plain bad software design, period.

If you don't believe me, go watch any "hacker film" and see how
Hollywood shows most hackers gaining entry to systems. Sure, sounds
stupid if its not a reality, and just plain scary if it is. Well this
is exactly that, walk up to the console, tappedy tap and your in.
Anyone for tea and biscuits?

I hope some Novell executives felt sick when they heard about this
one, because they really should; I know I wouldn't have maintained my
breakfast after such an announcement.

On the note of remote exploit ability don't rule out the possibility
of exploitation by remote KVM; maybe far fetched but it's not too
unlikely that some idiot somewhere is relying upon that screen saver
as the primal security feature.

If you take the approach that physical security is not important then
you should at least have a system that won't respond to any I/O other
than proper authentication. If your obsessed with physical security
then you still shouldn't ignore the possibility of remote exploitation
(the latter one sounded obvious right, well it should be that obvious
in reverse too). In terms of protecting your data and reliability, the
hacker doesn't care if its physical or virtual, neither does the
computer, and nor will the insurance company or shareholders chasing
down negligence. Security is security no matter what form it comes in
or what it protects, its hard enough to close all the holes now, so
don't deliberately leave any open or neglect any aspects.

At least, that's what I get paid to believe.



On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:14:40 -0800, Adam Gray <agray@...acoast.com> wrote:
> If the screen saver was intended to be bypassed and not to be a security
> enhancement they would not have allowed or coded the password feature. I
> can only assume that given the password feature was built and coded they
> intended it to provide some amount of physical security. Everyone knows
> that physical security is easy to bypass. It just is not supposed to be
> this easy. If they did not think it was a flaw they would have told me
> so.
> 
> We too have known about this issue for years. It was in talking to the
> product manager that I was encouraged to report it. He thought it should
> be something that gets fixed. It is after all a voluntary patch. If you
> do not think it is a vulnerability don't apply the patch. There are some
> other nice enhancements in the ICSA Compliance kit that may be worth
> looking into.
> 
> Adam Gray
> 
> On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 09:02 +1030, Geoff Vass wrote:
> > Unpublished Immutable Laws of Security
> >
> > Number 16: "No matter what the security fault, how exploitable it is or what the workarounds are, there will ALWAYS be someone somewhere who will argue strenuously that it's not a fault, doesn't need fixing and couldn't be exploited, and furthermore they will seem to be taking it personally."
> >
> > Number 16(a): "Usually this will be Microsoft."
> >
> > Example:
> >
> > "In order for a hacker to exploit this, they would need to (and you're not going to believe this): (1) Convince someone to click a link in an email message, AND (unbelievable) (2) view a web page with their web browser. See, we told you how incredibly stupid this so-called exploit is."
> >
> > We all know physical security is important, but there's a huge difference between walking up to a machine and gaining access with a few keystrokes and ripping the hard disk out and examining in a lab offsite. The former is very easy and the latter is very hard. It should NOT be possible to compromise a machine by hacking the screensaver.
> >
> > Geoff Vass
> > Cheers
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brad Bendily [mailto:brad@...u.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 15 December 2004 03:31
> > To: Adam Gray
> > Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com; bugtraq@...urityfocus.com;
> > vulnwatch@...nwatch.org
> > Subject: Re: NetWare Screensaver Authentication Bypass From The Local
> > Console
> >
> >
> >
> > As we all know security comes in layers. The only way this exploit will
> > work is if someone is standing at the server's console. In this way
> > all servers are subject to vulnerability and I have discovered this
> > method of hacking servers. Ok, not really. But I can tell you that if I
> > have access to the server console then I can get access to the box.
> >
> > This vulnerability is not new, I had to legitimately hack the password
> > for a couple of my NetWare servers and I did it 3-4 years ago using
> > this same hack. Preferrably I would rather Novell NOT fix this. It's
> > a great "just in case" tool.
> >
> > I think this is a waste of bandwidth.
> >
> > Brad B.
> >
> > On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Adam Gray wrote:
> >
> > > Novacoast Security Advisory
> > > Novell Netware 5/5.1/6.0/6.5 Vulnerability
> > >
> > >
> > > Synopsis:
> > > Novacoast has discovered a vulnerability in the Novell NetWare Operating
> > > System screen saver software. The vulnerability allows a local attacker
> > > to bypass authentication and access the system console.
> > >
> > >
> > > Description:
> > > The Novell Operating System uses the screen saver nlm with lock enabled
> > > to protect access to the console. When the screen saver is locked only a
> > > user in the e-directory tree with supervisor rights to the server object
> > > has the ability to unlock it. It is possible to bypass this
> > > authentication scheme by entering the debugger within NetWare while the
> > > screensaver is running, kill the screensaver process, and resume the
> > > operating system without the screen saver or the access control still
> > > running.
> > >
> > > Affected Version:
> > > Novell NetWare 5.1
> > > Novell Netware 6
> > > Novell NetWare 6.5
> > >
> > > Exploit:
> > > with the screensaver nlm running and in enable lock mode press alt shift
> > > shift esc. Find the screen saver process in memory. Kill it using the
> > > debugger. If you are not sure how to use the NetWare debugger then just
> > > kill the server with the q key and restart it without the autoexec.ncf
> > > running (server -na) edit the autoexec.ncf to keep the screensaver from
> > > running in the future and restart the server normally. The screen saver
> > > will not start again.
> > >
> > > Recommended Solution:
> > > Install the Bordermanager ICSA Compliance kit
> > >     They put the screensaver fix into that patch
> > >
> > >
> > > Status:
> > > This bug has been submitted to, acknowledged by, and a fix has been
> > > created and included with the Bordermanager ICSA Compliance toolkit.
> > >
> > > Additional information can be found at the following location:
> > > http://support.novell.com/cgi-bin/search/searchtid.cgi?/2969741.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > Disclaimer:
> > > Novacoast accepts no liability or responsibility for the
> > > content of this report, or for the consequences of any
> > > actions taken on the basis of the information provided
> > > within. Dissemination of this information is granted
> > > provided it is presented in its entirety. Modifications
> > > may not be made without the explicit permission of
> > > Novacoast.
> > >
> > >
> > > Adam Gray
> > > CTO
> > > Novacoast, Inc.
> > > agray_at_novacoast.com
> > > http://www.novacoast.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> 
> 
> 
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists