Message-ID: <9b2461300606082319v33ab5118sbeceb4ee26551ad3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri Jun  9 09:13:44 2006
From: net4n6 at gmail.com (E Mintz)
Subject: Re: SSL VPNs and security

How about some real-world, application specific exploits?

SSL VPN is hardly a 'novelty' or 'recent' technology. I implemented my
first SSL VPN in '99 at a large financial, and it is still in
production, and secure

So, please show me an example of an actual compromise and I'll listen.
Otherwise, put up, or shut up!

-Erik
>
>
>
>
> On 6/8/06, Michal Zalewski < lcamtuf@...ne.ids.pl > wrote:
> > "Web VPN" or "SSL VPN" is a term used to denote methods for accessing
> > company's internal applications with a bare WWW browser, with the use of
> > browser-based SSO authentication and SSL tunneling. As opposed to IPSec,
> > no additional software or configuration is required, and hence, corporate
> > users can use pretty much any computer they can put their hands on.
> >   [ Yes, this is a very bad idea, but often also a perceived business
> >     necessity. To counter the risk, some SSL VPN solutions may perform
> >     client-side security checks with the aid of an applet or control "not
> >     marked as safe". This is, of course, a silly and bypassable design,
> >     and has a side effect of teaching the user to click "yes" on
> >     scripting safety prompts. But I digress... ]
> >
> >   [ These solutions are sold, among others, by Juniper, Nortel, Nokia,
> >     Cisco. The following observations are based on Cisco Web VPN (and your
> >     mileage with this and other vendors may vary).
> >
> > In their most basic operating mode, SSL VPN systems simply act as a HTTPS
> > authentication and authorization proxy that relies on session cookies, and
> > a URI-based request rewriting and forwarding engine. Such a configuration
> > enables the user to access any HTTP or HTTPS based Intranet applications;
> > web-based clients for some other protocols are also sometimes included.
> >
> >   [ With the help of various controls and applets again "not marked as
> >     safe", SSL VPNs can also forward local TCP ports through that tunnel,
> >     if unsupported network protocols need to be used. ]
> >
> > A good example: let's say there's an user who wishes to access his
> > corporate Outlook Web Access interface from a remote location. The usual
> > URL for the intranet service is:
> >
> >   http://owa/exchange/lcamtuf/inbox
> >
> > To access it over the Internet, that fellow needs to navigate to
> >  https://webvpn.foocorp.com/, enter his credentials, collect a session
> > cookie, and then go to (or be redirected to) something along the lines of:
> >
> >     https://webvpn.foocorp.com/http/0/owa/exchange/lcamtuf/inbox
> >
> > ...which, if the cookie validates, would be translated to the original URL
> > and allowed to go through, with SSL VPN acting as a proxy.
> >
> > Commercial SSL VPNs are a fairly recent technology that has a considerable
> > appeal to various corporations. Because of its novelty, however, in a
> > typical setup it may be subject to several serious security flaws, unless
> > very carefully designed.
> >
> > Possibly the most important problem is that web VPNs break the customary
> > browser security model that relies on domain name separation for the
> > purpose of restricting access to cookies and other objects. Browsers
> > generally allow " foo.com" to interact with own cookies or windows, but
> > prevent the site from accessing resources related to "bar.com". Yet
> > through SSL VPN, they all may look the same:
> >
> >    https://webvpn.foocorp.com/http/0/foo.com/serious_work
> >   https://webvpn.foocorp.com/http/0/bar.com/fun_and_games
> >
> > Because of this design, all pages displayed through a Web VPN interface
> > are lumped together. Whenever a page (or just a HTML fragment) that can be
> > controlled by the attacker is displayed by *any* of the applications
> > behind Web VPN, Javascript can access:
> >
> >   - Web VPN session cookie, which can be then passed to the attacker.
> >     This is equivalent to the attacker obtaining access to all protected
> >     systems and compromising Web VPN altogether. The threat could be
> >     mitigated by associating the cookie with client's IP, but such an
> >     approach is not always implemented, and is impractical with AOL and
> >     the likes.
> >
> >   - Application cookies set by other applications. If passed to the
> >     browser (as some SSL VPNs do), these cookies are separated by the use
> >     of "path" parameter alone, which does not necessarily establish a
> >     browser security domain boundary. This is equivalent to the attacker
> >     obtaining user credentials to these applications.
> >
> >  Some commonly used corporate applications may indeed serve
> > attacker-supplied contents, making these attacks virtually inherent to
> > most SSL VPN deployments:
> >
> >   - Various web mail systems, such as Outlook Web Access (OWA),
> >     may serve HTML attachments and other documents received from the
> >     Internet without providing an adequate browser warning. Although
> >     this is a security challenge by itself for all web mail interfaces
> >       (where there is a risk of stealing web mail session coookie),
> >     the access to all SSL VPN cookies make the impact far more serious.
> >
> >   - Trivial cross-site scripting flaws in *any* available intranet
> >     application may compromise the entire SSL VPN. Because these
> >     applications are usually complex, aplenty, and all under-audited,
> >     existence of such bugs is pretty much a certainty.
> >
> >   - Trivial cross-site scripting bug in SSL VPNs themselves may endanger
> >     the entire system. Impossible? Cisco SSL VPN has this:
> >     https://<vpnhost>/webvpn/dnserror.html?domain=<u>foo</u>
> >     (and yes, they seem to be aware of this, but have no specific
> >     timeline for fixing it - so I suppose it's OK to report it;
> >       hi Larry Seltzer).
> >
> >   [ The possibility of allowing Internet access through Web VPN is
> >     something I wouldn't even consider here. ]
> >
> > Additional problems may arise when SSL VPN gateway IP is added to "trusted
> > zone" for the purpose of making certain intranet applications work the way
> > they worked locally at the office.
> >
> > Yes, these problems are hardly new, and can be mitigated with some very
> > careful design, and some vendors may be doing it properly - but I think
> > that the following needs to be said:
> >
> >   - SSL VPNs may easily turn negligible and common security issues such as
> >     XSS into a considerable corporation-wide threat; and preventing this
> >     is hard.
> >
> >     - Most SSL VPNs may be "secure by design" only in fairly unrealistic
> >     situations or limited uses.
> >
> >   - Unless the vendor takes the effort to precisely and honestly explain
> >     how they mitigate these specific threats, it is safe to assume they
> >     might be not doing it properly (or not doing it at all).
> >
> > Since these issues are generally not seriously discussed by vendors in
> > assessments of their products (say,
> >   http://www.cisco.com/web/about/security/intelligence/05_08_SSL-VPN-Security.html),
> > I would assume that extreme caution needs to be exercised.
> >
> >
> > Flame on.
> >
> > Regards,
> > /mz
> >
>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists