Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:01:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ryan Sears <rdsears@....edu>
To: Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, Mutiny <mutiny@...inbeardsucks.com>
Subject: Re: Filezilla's silent caching of user's
 credentials

Ah, now your point becomes clear to me. 

Of course you shouldn't be granting access to that kind of stuff. That shouldn't even really need to be stated, but I whole-heartedly agree. 

Rule #1 of security: You're only as secure as your weakest, and most easily manipulated layer (or link if you're using the chain example). Sadly though some mis-configurations set that kind of stuff up automatically, which is why google hacking is *so* damn effective. I wish it weren't, but it is absolutely shocking how many channels that people thought were buried can be discovered if you know how to look for it. 

If Google weren't so scrupulous about filtering for automated requests, then it would definitely be (and still is) one of the easiest channels to discover vulnerabilities on a network-wide level. It *also* has the added benefit of no need to interact with the machines you're enumerating information about. Of course there are ways around google's blocking (such as using a botnet) but stuff like that is out of the usual person's grasp. 

I'm not quite sure I grasp your 'red district' example, perhaps it's a difference in national slang?

Also no-one *asks* for comments. That's what happens when you talk on an un-moderated list like this. 

I also think that a flame war might be brewing, but I think it was due to the unclear nature of your first post. My reaction was pretty much the same until I read it a few times, and realized that you might be un-clearly stating your point. We all agree that this is bad practice, and that's it's even WORSE practice to let the googlez index *any* files that you don't explicitly tell it to. We also agree on the "door vs. window" adage - You can buy a military-grade lock and sink all your money into a fancy door that will never be penetrated, but if you have cheap window locks, what's the point? Hopefully that helps clear up the rise in hostile feelings. It's good to see that you're both passionate about defending your points though.

Ryan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Sciberras" <uuf6429@...il.com>
To: "Ryan Sears" <rdsears@....edu>
Cc: michaelslists@...il.com, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, "Mutiny" <mutiny@...inbeardsucks.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 3:32:10 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Filezilla's silent caching of user's credentials

My point is, if you are granting access to this password file to everyone, the security hassles you're going through are all useless. 
I mean, ok, you might prevent script kiddies (or lazy hackers) from getting to the passwords, but discrimination is not the point of security is it? 

With regards to the handcuffs example, yes let's. They're no use if the criminal with the handcuff is situated in the red district and won't budge out of there. 
I think it's the context that makes this work. Users/admins should be limiting access to the passwords file in the first place. 

So far the security flaws we've seen (with this bad practice of using plaintext) is people happily handing out passwords. 
OK, encrypting the file would have prevented this mess - somewhat. 
Better still, they shouldn't be handing out the file in the first place. 

@Chris/silky - I didn't ask for your comments - maybe you didn't realize, yours are just as useless. 
No not in the theoretical context you keep coming up with, they *are* really useless. 
I mean, arguments like "you are shit, without doubts", really won't get you anywhere. 

@Ryan - I don't need to take to anyone's defence. As you correctly said, any security precaution might not work when put through certain conditions. 
Maybe it's just my opinion, I don't know. But the problem I see is people shouldn't be assuming something is safe and hand it out. 
Sharing a whole hard drive with the web doesn't sound like a smart idea to me. 


Cheers, 
Chris. 





On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Ryan Sears < rdsears@....edu > wrote: 


Yeah I definitely have to go with silky on this one. 

Maybe if you elaborate on your point? I'm not sure I entirely grasp what you're trying to say, because if I am, then you share relatively the same view as the dev that's causing this problem. You can argue that any security measure "doesn't *work*" as you so put it, given the right circumstances. 

Take handcuffs for example, what good would they be if when you put them on, you could never get them off again? Sure they would "work", but there's no mechanism to UNsecure them, which is where vulnerabilities in security systems inherently exist. The handcuff design is flawed on a fundamental level as they can be easily shimmed by manipulating the way they lock into place. That's when the double-lock came into play, which is a very, very simple example of layered security. While the handcuffs are double-locked the teeth can't progress in any direction, because it locks that mechanism into place. This is undone by turning the key in the opposite direction to release the 'double-lock' then back forward to release the teeth. Call that two-factor authentication. That's all fair and well, but there are STILL ways to manipulate them to get out. What happens if you have a key (which is pretty much universal)? It's even been demonstrated that most handcuffs can be picked with a simple bobby pin. Are handcuffs pointless though? No. They've been demonstrated time and time again to be 'good enough'. 

My point is, the KISS principal doesn't really hold true here. Encryption schemes are MEANT to be complex in nature (at least one-way), because that's the only way to make sure that something is properly secured. Botg DID have encryption at some point, but he did away with it after people found it was easily reversed. ( http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2005/Sep/50 ) 

The idea that just because an encryption scheme may be reversed at some point it shouldn't be used is *absolutely* terrible practice. Shadow passwords are a great example, while they have the ability to be cracked, they're still a de facto standard for authentication in *any* unix environment. There's a reason for this. That's why people created the crypt() function, and that's why the windows API has stuff to do this natively as well. 

As for change proposals, I did the digging, and found that 90% of all this crap would be avoided with a single 0->1 change in the source code. If 'kiosk-mode' was enabled by default, you could at least have the OPTION to use piss-poor practices to store your passwords if you so choose. ( http://forum.filezilla-project.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17932&start=15 ) 

I've made my final plea to botg on this issue, and if he's not going to budge I'll be forced to take measures into my own hands and change the damn source myself. 

Thankfully the rest of the world doesn't share your (& botg's) opinions, because if they did, hacking wouldn't be any fun. 

Ryan 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "silky" < michaelslists@...il.com > 
To: "Christian Sciberras" < uuf6429@...il.com > 
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk , "Mutiny" < mutiny@...inbeardsucks.com > 
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 2:46:13 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Filezilla's silent caching of user's credentials 




On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Christian Sciberras < uuf6429@...il.com > wrote: 
> > Not all attackers are created 
> > equally. 
> 
> I still see this a simple matter of violating KISS to introduce a layer of encryption. 
> The question is, to which end? Sure, an attacker might see the encrypted 
> file and think it's "too difficult" for him to get to the passwords. Another 
> might use a certain utility to decrypt the said file. The thing is, to which end are 
> we encrypting the data? Just for the sake of making it work like the N other programs? 
> I mean, if this doesn't *work*, why even *bother*? 

Sorry, but your comments are totally useless here and can't even 
really be addressed properly, given their quite ridiculous nature. You 
are missing the point of the encryption, and it is not my job to 
convince you, and any further comments with anyone other than the 
developer are useless. 


> > There is no question here. There is no discussion. It should be done, 
> > and if it is not, password saving should be stopped in FileZilla or an 
> > alternative program should be sought. It's that simple. 
> 
> Great. If it's so simple that it can be done in under 10 mins, go complain 
> to them. 

This email thread *is* a direct complaint to them, after bugs have 
been closed for years. I didn't start this thread. Do you even 
understand what is going on here? Your emails suggest you do not. 


> Cheers, 
> Chris. 


-- 
silky 

http://dnoondt.wordpress.com/ 

"Every morning when I wake up, I experience an exquisite joy — the joy 
of being this signature." 




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

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists