Unicode Passwords?

 Computing, Security  No Responses »
Apr 062017
 

One of the possibilities when setting a password is to use non-ASCII characters, such as ¨þ¨ (that is a thorn). Well perhaps something a little more secure than just a single character.

But just how sensible is it?

The first thing to bear in mind is that you need to be able to enter the password reliably in all circumstances. A tale from the mists of time: I once set a root password on a Unix machine that included the ¨@¨ character, which normally worked fine but failed on the system console because on that terminal the old Unix tty was still active and ¨@¨ would erase a line, making it impossible to enter the password.

Fortunately I realised what the problem was before it became more than a little annoying.

But the point still remains – if you cannot type a password, you cannot authenticate. So for passwords such as firmware passwords, system encryption passwords, or normal computer account passwords, a password containing Unicode characters is probably a very bad idea.

But for when you have full control over your computer(s), such as for web account passwords, a password containing Unicode characters is worth considering.

So how safe is a password containing a Unicode character anyway? Well, on my usual password cracking machine, john the ripper is unable to crack the password ¨þ¨ in approximately 24 hours. Of course that is a bit of a cheat as john the ripper does not by default check Unicode characters, and if it did it would be able to crack a one character password. But it would take longer; adding Unicode characters increases the space that john the ripper needs to search in order to find your password.

And perhaps more importantly makes it less likely for a password guesser (Hydra for example) to be successful.

So if you normally use a password such as thistlethinthorn, changing it to þistleþinþorn is worth considering. Or indeed changing the separator between words in a multiword password to a Unicode character: thistle☠thin☠thorn, or red¡whistle¡wheel.

Exim: Rejecting Mail With No Reverse DNS

 Computing, Linux, Security, Working Notes  No Responses »
Feb 122017
 

A very long time ago, I used to collect spam in order to graph how much spam a single mail server was likely to get over time, and almost as long ago, I lost interest in maintaining it. As a consequence I still get a ton of spam every day and after a long period of procrastination I have been slowly raising defences against spam.

This particular recipe is not really a defence against spam – it verifies that the remote server is properly DNS registered with a reverse DNS registration – in other words that the IP address it is connecting from is registered. This is a requirement for all mail servers, and as it turns out, spammers don’t care for registering their servers in the DNS.

This ACL snippet goes into the ACL for checking the recipient or for checking the message :-

 deny
   message = Your mail server is not properly DNS registered
   log_message = BLOCKED: No rDNS
   condition = ${if eq{$host_lookup_failed} {1} {1}{0}}
   # Check rDNS and block if not registered

There are three items of interest :-

  1. The message is intended to be easily read by recipients to determine what the problem is. It turns out that many people do not read NDRs, but if we get the message right at least we are doing the right thing.
  2. The log_message is intended to make automating log parsing easier.
  3. Within the condition, the $host_lookup_failed variable indicates that the reverse DNS lookup returned NXDOMAIN and not that it timed out (which would be $host_lookup_deferred).

That’s all there is to this little piece of configuration.

Why NAT Is Bad: The Blocklists

 Computing, Security  No Responses »
Feb 082017
 

One of the things that come up whenever IPv6 is mentioned on certain news sites, is that there are people out there who think that NAT solves all of the address size problems and doesn’t have any negatives. I could present a whole series of blog articles on why NAT is the work of the devil, and presents a clear and present danger to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (I might be exaggerating just a touch here).

The naive approach to a security issue originating from a certain network address is to block that network address permanently, pending an appropriate response, or temporarily. Not a bad idea although it does resemble a game of hunt the wumpus, and to assist in this, there are community based collective blocklists.

But what happens when you block an address, and that address is the public address of a NAT device? You block everyone sharing that public address, which could be just a household or it could be thousands of unconnected people. For instance, I have up to 32,000 people behind a handful of public IP addresses.

And yes I do regularly see problems where blocks have been put in place, and from what I can see this is a problem that is widely shared amongst people who NAT.

And once you are blocked in this way, you may be able to get it removed if you manage to identify which blocklist you are on, stop the network abuse and it has a well-run mechanism for removal. Most blocklists (including the ones I run) don’t work this way.

Every IP address has a reputation associated with it, and if you share a public IP address that has a poor reputation, parts of the Internet will disappear for you, and these include some well known services.

Got Entropy?

 Linux, Security  No Responses »
Jan 192017
 

Entropy.

Any serious cryptographic routines needs a good source of random numbers, and whilst Linux provides a random number generator by default it’s sources of entropy can be somewhat limited. Especially when you’re talking about a virtual machine.

Indeed if you try to pull too much randomness out of the Linux entropy pool (especially when it is especially limited), what you get might not be quite as random as you expect.

Which is where hardware randomness generators come in. And I finally have one (actually two), and have hooked them up. You may be able to guess what time I plugged it in from the graph below :-

So what real world difference does it make?

Well nothing is dramatically obvious, but :-

  1. I have slightly more confidence that any cryptographic software I might run has a good source of randomness and is less likely to accidentally perform poorly (in terms of cryptographic strength).
  2. Some cryptographic software blocks if the Linux entropy pool is empty; with a hardware source I can be more confident that any performance issues are not due to a lack of randomness.

Confessions Of A Spy In The Data Centre

 Humour, Security  No Responses »
Nov 262016
 

(actually we don’t usually sit in the data centre; it’s too noisy and usually the wrong temperature for people)

There is a perception amongst people that security “gurus” who work in network security are spying on all your network traffic. Not the hackers (which is a whole other matter), but the people who run enterprise firewalls. We do, but we’re not interested in what you are doing but instead what is being done to you (and the enterprise as a whole).

Frankly nothing strikes me as more boring than spying on someone’s porn browsing – if I really need to, I’ll hunt down my own porn thank you very much! And we’re busy; you could probably double the size of every network security team in every organisation on the planet and still nobody would be sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

On the subject of porn (as an extreme example), it is not a security issue. There is an argument that browsing porn sites is putting yourself at greater risk of picking up some kind of nasty infection, but avoiding porn sites to avoid getting infected with malware is a tactic that results in your computer being infected. So the intended content isn’t a problem as far as security is concerned, but we’re interested in unintended content.

Now there are places that enforce browsing censorship – blocking anything that isn’t work-related. That role is usually dumped on the network security people because they have the tools to do the job.

Does porn browsing on the office matter? Of course it does – some people are upset by the sight of such things, and almost as important, when someone is browsing porn they are not working. But such matters are best dealt with in the office by the line manager – if someone isn’t doing their work it doesn’t matter if they are browsing porn, hitting Facebook, or snoozing under the desk. All should be dealt with appropriately by the line manager.

And centralised censorship is a rather clumsy tool – blocking Facebook is all very well if it is to prevent personal usage of the Internet, but what about the Marketing department using Facebook for publicity? Or the Customer Service department keeping an eye on Facebook for product problems that they need to look into? These can be allowed through on a case-by-case basis, but it highlights that censorship is a clumsy tool.

The word from a nameless vendor who is in this space, is that in many cases this censorship has less to do with preventing people from doing “naughty” things, and more to do with controlling bandwidth usage. And as bandwidth becomes cheaper, there is less interest in censoring Internet activities – certainly from a personal perspective I notice a decrease in the number of people who complain they cannot visit certain sites because of work’s “firewall”.

There is also the subject of TLS inspection where firewalls intercept and inspect TLS or SSL encrypted traffic between you and “out there”. Again there is a suspicion that we are for whatever reason spying on your activities. The answer to this is the same as previously – why should we bother? It is too much like hard work, and frankly most of the information that passes through a firewall is unbelievably boring.

No, TLS interception is used to do the boring task of inspecting traffic for malware, spyware, and other security threats. And with the increasing use of TLS to encrypt traffic it is becoming more and more important to do TLS interception for security reasons.

Yes there are those who would use that sort of technology to spy on your activities, but those organisations are typically nation states … and repressive ones at that. But it is extreme foolishness to blame a useful tool for the abuses that an abusive government perpetrates.  Your average enterprise just isn’t that interested in what you’re up to.

And if you still don’t believe this, there is a simple answer: Do anything private on your own private network.

b84v37631-cubist-eye

 Older Entries  Newer Entries