mirror of
https://github.com/fdiskyou/Zines.git
synced 2025-03-09 00:00:00 +01:00
213 lines
11 KiB
Text
213 lines
11 KiB
Text
![]() |
% = % = % = % = % = % = % = %
|
||
|
= =
|
||
|
% P h r a c k X V I I %
|
||
|
= =
|
||
|
% = % = % = % = % = % = % = %
|
||
|
|
||
|
Phrack Seventeen
|
||
|
07 April 1988
|
||
|
|
||
|
File 8 of 12 : Dialback Modem Security
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
In article <906@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.UUCP writes:
|
||
|
>Here are the two messages I have archived on the subject...
|
||
|
|
||
|
>[I believe the definitive article in that discussion was by Lauren Weinstein,
|
||
|
>vortex!lauren; perhaps he has a copy.
|
||
|
|
||
|
What follows is the original article that started the discussion. I
|
||
|
do not know whether it qualifies as the "definitive article" as I think I
|
||
|
remember Lauren and I both posted further comments.
|
||
|
- Dave
|
||
|
|
||
|
** ARTICLE FOLLOWS **
|
||
|
|
||
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
An increasingly popular technique for protecting dial-in ports from
|
||
|
the ravages of hackers and other more sinister system penetrators is dial back
|
||
|
operation wherein a legitimate user initiates a call to the system he desires
|
||
|
to connect with, types in his user ID and perhaps a password, disconnects and
|
||
|
waits for the system to call him back at a prearranged number. It is assumed
|
||
|
that a penetrator will not be able to specify the dial back number (which is
|
||
|
carefully protected), and so even if he is able to guess a user-name/password
|
||
|
pair he cannot penetrate the system because he cannot do anything meaningful
|
||
|
except type in a user-name and password when he is connected to the system. If
|
||
|
he has a correct pair it is assumed the worst that could happen is a spurious
|
||
|
call to some legitimate user which will do no harm and might even result in a
|
||
|
security investigation.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Many installations depend on dial-back operation of modems for their
|
||
|
principle protection against penetration via their dial up ports on the
|
||
|
incorrect presumption that there is no way a penetrator could get connected to
|
||
|
the modem on the call back call unless he was able to tap directly into the
|
||
|
line being called back. Alas, this assumption is not always true -
|
||
|
compromises in the design of modems and the telephone network unfortunately
|
||
|
make it all too possible for a clever penetrator to get connected to the call
|
||
|
back call and fool the modem into thinking that it had in fact dialed the
|
||
|
legitimate user.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The problem areas are as follows:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Caller control central offices
|
||
|
|
||
|
Many older telephone central office switches implement caller control
|
||
|
in which the release of the connection from a calling telephone to a called
|
||
|
telephone is exclusively controlled by the originating telephone. This means
|
||
|
that if the penetrator simply failed to hang up a call to a modem on such a
|
||
|
central office after he typed the legitimate user's user-name and password,
|
||
|
the modem would be unable to hang up the connection.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Almost all modems would simply go on-hook in this situation and not
|
||
|
notice that the connection had not been broken. If the same line was used to
|
||
|
dial out on as the call came in on, when the modem went to dial out to call
|
||
|
the legitimate user back the it might not notice (there is no standard way of
|
||
|
doing so electrically) that the penetrator was still connected on the line.
|
||
|
This means that the modem might attempt to dial and then wait for an
|
||
|
answerback tone from the far end modem. If the penetrator was kind enough to
|
||
|
supply the answerback tone from his modem after he heard the system modem
|
||
|
dial, he could make a connection and penetrate the system. Of course some
|
||
|
modems incorporate dial tone detectors and ringback detectors and in fact wait
|
||
|
for dial tone before dialing, and ringback after dialing but fooling those
|
||
|
with a recording of dial tone (or a dial tone generator chip) should pose
|
||
|
little problem.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Trying to call out on a ringing line
|
||
|
|
||
|
Some modems are dumb enough to pick up a ringing line and attempt to
|
||
|
make a call out on it. This fact could be used by a system penetrator to
|
||
|
break dial back security even on joint control or called party control central
|
||
|
offices. A penetrator would merely have to dial in on the dial-out line
|
||
|
(which would work even if it was a separate line as long as the penetrator was
|
||
|
able to obtain it's number), just as the modem was about to dial out. The
|
||
|
same technique of waiting for dialing to complete and then supplying
|
||
|
answerback tone could be used - and of course the same technique of supplying
|
||
|
dial tone to a modem which waited for it would work here too.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Calling the dial-out line would work especially well in cases where
|
||
|
the software controlling the modem either disabled auto-answer during the
|
||
|
period between dial-in and dial-back (and thus allowed the line to ring with
|
||
|
no action being taken) or allowed the modem to answer the line (auto-answer
|
||
|
enabled) and paid no attention to whether the line was already connected when
|
||
|
it tried to dial out on it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
The ring window
|
||
|
|
||
|
However, even carefully written software can be fooled by the ring
|
||
|
window problem. Many central offices actually will connect an incoming call
|
||
|
to a line if the line goes off hook just as the call comes in without first
|
||
|
having put the 20 hz. ringing voltage on the line to make it ring. The ring
|
||
|
voltage in many telephone central offices is supplied asynchronously every 6
|
||
|
seconds to every line on which there is an incoming call that has not been
|
||
|
answered, so if an incoming call reaches a line just an instant after the end
|
||
|
of the ring period and the line clairvoyantly responds by going off hook it
|
||
|
may never see any ring voltage.
|
||
|
|
||
|
This means that a modem that picks up the line to dial out just as our
|
||
|
penetrator dials in may not see any ring voltage and may therefore have no way
|
||
|
of knowing that it is connected to an incoming call rather than the call
|
||
|
originating circuitry of the switch. And even if the switch always rings
|
||
|
before connecting an incoming call, most modems have a window just as they are
|
||
|
going off hook to originate a call when they will ignore transients (such as
|
||
|
ringing voltage) on the assumption that they originate from the going-off-hook
|
||
|
process. [The author is aware that some central offices reverse battery (the
|
||
|
polarity of the voltage on the line) in the answer condition to distinguish it
|
||
|
from the originate condition, but as this is by no means universal few if any
|
||
|
modems take advantage of the information supplied]
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
In Summary
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is thus impossible to say with any certainty that when a modem goes
|
||
|
off hook and tries to dial out on a line which can accept incoming calls it
|
||
|
really is connected to the switch and actually making an outgoing call. And
|
||
|
because it is relatively easy for a system penetrator to fool the tone
|
||
|
detecting circuitry in a modem into believing that it is seeing dial tone,
|
||
|
ringback and so forth until he supplies answerback tone and connects and
|
||
|
penetrates system security should not depend on this sort of dial-back.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Some Recommendations
|
||
|
|
||
|
Dial back using the same line used to dial in is not very secure and
|
||
|
cannot be made completely secure with conventional modems. Use of dithered
|
||
|
(random) time delays between dial in and dial back combined with allowing the
|
||
|
modem to answer during the wait period (with provisions made for recognizing
|
||
|
the fact that this wasn't the originated call - perhaps by checking to see if
|
||
|
the modem is in originate or answer mode) will substantially reduce this
|
||
|
window of vulnerability but nothing can completely eliminate it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Obviously if one happens to be connected to an older caller control
|
||
|
switch, using the same line for dial in and dial out isn't secure at all. It
|
||
|
is easy to experimentally determine this, so it ought to be possible to avoid
|
||
|
such situations.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Dial back using a separate line (or line and modem) for dialing out is
|
||
|
much better, provided that either the dial out line is sterile (not readily
|
||
|
traceable by a penetrator to the target system) or that it is a one way line
|
||
|
that cannot accept incoming calls at all. Unfortunately the later technique
|
||
|
is far superior to the former in most organizations as concealing the
|
||
|
telephone number of dial out lines for long periods involves considerable
|
||
|
risk. The author has not tried to order a dial out only telephone line, so he
|
||
|
is unaware of what special charges might be made for this service or even if
|
||
|
it is available.
|
||
|
|
||
|
A final word of warning
|
||
|
|
||
|
In years past it was possible to access telephone company test and
|
||
|
verification trunks in some areas of the country by using mf tones from so
|
||
|
called "blue boxes". These test trunks connect to special ports on telephone
|
||
|
switches that allow a test connection to be made to a line that doesn't
|
||
|
disconnect when the line hangs up. These test connections could be used to
|
||
|
fool a dial out modem, even one on a dial out only line (since the telephone
|
||
|
company needs a way to test it, they usually supply test connections to it
|
||
|
even if the customer can't receive calls).
|
||
|
|
||
|
Access to verification and test ports and trunks has been tightened
|
||
|
(they are a kind of dial-a-wiretap so it ought to be pretty difficult) but in
|
||
|
any as in any system there is always the danger that someone, through
|
||
|
stupidity or ignorance if not mendacity will allow a system penetrator access
|
||
|
to one.
|
||
|
|
||
|
** Some more recent comments **
|
||
|
|
||
|
Since posting this I have had several people suggest use of PBX lines
|
||
|
that can dial out but not be dialed into or outward WATS lines that also
|
||
|
cannot be dialed. Several people have also suggested use of call forwarding
|
||
|
to forward incoming calls on the dial out line to the security office. [This
|
||
|
may not work too well in areas served by certain ESS's which ring the number
|
||
|
from which calls are being forwarded once anyway in case someone forgot to
|
||
|
cancel forwarding. Forwarding is also subject to being cancelled at random
|
||
|
times by central office software reboots]
|
||
|
|
||
|
And since posting this I actually tried making some measurements of
|
||
|
how wide the incoming call window is for the modems we use for dial in at
|
||
|
CRDS. It appears to be at least 2-3 seconds for US Robotics Courier 2400 baud
|
||
|
modems. I found I could defeat same-line-for-dial-out dialback quite handily
|
||
|
in a few dozen tries no matter what tricks I played with timing and watching
|
||
|
modem status in the dial back login software. I eventually concluded that
|
||
|
short of reprogramming the micro in the modem to be smarter about monitoring
|
||
|
line state, there was little I could do at the login (getty) level to provide
|
||
|
much security for same line dialback.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Since it usually took a few tries to break in, it is possible to
|
||
|
provide some slight security improvement by sharply limiting the number of
|
||
|
unsuccessful callbacks per user per day so that a hacker with only a couple of
|
||
|
passwords would have to try over a significant period of time.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Note that dialback on a dedicated dial-out only line is somewhat
|
||
|
secure.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
David I. Emery Charles River Data Systems 617-626-1102
|
||
|
983 Concord St., Framingham, MA 01701.
|
||
|
uucp: decvax!frog!die
|
||
|
|
||
|
--
|
||
|
David I. Emery Charles River Data Systems
|
||
|
983 Concord St., Framingham, MA 01701 (617) 626-1102 uucp: decvax!frog!die
|