never stop questioning

cisco-3000.txt

cisco-3000.txt
Posted Jul 12, 2002
Authored by Master Phi

The Cisco VPN3000 gateway lets remote client dictate which maximum MTU to use when sending back ESP frames, regardless of the transmitting capabilities of the physical medium. This can lead to denial of service conditions.

tags | remote, denial of service
systems | cisco
MD5 | 22abcad0808b4ff889974a197cfb521e

cisco-3000.txt

Change Mirror Download

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) Cisco VPN3000 gateway MTU overflow
==================================

Bug class: Conceptual/bad protocol implementation
Equipments affected: Cisco/VPN 3000 Concentrator with
software vpn3000-3.5.Rel-k9.bin

FACTS
The Cisco VPN3000 gateway lets remote client dictate
which maximum MTU to use when sending back ESP
frames, regardless of the transmitting capabilities
of the physical medium.

IMPACT
* Oversized frames get silently discarded by
equipements linked to the gateway's public
interface and retransmissions occur.
* Other disturbances or DoS against neighboring
equipements may occur, especially as many IP
stacks on routers and sniffers etc ... are
poorly implemented.

DETAILS
We have witnessed this phenomena after establishing
tunnels with the "VPN dialer" over a modem
connexion: when the target sends back ethernet
frames with size close to the max ethernet MTU
(1500), the gateway encrypts the frames adding
ESP headers and stupidly tries to send a
1580-bytes frame back to the client.

RESOLUTION
-> From the official documentation there is no way
to enforce a maximum MTU on the VPN gateway.
-> Hence: a gateway software patch by Cisco is
necessary: if MTU negociation occurs, the gateway
should set a max-MTU threshold (the physical medium's !).

PSEUDO WORKAROUNDS

* client side: For Windows-based OS (likely Unix and
Linux-based OS too), Cisco released a tool
called setMTU.exe that can prevent ill MTU
negociation from happening.

* target side: artificially lowering the max MTU
on the interfaces.

-> But such a policy is not acceptable:
The VPN client, as well as remote targets,
should not have to be aware of
the gateway's interface configuration !

The bug does not lie in client software, but
in the gateway's software.

Master Phi

---
Today's statement:
Networking software robustness isn't worth the tenth
of that of arcade game engines.
Let's call it junk software.

Comments

RSS Feed Subscribe to this comment feed

No comments yet, be the first!

Login or Register to post a comment

File Archive:

May 2012

  • Su
  • Mo
  • Tu
  • We
  • Th
  • Fr
  • Sa
  • 1
    May 1st
    37 Files
  • 2
    May 2nd
    53 Files
  • 3
    May 3rd
    33 Files
  • 4
    May 4th
    4 Files
  • 5
    May 5th
    10 Files
  • 6
    May 6th
    17 Files
  • 7
    May 7th
    19 Files
  • 8
    May 8th
    36 Files
  • 9
    May 9th
    34 Files
  • 10
    May 10th
    35 Files
  • 11
    May 11th
    20 Files
  • 12
    May 12th
    18 Files
  • 13
    May 13th
    11 Files
  • 14
    May 14th
    27 Files
  • 15
    May 15th
    58 Files
  • 16
    May 16th
    54 Files
  • 17
    May 17th
    25 Files
  • 18
    May 18th
    53 Files
  • 19
    May 19th
    9 Files
  • 20
    May 20th
    15 Files
  • 21
    May 21st
    25 Files
  • 22
    May 22nd
    32 Files
  • 23
    May 23rd
    35 Files
  • 24
    May 24th
    26 Files
  • 25
    May 25th
    25 Files
  • 26
    May 26th
    0 Files
  • 27
    May 27th
    0 Files
  • 28
    May 28th
    0 Files
  • 29
    May 29th
    0 Files
  • 30
    May 30th
    0 Files
  • 31
    May 31st
    0 Files

Top Authors In Last 30 Days

File Tags

Systems

packet storm

© 2012 Packet Storm. All rights reserved.

close