republican-creole
site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Uniqs:
2025
Share Topic
Posting?
Post a:
Post a:
Links: ·Hijack This logs? ·Panda Free Tools ·Vundo Removal
AuthorAll Replies


dinferno

join:1999-12-24
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE

1 edit

VNC Flaw

I think this falls under security (but feel free to move it)...

Excerpt from site:
In our previous post I discussed a flaw in VNC that we discovered by accident. It essentially allows you to access a host running Real VNC 4 without knowing the password.

I have put together a proof of concept web application. If you visit this page from the server or machine running VNC, it will attempt to connect back and display a snapshot. If it says your safe - then hey your safe. If not, you got to wonder how many million people have this installed and they have a wide open security flaw.

Now it is still possible we are wrong, since every machine we have had the chance to test has been touched by our software. Try it and see if you are vulnerable - and remember you need to browse to the testing page *from* the machine running VNC, and this machine and VNC port has to be accessible from the Internet.
Linkage
»www.intelliadmin.com/blog/2006/0···ept.html

The site's being /. now, so it might take sometime before one can try the app.


no__1__here
Premium
join:2003-10-13
Tomball, TX
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest

1 edit

Is this the UltraVNC authentication flaw (can't get to the URL you posted to see)? If so SANS posted about it a couple of days ago. I say that only so that folks can find info elsewhere, not to diss your post.

quote:
06.18.13 CVE: Not Available
Platform: Third Party Windows Apps
Title: UltraVNC Weak Challenge-Response Authentication
Description: UltraVNC is susceptible to a weak challenge-response authentication vulnerability. This issue is due to the use of insecure encryption during the authentication process of UltraVNC when configured to utilize the Microsoft Logon authentication mechanism.
UltraVNC version 1.0.1 is vulnerable.
Ref: »www.securityfocus.com/bid/17824

EDIT:
Doh, I should read up on the morning's news before commenting! Perhaps you are referring to VNC 4? »it.slashdot.org/it/06/05/11/2344217.shtml


La Luna
Survived Ashraful
Premium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Vonage
·Optimum Online

said by no__1__here:

EDIT:
Doh, I should read up on the morning's news before commenting! Perhaps you are referring to VNC 4? »it.slashdot.org/it/06/05/11/2344217.shtml
It essentially allows you to access a host running Real VNC 4 without knowing the password.


--
~~Then the rainstorm came over me and I felt my spirit break; I had lost all of my belief you see, and realized my mistake...~~


jmorlan
Hmm... That's funny.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-05
Pacifica, CA
kudos:4

Apparently only Ral VNC version 4.1.1 is effected. Version 4.0 is apparently immune.



NetFixer
Freedom is NOT free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The 'Boro
Reviews:
·Vonage
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast

2 edits

reply to dinferno
Since the "proof of concept" site is off-line, I could not test the alleged vulnerability, and the original articles do not provide any meaningful hints as to the nature of the vulnerability.

I have to wonder if Mr Wiseman has simply rediscovered the well known eight character password limitation/vulnerablilty in RealVNC Free Edition as documented in the RealVNC FAQ Why can I access my VNC Server even though I'm entering the wrong password?

Any tests I have done (taking into account the known limitation/vulnerability) on my LAN using RealVNC Free Edition 4.1.1 has resulted in the dialog box shown below when entering the wrong (or nul) password.




EDIT: It seems that the folks at RealVNC are on top of this. The link VNC Free Edition 4.1 Known Bugs and Features has this new entry:
[12 May 2006 | VNC servers | A security vulnerability was discovered. | Fixed in 4.1.2]
--
Outsourcing is not the same thing as Offshoring!!.
Test your firewall.
Smell the flowers.

sheiny

join:2005-03-13
Turlock, CA

1 edit

reply to dinferno
Edit: Sorry, NetFixer already posted the fix.



SteveWiseman

@comcast.net

My name is Steve Wiseman. I am aware of the 8 char limit on passwords. This vulnerability allowed me to access 4.1.1 machines without *any* password. It has been promptly fixed by the RealVNC team - I suggest you download it from their site as soon as you can.

Steve


ghost16825
Use security metrics
Premium
join:2003-08-26

reply to dinferno
Full Disclosure:

»seclists.org/lists/fulldisclosur···359.html

This vulnerability seems to be so ridiculously simple, one wonders whether this was someone's attempted backdoor.



Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5

1 edit

reply to dinferno
Yah, this is bad news. It's not a buffer overflow or a bug at the low-level coding issue, it's a failure to negotiate an authentication protocol properly.

During the initial handshake, the server offers a list of auth types which it supports. There are bunches of types, and one of them is "no auth required" - we hope that most people configure their VNC to not ever offer that one, and always require at least a little something to get in the door.

But when the client replies with its requested auth type, the server only verifies that it's a valid type, not that it's one that the server actually offered. When the client replies with "No auth required", the server should reject it, but instead gives it a pass.

To illustrate the difference, consider these two conversations about somebody trying to get into a bar:

said by the first conversation :

Bouncer: I need to see ID - driver's license or passport?
Patron: How about I don't need ID?
Bouncer: How about you show me DL or passport, or I show you the door.
said by the second conversation :

Bouncer: I need to see ID - driver's license or passport?
Patron: How about I don't need ID?
Bouncer: Sure, come right in
This is a great find, though it's a stretch of the imagination to think that nobody else has ever found this and used it quietly to gain remote access to a system.

The only really safe way to use VNC is through a protected tunnel, such as on a VPN or through SSH.

Steve

Or, just change your subnet mask
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site

ghost16825
Use security metrics
Premium
join:2003-08-26

said by Steve:

This is a great find, though it's a stretch of the imagination to think that nobody else has ever found this and used it quietly to gain remote access to a system.
...which is precisely the reason I posted the full disclosure link, if anyone was wondering why.
--
Admin of the Kerio 2x-like open source project:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/kerio/
http://kerio.sourceforge.net/


jig

join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA

reply to dinferno
thanks for the headsup. long live ssh.



Lex Luthor
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Hicksville, NY
kudos:3

1 edit

Is UltraVNC 1.01 vulnerable as well? If so, what do I do?

Edit: I found the UltraVNC forums and looks like there's a 1.02 test version out that does have this fix.


Sunday, 03-Jun 15:25:44 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics