To our Valued Customers,

We would like to take this opportunity to respond to the Raptor Firewall
6.5 HTTP issue recently reported on
http://www.securiteam.com/securitynews/Raptor_Firewall_HTTP_Forwarding_Vulnerability.html.



The first point we would like to make is that although we do agree with the
authors as it relates to the security implication of the described HTTP
functionality we do not accept the assertion that this is a product related
issue with the Raptor Firewall (HTTP proxy).  Rather, our Raptor  Firewall
HTTP proxy is RFC-compliant, and as such it is behaving consistently with
the specification as described in RFC 2616.  From a pure protocol
perspective, this is a valid HTTP connection and thus the traffic is being
allowed through the firewall with a proper rule.  However, recognizing the
security impact of this configuration, the Raptor Firewall provides you
with the capability to shut down this functionality by setting a
configuration option (http.noproxy) through our configuration files or the
RMC.  The online documentation states:

"To Prevent the Raptor System from being used as a Proxy

If you're using service redirection on the Raptor system (for example, for
connections to your Web server) and you don't want to allow users
connecting through the Raptor system to be able to use it as a proxy,
create a Rule and enter the following into the Advanced Services tab:

http.noproxy"

This provides you with more security protection, in addition to the added
flexibility (vs. a packet filter or stateful inspection product) since it
eliminates the need for completely shutting down the proxy capability of
your internal Web servers.

Additionally, in an effort to provide the highest level of managability and
security to our customers, we will introduce an enhancement to our
Management Console (GUI) whereby the HTTP.NOPROXY functionality will be
permanently exposed.  We also intend to change the default to disable the
HTTP proxy capability on all external interfaces, and leave it enabled on
all internal interfaces.  This will provide your security administrator the
option to manage the default behavior as desired while defaulting to a more
secure initial state "out-of-the-box".

In summary the recommendation to shutdown the HTTP proxy and replace it
with a TCP GSP is the wrong approach.  This solution relegates your Web
servers to the mercy of application-level attacks and it is comparable to
protecting your servers with a packet filter or stateful inspection
firewall, something we do not recommend.

Sincerely,

William J. Aguilar and Tasha van Es
Symantec Corp.
Technical Product Managers




                                                                                       
                       
                    Lysel                                                              
                       
                    Christian            To:     Alexander Bochmann 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@SMTP@Exchange, Lysel         
                    Emre                 Christian Emre 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@SMTP@Exchange                      
                    <chlys@wmdata        cc:     
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@SMTP@Exchange,                     
                    .com>                [EMAIL PROTECTED]@SMTP@Exchange       
                       
                                         Subject:     [rapt] RE: Raptor 6.5 http 
vulnerability                
                    03/26/2001                                                         
                       
                    03:34 PM                                                           
                       
                    Please                                                             
                       
                    respond to                                                         
                       
                    Lysel                                                              
                       
                    Christian                                                          
                       
                    Emre                                                               
                       
                    <chlys@wmdata                                                      
                       
                    .com>                                                              
                       
                                                                                       
                       
                                                                                       
                       



Note, the patch can be downloaded from (for the international version):

ftp://ftp.axent.com/pub/RaptorFirewall/International/Patches/NT6.5/

> From: Alexander Bochmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>  > 1. Problem Description
>  >      The Raptor firewall is vulnerability for forwarding http
>  >      request on other port numbers than 80, if a rule allows http
>  >      traffic.
>  >      When an extern or internal client, configures itself to use
>  >      the nearest interface as proxy, it's possible to access other
>  >      ports that 80 on the target host.
>  >
>  > 2.1 Non Vulnerable Versions
>  >      Raptor firewall 6.0.2.
>
> Depending on the configuration and on how you try it, 6.0.2
> also seems to be vulnerable.

We have not noticed this.

> I already noticed some months ago that the Raptor (6.0.2)
> firewall's http gateway possibly leaks information about an
> internal network with the method you described, if redirected
> services are used.

It does not leaks information about the internal network. The apache
webserver can leak information from error pages:

.....
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable
to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, <email of webmaster> and inform
them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that
may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Apache/1.3.9 Server at <hostname> Port <port>
.......

> It's possible to brute-force IP addresses used on a DMZ
> network: If you use the http gateway on the external
> interface as proxy, you can access internal IPs (and
> internal DNS names) directly - just try them all ;)

This should generate some logs!

And can also be blocked by: http.urlpattern

> Example:
>
> > setenv http_proxy http://external.firewall.name:80/
>
>
> Now go on with something like...
>
> > lynx -mime_header http://192.168.95.1:80/
>
>
> ...you will either get 403 or 503 errors from the gateway
> (depending on it's configuration) for the destination:
>
> > lynx -mime_header http://192.168.95.2:80/

This is the internal interface for the firewall, right?

> HTTP/1.1 503 Service Unavailable
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Server: Simple, Secure Web Server 1.1
> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:59:29 GMT
> Connection: close
> Content-Type: text/html
> [.. etc ..]
>
> ...or, if you are lucky, an answer from a web server:
>
> % lynx -mime_header http://192.168.95.74:80/

And this is a request to the webserver?

http.remove-header, should remove the headers :)


> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:43:19 GMT
> Server: Apache/1.3.17 (Unix) mod_perl/1.24_01 PHP/3.0.18
> Last-Modified: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:23:04 GMT
> Accept-Ranges: bytes
> Content-Length: 2490
> Connection: close
> Content-Type: text/html
>
> <!doctype html public "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
> [.. etc ..]
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Sponsored by FireTower, Inc. - Internet Security Consulting & Sales
*
* Before posting, please check the following resources:
*    Patches/Hotfixes... http://www.symantec.com/techsupp/files/
raptor_firewall/raptor_firewall.html
*    Raptor FAQs........ http://websupport.axent.com/
*    FireTower FAQs..... http://www.firetower.com/faqs/
*    List Archives...... http://firetower.com/archives.html
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Reply via email to