RE: Cracking attempt

2003-02-25 Thread Tim Spriggs

Thanks everyone.

-Tim

  PRE 
##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##
| T I MS P R I G G S |
|Assistant Sysadmin - Development|
|College of Engineering and Mines|
|ECE206A - (520) 621-3185|
##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##
 /PRE 

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Stefaan Teerlinck wrote:

 There are also cheap ($100) NAT routers / firewalls available like
 D-Link or Netgear if you don't need a speed  10Mbps
 You'll have to spend $100, but it won't consume you time, it takes a lot
 less space, and it will consume a lot less electricity.

  -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
  Van: Craig Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Verzonden: dinsdag 25 februari 2003 1:38
  Aan: Tim Spriggs
  CC: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
  Onderwerp: Re: Cracking attempt
 
 
  On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 06:08:43AM -0700, Tim Spriggs wrote:
What OS are you using?  Presumably if it was Linux you would have
solved the problem with iptables or ipchains long ago...
  
   Solaris 9 :( It does have some firewalling software but caused some
   major conflicts at one point with no config and honestly, I and one
   other person are pushing to get a firewall and seperation
  of tasks on
   different machines. The way this thing sits right now I'd be
   un-surprised if someone with an hour of spare time and a
  little talent
   could get in and fuck a _LOT_ up.
 
  here's a quick-and-dirty (and cheap!) temporary solution:
 
  get an old 386/486/pentium box - there should be several
  gathering dust
  at any university.  put two ethernet cards in it, and install
  linux (any
  debian with kernel 2.4.x) on the machine and configure it as a NAT
  firewall.  plug one NIC into your network, and use a
  crossover cable to
  connect the other NIC to your solaris box.
 
  in short, what this will do is take the solaris box off the external
  network and put it on a second (private) network.  DNAT on
  the linux box
  will allow authorised machines to connect to it and SNAT allows the
  solaris box to get out.
 
  if you configure the NAT stuff right, the change will be completely
  transparent to all users.
 
  it's pretty ugly, but it will work...and it's something you can do
  without spending any money or asking permission (remember it's always
  easier to get forgiveness than permission :).
 
  if anyone ever notices and complains, you can justify it by saying you
  had no choice.  you had to protect the server and the backups it
  contained but had no budget to do it with.
 
 
  alternatively, build the linux box but put it between your external
  router and your main network.  there's no need for NAT in this setup,
  just plain routing and iptables firewalling rules.
 
 
  a third alternative, (which may or may not be viable,
  depending on what
  kind of border router you have and how your network is set up) is to
  replace the router with the linux box.
 
  craig
 
  --
  craig sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
   -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
 
 
  --
  To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 




 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]







Re: Cracking attempt

2003-02-24 Thread Tim Spriggs

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Russell Coker wrote:

 On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 07:38, Jason Lim wrote:
  Usually if we get such a report, we'll inform the client of their actions.
  Most times that discourages them from doing it.

 In any case it's a service to your client - who is the one paying you.  It
 always amazes me that people on the net expect you to take their side against
 one of your clients for something innocent like a bit of portscanning!

  unless someone is REALLY repeatedly hammering a server. Then if no action
  is taken we may even block them at the router/switch level.

 That's the only thing to do, if someone is excessively scanning you then you
 block their IP addresses for a while.  Of course you can't be too trigger
 happy with this or you'll end up with half the Internet in your firewall rule
 set...

In the defense of the ballistic person that is complaining about the
portscan, one of our servers is running a backup server that dies with no
error/warning when the server is portscanned. Unfortunately, our servers
can not be put behind a firewall as funding is at an all time low.

This is a very inconvenient feature and the company that provides the
backup server will do nothing about it so we have to manually restart the
deamon from time to time because we were (innocently) portscanned.


I guess my point is that there can be some wierd side-effects to obscure
things that portscans/other non-normal network behaviour can create.
However I will still side with you on the fact that abnormal behaviour
should be handled and discarded by the software.

Oh well.

My two cents worth.

-Tim


 --
 http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
 http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
 http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
 http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page


 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Cracking attempt

2003-02-24 Thread Tim Spriggs

Good point. The only other problem is that our department is looking for
ways to cut back and so asking for _anything_ to my immediate superiors
seems risky in their eyes.

Certainly there are people on their level in other departments who
wholeheartedly agree with me and even the people right above me to a
degree but stuff seems to be flying left and right as people do not want
to lose their jobs.

Hmm, maybe I should dedicate a box of my own so I don't lose mine? :)

Anywho, I appreciate the concern and I do realize what a mess this entire
thing is. If it were solely up to me I would have a linux firewall that
routed all ssh/mail/other user services to a single box and then keep all
of the system level crap on another (such as our LDAP server and backup
client).

As of right now, I can think of way too many ways that this thing is
holier than the pope's golf clubs.

-Tim

  PRE 
##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##
| T I MS P R I G G S |
|Assistant Sysadmin - Development|
|College of Engineering and Mines|
|ECE206A - (520) 621-3185|
##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##--##
 /PRE 

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Emile van Bergen wrote:

 Hi,

 On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 06:08:43AM -0700, Tim Spriggs wrote:

  On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Russell Coker wrote:
 
   BTW  As a rule of thumb, if you can crash it then you can probably
   exploit it, I hope that server isn't running as root.
 
  I realize that too. Unfortunately, Universities (at least around here)
  tend to be VERY political and getting something like linux as a main
  college server in place would be making waves with the type of
  people that run the money upstairs.

 Just rest assured that a non-firewalled box containing backups will make
 a /lot/ more waves upstairs when (sic!) it gets cracked.

 You don't need to push Linux, you just need to explain the current
 risks, their cost and what it costs to implement a solution (be it
 Debian or Windows-95 based, ultimately they won't care), and the risks
 associated with that.

 Even the people upstairs have their gut feelings or prejudices about
 things they don't understand -- and we all know how hard that can make
 things -- they do tend to be sensitive to talks that mention well
 founded estimates of risks and costs.

 Cheers,


 Emile.

 --
 E-Advies / Emile van Bergen   |   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 tel. +31 (0)70 3906153|   http://www.e-advies.info



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]