[Full-Disclosure] Re: NAT router inbound network traffic subversion
From: Kristian Hermansen (khermansen_at_ht-technology.com)
Date: 01/28/05
- Previous message: aanisimov_at_ptsecurity.ru: "[Full-Disclosure] [ Positive Technologies ] Defeating Microsoft Windows XP SP2 Heap protection"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:37:02 -0500
I think the answers that I received in response to my query are somewhat
obvious -- yes -- but neither answered my question! Morning Wood's
analysis was brilliant as ever, like always ;-P
"atacker now can do a he wishes to the rest of your network ( GAME
OVER )"
Ummm...okay. The problem with you was this statement:
"NAT client browses web..."
HOW IS THIS NOT USER INTERACTION?!?!? I asked if there is a computer on
the internal network that doesn't do anything -- that means SENDING NO
PACKETS to the router -- if an attacker can get EVEN ONE PACKET inside:
then they will prove everyone wrong, right? If one packet can get
through, it can be considered a rogue packet that should not have
entered the internal network destined for a particular host -- or better
yet -- an internal broadcast address going to all hosts.
Some say getting these rogue packets into the network is "impossible".
That is the reason for my question. I like to think that most problems
are "intractable", but not "impossible". Can anyone prove me wrong?
Can someone push a rogue packet behind a router with no client
interaction??? This is my chautauqua...
-- Kristian Hermansen <khermansen@ht-technology.com>
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
- application/pgp-signature attachment: This is a digitally signed message part
