[Full-disclosure] Microsoft Vista's IPv6: Dangerous Information Leak?



Hi,

I haven't been using a Microsoft Windows Vista so far, just read some
announcements and white papers. However, it appears to me at a first
glance, as if it had a significat information leak.

Microsoft introduced a new IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling mechanism called
Teredo. (See e.g. RFC 4380). It is somehow similar to 6to4, but the
differences are:



- IPv6 packages are wrapped in UDP

- Thus, they run more easily through Firewalls and NAT devices

- You can do it with RFC1918 addresses

- In contrast to 6to4 it is intended to be used host-to-host.

While 6to4 is something you would run on your outermost router
(the one with an official IPv4 address) and provide plain IPv6 to
your internal network (then you know what your're doing, you
actively have to configure it), Teredo is designed to run
automatically on the local host. So every desktop machine becomes a
tunneling client.




As announced by Microsoft, Teredo is activated by default. Windows
Vista will allways prefer IPv6 to IPv4 where possible. So most
Vista users, especially common users with network experience, would
not even realize that they are using IPv6.

Most network and security devices, and network admins will not realize
this either, since they see only plain IPv4 UDP packets. I haven't
seen any firewall so far able to unpack Teredo packets.


So the implications can be severe. As far as I can see at the moment:

- You are using IPv6 without realizing or enabling it.

- You are running it from your desktop machine.

- You are thus opening a tunnel through your NAT/Firewall device
passing _all_ kind of traffice unfiltered through, no logging.

- Many connections (i.e. Teredo-Teredo and Teredo-IPv6) will be routed
over a central Teredo server or relay, which is "helping" in the
configuration of the Teredo client and routing Teredo packets to
other Teredo clients or plain IPv6.

So these servers (and thus network devices and IP providers close to
the servers) can easily wiretap your traffic.

- I guess that every Vista client will try to register at a Teredo
server, so the server will/can generate an almost complete list of
all clients.



Can anyone experienced with Windows Vista comment on? Am I correct or
did I overlook anything? (Did not have a running Vista yet...)


regards
Hadmut


_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/



Relevant Pages

  • RE: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft Vistas IPv6: Dangerous Information Leak?
    ... Subject: Microsoft Vista's IPv6: Dangerous Information Leak? ... Teredo is activated by default. ... Vista will allways prefer IPv6 to IPv4 where possible. ... over a central Teredo server or relay, ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft Vistas IPv6: Dangerous Information Leak?
    ... V6 tunnel over V4 should be ok. ... TCP/IP is enabled too within vista. ... have installed a 'nix Teredo client. ... Subject: Microsoft Vista's IPv6: Dangerous ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: Adding Vista Ultimate to Active Directory Domain (Server 2003)
    ... Vista to join a Server 2003 domain. ... stupid. ... I had unchecked IPv6 on the interface adapter. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.networking_sharing)
  • RE: Vista unable to logon with RDP in Remote Web Workplace
    ... Do all Vista workstation have such issue? ... Can you see any error messages when connecting to server desktop? ... Logon a Windows XP computer, visit RWW, can you connect the SBS ... When trying to connect to a terminal server from Windows Vista, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Offline Files
    ... I have disabled the realtime antivirus on the vista machine and on the SBS server, with no difference to the issue. ... "Windows Small Business Server 2003: Windows Vista and Outlook 2007 compatibility update" is already installed on the SBS server. ... I have also seen *.txt, *.rdp, *.lnk and others in conflict. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)