RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003
From: Paris E. Stone (pstone_at_alhurra.com)
Date: 01/18/05
- Previous message: Anonymous: "Re: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003"
- Maybe in reply to: Jeff Randall: "Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003"
- Next in thread: Joe Dumass: "RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:30:19 -0500 To: "Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers" <bugtraq@planetcobalt.net>, <security-basics@securityfocus.com>
As was my original post, avoid naked RDP on the internet at all costs.
Secure it with other means.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers [mailto:bugtraq@planetcobalt.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:01 AM
To: security-basics@securityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003
On 2005-01-17 Roger A. Grimes wrote:
> I don't think RC4, by itself is weak...it's specific implementations
> of RC4 (like in WEP).
No. It's an algorithm problem, not an implementation problem.
> Yes, RDP did have an RC4 vulnerability in 2002, but it was patched.
> SSH had an RC4 vulnerability just a few months before RDP did (in
> 2001). Both are patched now.
The "patch" for SSH was to completely remove RC4 support. I don't think
RDP was patched the same way (but I would welcome anyone to prove me
wrong here).
> SSH seems to get hacked at least once a year.
True. But that's because of implementation problems, not because of
problems with the underlying encryption algorithms. Implementation
problems can be (more or less) easily patched.
[...]
> RDP is free (for W2K and above),
Well, it's not really free, but I think I know what you mean.
> remote client can be nearly anything (especiallly with RDP ActiveX
> control),
Requiring IE which one usually wants to avoid.
> its encrypted,
Using a weak algorithm.
> fast, has kick *** Edit-Copy, Edit-Paste features, remote printing
> (not so hot), drive mapping, etc.
True.
> RDP is arguably running on more Windows enterprise servers than any
> alternative but SSH (and maybe PC Anywhere), and it has not had a
> public exploit demonstrated since 2002. I'd say it is a strong
> candidate for consideration.
Please re-read my post. I was not suggesting to avoid RDP, but to tunnel
RDP connections through e.g. SSH, which can be easily done. That way you
have RDP *and* strong encryption.
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
-- "Those who would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, and will lose both." --Benjamin Franklin
- Previous message: Anonymous: "Re: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003"
- Maybe in reply to: Jeff Randall: "Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003"
- Next in thread: Joe Dumass: "RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]