RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003

From: Roger A. Grimes (roger_at_banneretcs.com)
Date: 01/19/05

  • Next message: Paris E. Stone: "RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003" 
    Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:38:57 -0500
To: "Paris E. Stone" <pstone@alhurra.com>, "Joe Dumass" <joe_dumass@hotmail.com>, <security-basics@securityfocus.com>

    I'm quite aware of what I did. I didn't invite the world to hack me. I
    invited them to find my RDP port. I often invite people to hack
    me...but I didn't this time.

    Port scanning is legal in most places in this world and it occurs 1000's
    of times a day to my devices whether or not I invited the members of
    this list.

    Yes, traffic volume went up significantly...and is beginning to die back
    down. For a few hours my whole network was sluggish when connecting to
    the Internet. I certainly expected that. It gives my ISP something to
    play with as well...to practice their skills. I even expected that
    someone would just DDoS me...but I hoped that wasn't the case, and so
    far, hasn't been. But if someone wants to DDoS...they can do it with or
    without my permissions, and I didn't give permission to anyone to do
    anything but look for a port.

    Am I bit of a maverick? No doubt. Am I foolish? Probably more than
    many on this list would be. But I also skydiving and cave diving...so
    it's in my blood. What I am is also very successful at protecting my
    clients. Why? Because I don't live inside the box. I explore and test
    the boundaries all the time. Sometimes I get bit, and most of the time
    I learn something.

    Every time I hear that security thru obscurity doesn't work...I just
    have to speak up an quantify the statement.

    I wanted to prove that moving a port to a non-default port adds
    something to security...and it did. I've now got over 140,000 port
    scans...and nearly a 100 guesses now (people are still guessing even
    though Rhett did it first yesterday). Not a single guess has been right
    besides his. If I had RDP on a default port, the potential worm would
    have had me on its first attempt. Now, I've got 139,999 packets that
    haven't guessed right (and this is as easy as a contest could be).

    I've got my data and I will refute anyone who claims changing default
    ports adds nothing to security.

    Again, there will be a hack IIS 6 contest coming in a few months, but I
    won't be hosting it at my business address.

    Roger

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Paris E. Stone [mailto:pstone@alhurra.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 11:11 AM
    To: Roger A. Grimes; Joe Dumass; security-basics@securityfocus.com
    Subject: RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003

    If you are getting that volume of traffic, I am sure your ISP is not
    pleased with all the extra traffic they are having to route.

    And to issue such an open "come and get me" is careless if not reckless.
    You have, for all intents and purposes, eliminated any legal recourse
    you could have, and any protections for yourself by issuing such a
    statement.

    "Well your honor, they did compromise my server, and yes, they did use
    it to launch a DoS against ebay.com, but I don't think that a judgement
    of 2 million dollars is appropriate simply because they were offline for
    3 days."

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Roger A. Grimes [mailto:roger@banneretcs.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 5:35 PM
    To: Joe Dumass; security-basics@securityfocus.com
    Subject: RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003

    If I was supposed to do it, the RFC would say NEVER do it. But the
    protocol actually has the flexibility built in.

    As long as the Internet is an unsafe place, I will move my ports around
    unless I need the standardization part.

    BTW, so far 20,000 scans against my system, only 5 guesses, no one
    close...nothing creative. I'm sure I'll start to see the slow port
    scans come in soon.

    Roger

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Joe Dumass [mailto:joe_dumass@hotmail.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:21 PM
    To: Roger A. Grimes; security-basics@securityfocus.com
    Subject: RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003

    I think that the problem with arbitrarily assigning services to
    non-standard ports is that it disrupts the flow of communication. Is it
    somewhat more secure against worms, etc? Maybe... but the protocol
    definition exists to define how to standardize communication for a
    reason. If our partners go out and redefine https to non-standard
    ports, we would have to open new rules in our firewalls to allow
    communication to them, resulting in a less secure environment than
    simply allowing out-bound 443, and more of an administrative burden of
    trying to remember what outbound 8888, 4422, 1192, 65213, etc are.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Roger A. Grimes [mailto:roger@banneretcs.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 12:53 PM
    To: Paris E. Stone; Jeff Randall; security-basics@securityfocus.com
    Subject: RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003

    Security through obscurity is a type of security, and it works...just
    not in a vacuum...and not alone.

    Almost all major Internet worms would have be rendered defenseless by
    simply changing the port number one port up. 99.9% of hacks are
    automated using worms, viruses, and malicious scripts. Almost of of
    them (9999.99%) only look on the default port. Fastest worm ever..SQL
    Slammer...only worked on the default SQL port. Code Red...only port 80.
    Spambots look for ports 25 and 80. FTP exploits ONLY look for port 21. I
    could go on and on.

    Security by obscurity works, and works well. Come find my RDP port on my
    domain at banneretcs.com. Prize (free book) to the first person who
    finds it. Go.

    Roger

    ************************************************************************
    ***
    *Roger A. Grimes, Banneret Computer Security, Computer Security
    Consultant *CPA, CISSP, MCSE: Security (NT/2000/2003/MVP), CNE (3/4),
    CEH, CHFI
    *email: roger@banneretcs.com
    *cell: 757-615-3355
    *Author of Malicious Mobile Code: Virus Protection for Windows by
    O'Reilly *http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/malmobcode
    *Author of Honeypots for Windows (Apress)
    *http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=281
    ************************************************************************
    ****

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Paris E. Stone [mailto:pstone@alhurra.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:40 AM
    To: Roger A. Grimes; Jeff Randall; security-basics@securityfocus.com
    Subject: RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003

    "Security through Obscurity" i.e. put it on a different port, is not
    security at all.

    Rdesktop on the internet, is generally a bad idea, no matter what port
    it runs on.

    Put a firewall in front of it if possible, if not, run a software
    firewall and then add openvpn.

    www.openvpn.net is free, and will allow IPSEC connectivity that you can
    use to access the machine, then you get MSTSC(remote desktop) access
    over the tunnel.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Roger A. Grimes [mailto:roger@banneretcs.com]
    Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 5:16 PM
    To: Jeff Randall; security-basics@securityfocus.com
    Subject: RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003

    I can think of NO reason not to use Remote Desktop. Remote Desktop is
    fast and secure. Everything is encrypted past the logon name. To get
    additional security assurance, change the default TCP port from 3389 to
    something randomly high...like 58645 (which you can do with a regedit on
    the server...just google it). Then add the new port number to your
    server address...like www.example.com:58645.

    Roger

    ************************************************************************
    ***
    *Roger A. Grimes, Banneret Computer Security, Computer Security
    Consultant *CPA, CISSP, MCSE: Security (NT/2000/2003/MVP), CNE (3/4),
    CEH, CHFI
    *email: roger@banneretcs.com
    *cell: 757-615-3355
    *Author of Malicious Mobile Code: Virus Protection for Windows by
    O'Reilly *http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/malmobcode
    *Author of Honeypots for Windows (Apress)
    *http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=281
    ************************************************************************
    ****

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Jeff Randall [mailto:Jeff.Randall@ksg-llc.net]
    Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 3:23 PM
    To: security-basics@securityfocus.com
    Subject: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003

    I have setup a web server running win2k3 and was curious about remotely
    accessing it with an XP box. Only one requirement, it has to be FREE.
    =20

    Here is what I have setup and as of now working but I would like in the
    end to only run one.

    1. RRAS using PPTP. It's not a DC so I use local accounts.
    2. VNC. TiteVNC to be specific.
    3. Remote Desktop - went into the admin tools and set the
    encryption level to high.

    Please no crazy setups like upgrade to DC and run IAS for Radius or
    running IPSEC tunnels, just would like peoples thoughts on the security
    level of each of these programs and what they feel are the most secure.
    If you can get specific about encryption, keys, key lengths, that would
    be great. Thanks

  • Next message: Paris E. Stone: "RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003"

    Relevant Pages