[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEmCSgmmuLYpNLdz_vg3-NH_f8Psfj7PxgN7b5S9UCLbKzvO9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:45:27 +0000
From: Scott Herbert <scott.a.herbert@...glemail.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: shodan.io actively infiltrating ntp.org IPv6 pools
for scanning purposes
That would be nice sure, but given that IoT vendors are rushing so
fast to market that their doing things like sending login credentials
via http, I think we're a long way from having them secure their
products from scanning let alone anything else.
On 29 January 2016 at 15:47, enki <enki@...k.pl> wrote:
> ---- Wł. Pt, 29 sty 2016 15:21:01 +0100 Hazel napisał(a) ----
>>On 27 January 2016 at 14:43, Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Luca BRUNO <lucab@...ian.org> wrote:
>>> > For oss-sec crowd: is there anything we can do to improve the situation
>>> > and avoid
>>> > similar cases in the future? Should crowd-sourced and fundamental services
>>> > like this
>>> > be encouraged to move to a stronger WoT?
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Sadly we can't really rely on the IoT device makers to fix this, they have
>>> basically 0 incentive to prevent scanners from hitting their products
>>> (they're already sold, to late for the customer to make an informed
>>> decision).
>>
>>I hope you'll forgive me making a modest proposal here, but it seems
>>to me that there might be an opportunity here for Linux distributions
>>that are upstream of IoT vendors to modify their default configuration
>>to address this.
>>
>>My somewhat off-the-cuff suggestion would be to...
>>
>>1. Add an *additional, secondary* IPv6 address to external interfaces that is:
>>-> a. generated in accordance with the IPv6 Privacy Extensions (i.e. RFC 4941)
>>-> b. firewalled by default against all traffic except NTP in either direction
>>
>>2. Configure the NTP *client* to use this secondary address as the
>>source for outgoing NTP traffic, instead of the default address?
>>
>>...thereby avoiding revealing the primary address of the host to
>>would-be scanners?
>>
>
> I'd go even further and use the IPv6 privacy-enhanced address for all outgoing connections, not only NTP. It's only a matter of time before someone sets up a debian mirror for example that logs source addresses and launches scans against them.
>
> --
> enki@...k.pl
>
--
--
Web: http://cryptonot.es/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Scott_Herbert
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottaherbert
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
