Slashdot Mirror
Reporters At Black Hat Get Bounced For Hacking
rickb928 and several others have written to inform us that three reporters for the French publication "Global Security Magazine" were booted out of the Black Hat convention for uncovering the login information of other reporters. Quoting the AP:
"The separate, wired Internet connections set up for reporters are supposed to be off-limits to hacking and the Wall of Sheep. Even so reporters who didn't take the extra step and log onto the Internet through an additional secure connection like a virtual private network, risked having their data exposed to colleagues sitting just feet away. It didn't appear to be a complicated hack. The network was working properly, but it wasn't set up to shield each journalist's computer from one another."
Really, I'm not surprised at all that people were kicked out of The Black Hat "Hacker" Conference for hacking.
Just shows that Corporate sponsored Hacker conferences are a contradiction in terms
Did these journalist not understand what their role was at this event? The Wi-Fi connections were free targets and that was understood. The hard-wired connections were off limits to all involved and only for the press, as I understand it. What were they thinking?
nobody plays Uplink enough these days.
Even so reporters who didn't take the extra step and log onto the Internet through an additional secure connection like a virtual private network, risked having their data exposed to colleagues sitting just feet away.
Even so people who post stories to Slashdot, should learn to use commas.
One Usenix there was an announcement that everyone who had used Kerberos to log in from the terminal room needed to set up new keys. Another finished with a paper on what someone had sniffed on the Wifi LAN.
So it's no bloody surprise it's happened at Black Hat. Not that the guys who did it were justified, and they're lucky they were just booted out, but anyone who doesn't use encrypted VPNs or encrypted tunnels at ANY technical conference is asking for trouble.
Are they using a hub for wired connections at a security conference? Seems like the most plausible explanation for a simple "hack" like this with the network "working correctly"...
It's a common misconception that switches prevent snooping. Switches are *not* security devices, they are an performance optimization. As such, they mostly "fail open".
If you flood the switch with many different MAC addresses, such that its internal ethernet routing table fills up, it will usually simply direct *all* traffic to your port, rather than potentially incorrectly dropping some traffic you should have received.
And then you can snoop to your heart's content, with nobody else the wiser.
We're all taught in network design class that a switch unlike a hub doesn't send traffic that's not yours to you, then learn in security class that it's easy to turn a switch into a hub.
wrong:
http://www.blackhat.com/html/bh-usa-08/wallofsheep.html
... are seated in a noisy restaurant, yelling back and forth to each other from one side of the table to the other. I'm sitting 3 tables away and can hear them.
Am I hacking??
I don't understand this very well, so someone who does please chime in.
Switches use your ethernet card's MAC address (not IP) to know how to route ethernet frames on across the switch. It knows that MAC AB:CD:EF:etc is on port 1, and 12:34:56:etc is on port 2. Because you can daisy chain switches, it actually has to remember a many MACs to 1 port sort of mapping.
Switches can only remember a finite number of MAC addresses, so if you overflow the memory of the switch with bogus MAC addresses, it fails over to hub mode and just broadcasts all the packets to all the ports. It's not pretty, and would cause the network to get slower, but at least it would continue to work.
As I can't see hubs being used at a Black Hat conference, I'd guess this is the sort of thing the reporters did. I'm sure there's a name for it... probably "ARP Cache Smashing" or something, but I don't know it.
Anyway, if someone can give a better explanation, I'd be grateful.
If only their were experts who knew the specification of network switches and how not to expose users to casual snooping, then we could set up a conference where such people get together to share their knowledge of these type of vulnerabilities.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
Isn't about time /. just not allow anonymous first posts?
~ Ron Fitzgerald
"ARP poisioning" is what it's called, and your explaination sums it up pretty well. If the other side of a port is claiming to have enough MAC addresses reachable by it the cache will fill and the switch will start over with a blank cache which renders it into a hub until it learns what's really where, then gets poisioned again, rinse, wash, repeat.
Dumb switches will fall for this trick and have no way for anybody to notice, smarter switches will log this and let the admin know there's more than one MAC address being reported on a port... you just trace to who's on the other end of the report and you've busted them.
That the wired lan was not secure.
The reporters that allowed their login/passwords
to be sniffed should be the ones exposed on the Wall of Sheep.
Talk about being led into a false sense of security.
They *knew* the Wireless was not secure.
But to *ASSUME* the wired LAN was to be trusted
clearly shows their ignorance of security.
The reporter that exposed the problem should not
be booted from future conferences, he should be
welcomed back!
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.