Slashdot Mirror
New Exploit Uses JavaScript To Compromise Intranets, VPNs
redsoxh8r writes "Security researcher Robert Hansen, known as Rsnake, has developed a new class of attack that abuses a weakness in many corporate intranets and most browsers to compromise remote machines with persistent JavaScript backdoors. Threatpost reports: 'The attacks rely on the long-term caching policies of some browsers and take advantage of the collisions that can occur when two different networks use the same non-routable IP address space, which happens fairly often because the amount of address space is quite small. The bottom line is that even a moderately skilled attacker has the ability to compromise remote machines without the use of any vulnerability or weakness in the client software.'"
here
Slashdot ya no es que lo era!
Yes, if you control the server end of a VPN connection you can tell the other end what to route you.. assuming the client has been configured that way. Why are VPN connections configured that way? Because the admin is considered the trusted party. The user (typically an employee) trusts the admin to be more secure than he is.
If the server was setup to route whatever the client said to route, that would be bad, but it's mostly not the case.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It's right there in the first demonstrated attack.. if you control the server end of the VPN you can control where DNS traffic goes and so redirect any url to any IP.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Yes.. the writer of the article doesn't know squat about IP and/or is pushing an agenda (like suggesting ipv6 as an alternative).
As another poster mentioned, the number of things that have to happen for this to be a practical exploit makes it laughable. If your VPN is compromised to that extent a few cookies is the *last* of your problems.
btw. there are non-routable IP addresses.. the whole 127/8 block, broadcast addresses, etc. but the original article just got it completely wrong.
172.16.0.0/12
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
RTFA. He is saying that only about 1280 non-routable addresses are normally used, not that only 1280 exist. It is the small number which are normally used which makes guessing addresses viable.
in the real world, where NAT boxes spit out dhcp on a default subnet with a default gateway address, what the author presents is indeed the case. but you may insert your head back into your rectum if you think the air smells better in there.