129-reject-plaintext-ports 3.5 KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990
  1. Below is a proposal to mitigate insecure protocol use over Tor.
  2. Title: Block Insecure Protocols by Default
  3. Author: Kevin Bauer & Damon McCoy
  4. Date: January 15, 2008
  5. Overview:
  6. This document 1) demonstrates the extent to which insecure protocols are
  7. currently used within the Tor network, and 2) proposes a simple solution
  8. to prevent users from unknowingly using these insecure protocols. By
  9. insecure, we consider protocols that explicitly leak sensitive user names
  10. and/or passwords, such as POP, IMAP, Telnet, and FTP.
  11. Motivation:
  12. As part of a general study of Tor use in 2006/2007 [1], we attempted to
  13. understand what types of protocols are used over Tor. While we observed a
  14. enormous volume of Web and Peer-to-peer traffic, we were surprised by the
  15. number of insecure protocols that were used over Tor. For example, over an
  16. 8 day observation period, we observed the following number of connections
  17. over insecure protocols:
  18. POP and IMAP:10,326 connections
  19. Telnet: 8,401 connections
  20. FTP: 3,788 connections
  21. Each of the above listed protocols exchange user name and password
  22. information in plain-text. As an upper bound, we could have observed
  23. 22,515 user names and passwords. This observation echos the reports of
  24. a Tor router logging and posting e-mail passwords in August 2007 [2]. The
  25. response from the Tor community has been to further educate users
  26. about the dangers of using insecure protocols over Tor. However, we
  27. recently repeated our Tor usage study from last year and noticed that the
  28. trend in insecure protocol use has not declined. Therefore, we propose that
  29. additional steps be taken to protect naive Tor users from inadvertently
  30. exposing their identities (and even passwords) over Tor.
  31. Security Implications:
  32. None. This proposal is intended to improve Tor's security by limiting the
  33. use of insecure protocols.
  34. Specification:
  35. As an initial step towards mitigating the use of the above-mentioned
  36. insecure protocols, we propose that the default ports for each respective
  37. insecure service be blocked at the Tor client's socks proxy. These default
  38. ports include:
  39. 23 - Telnet
  40. 109 - POP2
  41. 110 - POP3
  42. 143 - IMAP
  43. Notice that FTP is not included in the proposed list of ports to block. This
  44. is because FTP is often used anonymously, i.e., without any identifying
  45. user name or password.
  46. This blocking scheme can be implemented as a set of flags in the client's
  47. torrc configuration file:
  48. BlockInsecureProtocols 0|1
  49. WarnInsecureProtocols 0|1
  50. When the warning flag is activated, a message should be displayed to
  51. the user similar to the message given when Tor's socks proxy is given an IP
  52. address rather than resolving a host name.
  53. We recommend that the default torrc configuration file block insecure
  54. protocols and provide a warning to the user to explain the behavior.
  55. Finally, there are many popular web pages that do not offer secure
  56. login features, such as MySpace, and it would be prudent to provide
  57. additional rules to Privoxy to attempt to protect users from unknowingly
  58. submitting their login credentials in plain-text.
  59. Compatibility:
  60. None, as the proposed changes are to be implemented in the client.
  61. References:
  62. [1] Shining Light in Dark Places: A Study of Anonymous Network Usage.
  63. University of Colorado Technical Report CU-CS-1032-07. August 2007.
  64. [2] Rogue Nodes Turn Tor Anonymizer Into Eavesdropper's Paradise.
  65. http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/09/embassy_hacks.
  66. Wired. September 10, 2007.