RE: Remote Administrator 2.x: highly possible remote hole or back door
LordInfidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 02/18/2004 10:58:58 AM:
> From reading the thread on famatech's site, this looks more like a weak
> password issue, which is true of "ANY" piece of software
> using simple password authentication.
>
Actually, if you read the thread closely you will see that the attacks are
said to comprise a *single* password attempt. On the second connection
they were in. Tens of minutes pass between the two attempts. This behavior
is observed in more than one of the attacks.
>
> Strong enough means absolutely nothing in the world of dictionary
> attacks......
No dictionary attack is being performed. The user claims that his logs
show that the server is being sent a single password-attempt string of
some kind, and on the next connection the attacker is in. I say
"password-attempt string" because it is quite probable that the Radmin
client is not being used for the initial. The exploit may be take
advantage of a flaw in the authentication system, or make use of a
discovered backdoor. Note that those who claim to have been hacked said
their logs show an initial attempt (probably automated) and then a single
successful login (no dictionary attack) 10-15 minutes later, presumably
after the attacker checked his scanner logs and found a vulnerable system.
Additionally, there is a post from an anonymous user who claims to have
developed an attack against Radmin's built-in authentication scheme.
Although the posting could be complete BS, this person claims that the
vulnerability does not exist in Radmin's optional NT authentication
scheme. This same poster claims that is going to contact Radmin in a short
while with the details. Guess we'll see.
None of this is proof, of course. But there is also zero proof that every
case is a weak password or dictionary attack. A bug in the authentication
scheme is certainly possible.
If I get a chance, maybe I can set up a honeypot machine with radmin (and
a secure password) and see what happens.
-- Mark