Chris Hessing wrote:

> For anonymous provisioning, it also seems there is a pretty large
> security hole.  It is smaller than the security issues with LEAP,
> but is still rather large.
>
> With anonymous provisioning the supplicant has to implicitly trust
> the authentication server it is talking to.  The only piece of
> information the supplicant has that it can use to attempt to verify
> the server is the A-ID that is provided.  But, in a provisioning
> mode the supplicant doesn't really have a way to verify that the
> A-ID is valid.  As a result, the supplicant will continue on with
> the provisioning and provide the server with its credentials.

The supplicant also verifies the MS-CHAPv2 Success packet, which
contains a MAC -- so there is mutual authentication (some kind of),
and the provisioning exchange won't finish successfully unless the
attacker can spoof this MAC.

The attacker doesn't know the password (and an't compute the MAC
himself), and deriving the challenges from the TLS key block means
the attacker can't just "cut-and-paste" MS-CHAPv2 messages from the
real authentication server.

It's true that the bad guy gets the MS-CHAPv2 response, and can do an
off-line dictionary attack. This is described in Section 6.2, which
also suggests some possible countermeasures (not perfect, but
something).

But if your password is reasonably strong, it seems this can
be reasonably OK (unless I'm missing something here)...

> In the best case scenario, the supplicant is configured to only
> allow the user of MS-CHAPv2 for provisioning, so "all" the bad guy
> gets is the resulting MS-CHAPv2 hash which can then be attacked
> directly and off-line.  In the worst case the supplicant allows GTC
> to be used for provisioning and the clear text credentials are
> handed over to the attacker.

The specification doesn't allow using GTC when doing anonymous
provisioning, so the worst case doesn't happen if you follow
the spec.

Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

Reply via email to