| % = % = % = % = % = % = % = % | |
| = = | |
| % P h r a c k X V I I % | |
| = = | |
| % = % = % = % = % = % = % = % | |
| Phrack Seventeen | |
| 07 April 1988 | |
| File 8 of 12 : Dialback Modem Security | |
| In article <906@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.UUCP writes: | |
| >Here are the two messages I have archived on the subject... | |
| >[I believe the definitive article in that discussion was by Lauren Weinstein, | |
| >vortex!lauren; perhaps he has a copy. | |
| What follows is the original article that started the discussion. I | |
| do not know whether it qualifies as the "definitive article" as I think I | |
| remember Lauren and I both posted further comments. | |
| - Dave | |
| ** ARTICLE FOLLOWS ** | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |
| An increasingly popular technique for protecting dial-in ports from | |
| the ravages of hackers and other more sinister system penetrators is dial back | |
| operation wherein a legitimate user initiates a call to the system he desires | |
| to connect with, types in his user ID and perhaps a password, disconnects and | |
| waits for the system to call him back at a prearranged number. It is assumed | |
| that a penetrator will not be able to specify the dial back number (which is | |
| carefully protected), and so even if he is able to guess a user-name/password | |
| pair he cannot penetrate the system because he cannot do anything meaningful | |
| except type in a user-name and password when he is connected to the system. If | |
| he has a correct pair it is assumed the worst that could happen is a spurious | |
| call to some legitimate user which will do no harm and might even result in a | |
| security investigation. | |
| Many installations depend on dial-back operation of modems for their | |
| principle protection against penetration via their dial up ports on the | |
| incorrect presumption that there is no way a penetrator could get connected to | |
| the modem on the call back call unless he was able to tap directly into the | |
| line being called back. Alas, this assumption is not always true - | |
| compromises in the design of modems and the telephone network unfortunately | |
| make it all too possible for a clever penetrator to get connected to the call | |
| back call and fool the modem into thinking that it had in fact dialed the | |
| legitimate user. | |
| The problem areas are as follows: | |
| Caller control central offices | |
| Many older telephone central office switches implement caller control | |
| in which the release of the connection from a calling telephone to a called | |
| telephone is exclusively controlled by the originating telephone. This means | |
| that if the penetrator simply failed to hang up a call to a modem on such a | |
| central office after he typed the legitimate user's user-name and password, | |
| the modem would be unable to hang up the connection. | |
| Almost all modems would simply go on-hook in this situation and not | |
| notice that the connection had not been broken. If the same line was used to | |
| dial out on as the call came in on, when the modem went to dial out to call | |
| the legitimate user back the it might not notice (there is no standard way of | |
| doing so electrically) that the penetrator was still connected on the line. | |
| This means that the modem might attempt to dial and then wait for an | |
| answerback tone from the far end modem. If the penetrator was kind enough to | |
| supply the answerback tone from his modem after he heard the system modem | |
| dial, he could make a connection and penetrate the system. Of course some | |
| modems incorporate dial tone detectors and ringback detectors and in fact wait | |
| for dial tone before dialing, and ringback after dialing but fooling those | |
| with a recording of dial tone (or a dial tone generator chip) should pose | |
| little problem. | |
| Trying to call out on a ringing line | |
| Some modems are dumb enough to pick up a ringing line and attempt to | |
| make a call out on it. This fact could be used by a system penetrator to | |
| break dial back security even on joint control or called party control central | |
| offices. A penetrator would merely have to dial in on the dial-out line | |
| (which would work even if it was a separate line as long as the penetrator was | |
| able to obtain it's number), just as the modem was about to dial out. The | |
| same technique of waiting for dialing to complete and then supplying | |
| answerback tone could be used - and of course the same technique of supplying | |
| dial tone to a modem which waited for it would work here too. | |
| Calling the dial-out line would work especially well in cases where | |
| the software controlling the modem either disabled auto-answer during the | |
| period between dial-in and dial-back (and thus allowed the line to ring with | |
| no action being taken) or allowed the modem to answer the line (auto-answer | |
| enabled) and paid no attention to whether the line was already connected when | |
| it tried to dial out on it. | |
| The ring window | |
| However, even carefully written software can be fooled by the ring | |
| window problem. Many central offices actually will connect an incoming call | |
| to a line if the line goes off hook just as the call comes in without first | |
| having put the 20 hz. ringing voltage on the line to make it ring. The ring | |
| voltage in many telephone central offices is supplied asynchronously every 6 | |
| seconds to every line on which there is an incoming call that has not been | |
| answered, so if an incoming call reaches a line just an instant after the end | |
| of the ring period and the line clairvoyantly responds by going off hook it | |
| may never see any ring voltage. | |
| This means that a modem that picks up the line to dial out just as our | |
| penetrator dials in may not see any ring voltage and may therefore have no way | |
| of knowing that it is connected to an incoming call rather than the call | |
| originating circuitry of the switch. And even if the switch always rings | |
| before connecting an incoming call, most modems have a window just as they are | |
| going off hook to originate a call when they will ignore transients (such as | |
| ringing voltage) on the assumption that they originate from the going-off-hook | |
| process. [The author is aware that some central offices reverse battery (the | |
| polarity of the voltage on the line) in the answer condition to distinguish it | |
| from the originate condition, but as this is by no means universal few if any | |
| modems take advantage of the information supplied] | |
| In Summary | |
| It is thus impossible to say with any certainty that when a modem goes | |
| off hook and tries to dial out on a line which can accept incoming calls it | |
| really is connected to the switch and actually making an outgoing call. And | |
| because it is relatively easy for a system penetrator to fool the tone | |
| detecting circuitry in a modem into believing that it is seeing dial tone, | |
| ringback and so forth until he supplies answerback tone and connects and | |
| penetrates system security should not depend on this sort of dial-back. | |
| Some Recommendations | |
| Dial back using the same line used to dial in is not very secure and | |
| cannot be made completely secure with conventional modems. Use of dithered | |
| (random) time delays between dial in and dial back combined with allowing the | |
| modem to answer during the wait period (with provisions made for recognizing | |
| the fact that this wasn't the originated call - perhaps by checking to see if | |
| the modem is in originate or answer mode) will substantially reduce this | |
| window of vulnerability but nothing can completely eliminate it. | |
| Obviously if one happens to be connected to an older caller control | |
| switch, using the same line for dial in and dial out isn't secure at all. It | |
| is easy to experimentally determine this, so it ought to be possible to avoid | |
| such situations. | |
| Dial back using a separate line (or line and modem) for dialing out is | |
| much better, provided that either the dial out line is sterile (not readily | |
| traceable by a penetrator to the target system) or that it is a one way line | |
| that cannot accept incoming calls at all. Unfortunately the later technique | |
| is far superior to the former in most organizations as concealing the | |
| telephone number of dial out lines for long periods involves considerable | |
| risk. The author has not tried to order a dial out only telephone line, so he | |
| is unaware of what special charges might be made for this service or even if | |
| it is available. | |
| A final word of warning | |
| In years past it was possible to access telephone company test and | |
| verification trunks in some areas of the country by using mf tones from so | |
| called "blue boxes". These test trunks connect to special ports on telephone | |
| switches that allow a test connection to be made to a line that doesn't | |
| disconnect when the line hangs up. These test connections could be used to | |
| fool a dial out modem, even one on a dial out only line (since the telephone | |
| company needs a way to test it, they usually supply test connections to it | |
| even if the customer can't receive calls). | |
| Access to verification and test ports and trunks has been tightened | |
| (they are a kind of dial-a-wiretap so it ought to be pretty difficult) but in | |
| any as in any system there is always the danger that someone, through | |
| stupidity or ignorance if not mendacity will allow a system penetrator access | |
| to one. | |
| ** Some more recent comments ** | |
| Since posting this I have had several people suggest use of PBX lines | |
| that can dial out but not be dialed into or outward WATS lines that also | |
| cannot be dialed. Several people have also suggested use of call forwarding | |
| to forward incoming calls on the dial out line to the security office. [This | |
| may not work too well in areas served by certain ESS's which ring the number | |
| from which calls are being forwarded once anyway in case someone forgot to | |
| cancel forwarding. Forwarding is also subject to being cancelled at random | |
| times by central office software reboots] | |
| And since posting this I actually tried making some measurements of | |
| how wide the incoming call window is for the modems we use for dial in at | |
| CRDS. It appears to be at least 2-3 seconds for US Robotics Courier 2400 baud | |
| modems. I found I could defeat same-line-for-dial-out dialback quite handily | |
| in a few dozen tries no matter what tricks I played with timing and watching | |
| modem status in the dial back login software. I eventually concluded that | |
| short of reprogramming the micro in the modem to be smarter about monitoring | |
| line state, there was little I could do at the login (getty) level to provide | |
| much security for same line dialback. | |
| Since it usually took a few tries to break in, it is possible to | |
| provide some slight security improvement by sharply limiting the number of | |
| unsuccessful callbacks per user per day so that a hacker with only a couple of | |
| passwords would have to try over a significant period of time. | |
| Note that dialback on a dedicated dial-out only line is somewhat | |
| secure. | |
| David I. Emery Charles River Data Systems 617-626-1102 | |
| 983 Concord St., Framingham, MA 01701. | |
| uucp: decvax!frog!die | |
| -- | |
| David I. Emery Charles River Data Systems | |
| 983 Concord St., Framingham, MA 01701 (617) 626-1102 uucp: decvax!frog!die | |