Visit our newest sister site!
Hundreds of free aircraft flight manuals
Civilian • Historical • Military • Declassified • FREE!


TUCoPS :: General Information :: mult4853.htm

Radius protocol weakness, Radius client implementation



13th Nov 2001 [SBWID-4853]
COMMAND

	Radius protocol weakness, Radius client implementation

SYSTEMS AFFECTED

	Radius

PROBLEM

	Joshua  Hill  <josh-radius@untruth.org>  from  InfoGard  Laboratories
	[www.infogard.com]                       posted                       on
	[http://www.untruth.org/~josh/security/radius],  a  detailed  paper   on
	Radius weaknesses :
	

	  1 Introduction

	

	RADIUS is  a  widely  used  protocol  in  network  environments.  It  is
	commonly used for  embedded  network  devices  such  as  routers,  modem
	servers, switches, etc. It is used for several reasons:
	

	  * The embedded systems generally cannot deal with a large number of

	 users with distinct authentication information. This requires more

	 storage than many embedded systems possess.

	

	  * RADIUS facilitates centralized user administration, which is

	 important for several of these applications. Many ISPs have tens

	 of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of users.

	 Users are added and deleted continuously throughout the day, and

	 user authentication information changes constantly. Centralized

	 administration of users in this setting is an operational

	 requirement.

	

	  * RADIUS consistently provides some level of protection against a

	 sniffing, active attacker. Other remote authentication protocols

	 provide either intermittent protection, inadequate protection or

	 non-existent protection. RADIUS\'s primary competition for remote

	 authentication is TACACS+ and LDAP. LDAP natively provides no

	 protection against sniffing or active attackers. TACACS+ is subtly

	 flawed, as discussed by Solar Designer in his advisory.

	

	  * RADIUS support is nearly omni-present. Other remote authentication

	 protocols do not have consistent support from hardware vendors,

	 whereas RADIUS is uniformly supported. Because the platforms on

	 which RADIUS is implemented on are often embedded systems, there

	 are limited opportunities to support additional protocols. Any

	 changes to the RADIUS protocol would have to be at least minimally

	 compatible with pre-existing (unmodified) RADIUS clients and

	 servers.

	

	RADIUS is currently the de-facto standard for remote authentication.  It
	is very prevalent in both new and legacy systems.
	

	  1.1 Applicability

	

	This analysis deals with some of the characteristics of the base  RADIUS
	protocol and of the User-Password attribute. Depending on  the  mode  of
	authentication used, the described User-Password weaknesses may  or  may
	not compromise the security of the underlying authentication  scheme.  A
	complete compromise of the User-Password attribute would result  in  the
	complete   compromise   of   the   normal   Username/Password   or   PAP
	authentication schemes, because both of these systems include  otherwise
	unprotected authentication information in the  User-Password  attribute.
	On the other hand when CHAP or a Challenge/Response system is in use,  a
	complete compromise of the User-Password  attribute  would  only  expose
	the underlying CHAP  or  Challenge/Response  information  to  additional
	attack, which may or may not  lead  to  a  complete  compromise  of  the
	authentication system, depending  on  the  strength  of  the  underlying
	authentication system.
	

	This  analysis  does  not  cover  the  RADIUS   protocol\'s   accounting
	functionality  (which  is,  incidentally,  also  flawed,  but   normally
	doesn\'t transport information that must be kept confidential).
	

	2 Protocol Summary
	 

	

	   A summary of the RADIUS packet is below (from the RFC):

	    0                   1                   2                   3

	    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

	   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

	   |     Code      |  Identifier   |            Length             |

	   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

	   |                                                               |

	   |                         Authenticator                         |

	   |                                                               |

	   |                                                               |

	   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

	   |  Attributes ...

	   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

	

	   The code establishes the type of RADIUS packet. The codes are:

	

	                     Value         Description

	                      1           Access-Request

	                      2           Access-Accept

	                      3           Access-Reject

	                      4         Accounting-Request

	                      5        Accounting-Response

	                      11         Access-Challenge

	                      12   Status-Server (experimental)

	                      13   Status-Client (experimental)

	                     255             Reserved

	

	

	The identifier is a one octet value that allows  the  RADIUS  client  to
	match a RADIUS response with the correct outstanding request.
	

	The attributes section is where an arbitrary number of attribute  fields
	are stored. The only pertinent attributes for this  discussion  are  the
	User-Name and User-Password attributes.
	

	This description will concentrate on the  most  common  type  of  RADIUS
	exchange: An Access-Request involving  a  username  and  user  password,
	followed by either an Access-Accept, Access-Reject or a failure. I  will
	refer to the two participants in this protocol as  the  client  and  the
	server. The client is the entity  that  has  authentication  information
	that it wishes to validate. The server is the entity that has access  to
	a database of authentication information that it  can  use  to  validate
	the client\'s authentication request.
	

	  2.1 Initial Client Processing

	

	The client creates an Access-Request RADIUS packet, including  at  least
	the User-Name and User-Password attributes.
	

	The Access-Request  packet\'s  identifier  field  is  generated  by  the
	client.  The  generation  process  for  the  identifier  field  is   not
	specified by the  RADIUS  protocol  specification,  but  it  is  usually
	implemented as a simple counter that is incremented for each request.
	

	The Access-Request packet contains a 16 octet Request  Authenticator  in
	the authenticator  field.  This  Request  authenticator  is  a  randomly
	chosen 16 octet string.
	

	This packet is completely  unprotected,  except  for  the  User-Password
	attribute, which is protected as follows:
	

	The client and server share a secret. That  shared  secret  followed  by
	the Request Authenticator is put through an MD5  hash  to  create  a  16
	octet value which is XORed with the password entered  by  the  user.  If
	the  user  password  is  greater  than   16   octets,   additional   MD5
	calculations are performed, using the  previous  ciphertext  instead  of
	the Request Authenticator.
	

	More formally:
	 

	Call the shared secret S and the pseudo-random 128-bit Request

	Authenticator RA. The password is broken into 16-octet blocks p1, p2,

	... pn, with the last block padded at the end with \'0\'s to a 16-octet

	boundary. The ciphertext blocks are c1, c2... cn.

	

	c1 = p1 XOR MD5(S + RA)

	c2 = p2 XOR MD5(S + c1)

	.

	.

	.

	cn = pn XOR MD5(S + cn-1)

	

	The User-Password attribute contains c1+c2+...+cn, Where + denotes

	concatenation.

	

	  2.2 Server Processing

	

	The server receives the RADIUS Access-Request packet and  verifies  that
	the server possesses a shared secret for the client. If the server  does
	not possess a shared secret for the  client,  the  request  is  silently
	dropped.
	

	Because the server also possesses the shared secret, it can  go  through
	a slightly modified version of the client\'s protection process  on  the
	User-Password attribute and obtain the  unprotected  password.  It  then
	uses its authentication database to validate the username and  password.
	If the password is valid, the server creates an Access-Accept packet  to
	send back to the client. If the password is invalid, the server  creates
	an Access-Reject packet to send back to the client.
	

	Both the Access-Accept packet and the Access-Reject packet use the  same
	identifier value from the client\'s Access-Request  packet,  and  put  a
	Response  Authenticator  in  the  Authenticator  field.   The   Response
	Authenticator is the is the MD5 hash of the  response  packet  with  the
	associated request packet\'s Request Authenticator in the  Authenticator
	field, concatenated with the shared secret.
	

	That                 is,                 ResponseAuth                  =
	MD5(Code+ID+Length+RequestAuth+Attributes+Secret)   where   +    denotes
	concatenation.
	

	  2.3 Client Post Processing

	

	When the client receives a response packet,  it  attempts  to  match  it
	with an outstanding request using the identifier field.  If  the  client
	does not have an outstanding request  using  the  same  identifier,  the
	response is silently discarded. The client then  verifies  the  Response
	Authenticator by performing the same Response Authenticator  calculation
	the  server  performed,  and  then  comparing  the   result   with   the
	Authenticator field. If the Response Authenticator does not  match,  the
	packet is silently discarded.
	

	If the client received a verified  Access-Accept  packet,  the  username
	and  password  are  considered  to  be  correct,   and   the   user   is
	authenticated. If the client received a verified Access-Reject  message,
	the username and password are considered to be incorrect, and  the  user
	is not authenticated.
	

	  3 RADIUS Issues

	

	The RADIUS protocol has a set of vulnerabilities that are either  caused
	by the protocol or caused by poor client implementation and  exacerbated
	by  the  protocol.  The  vulnerabilities  that  follow  arose  during  a
	somewhat shallow exploration of the protocol; this is  not  expected  to
	be a complete list of vulnerabilities of the RADIUS protocol, these  are
	merely the vulnerabilities that presented themselves to the reviewer.
	

	  3.1 Response Authenticator Based Shared Secret Attack

	

	The Response Authenticator is essentially an  ad  hoc  MD5  based  keyed
	hash. This primitive facilitates an attack on the shared secret.  If  an
	attacker observes a  valid  Access-Request  packet  and  the  associated
	Access-Accept or Access-Reject  packet,  they  can  launch  an  off-line
	exhaustive attack on the shared secret.  The  attacker  can  pre-compute
	the  MD5  state  for  (Code+ID+Length+RequestAuth+Attributes)  and  then
	resume the hash once for  each  shared  secret  guess.  The  ability  to
	pre-compute the leading sections of this keyed  hash  primitive  reduces
	the computational requirements for a successful attack.
	

	  3.2 User-Password Attribute Cipher Design Comments

	

	The User-Password protection scheme is a  stream-cipher,  where  an  MD5
	hash is used as an ad hoc  pseudorandom  number  generator  (PRNG).  The
	first 16 octets of the stream cipher display the same  properties  as  a
	synchronous stream cipher. After the first 16 octets, the stream  cipher
	state integrates the previous ciphertext, and  becomes  more  accurately
	described as a self-synchronizing stream cipher.
	

	The security of the cipher rests on the strength of MD5  for  this  type
	of use and the selection of the shared secret. It is  unclear  what  the
	requirements for this cipher are, so it is unclear if the  MD5  function
	is appropriate for this use. MD5 is not designed to be a  stream  cipher
	primitive, it is designed to be  a  cryptographic  hash.  This  sort  of
	misuse  of  cryptographic  primitives  often  leads  to  subtly   flawed
	systems.
	

	  3.3 User-Password Attribute Based Shared Secret Attack

	

	Because of the selection of  a  stream  cipher  for  protection  of  the
	User-Password attribute, an attacker  can  gain  information  about  the
	Shared Secret if  they  can  observe  network  traffic  and  attempt  an
	authentication. The attacker attempts  to  authenticate  to  the  client
	with  a  known  password.  The  attacker  then  captures  the  resulting
	Access-Request  packet  and  XORs   the   protected   portion   of   the
	User-Password attribute with the password they provided to  the  client.
	This  results  in  the  value  of  the  MD5(Shared  Secret   +   Request
	Authenticator) operation. The Request Authenticator is known (it  is  in
	the client\'s Access-Request packet), so  the  attacker  can  launch  an
	off-line exhaustive attack on the shared secret. Note, though, that  the
	attacker cannot pre-compute the MD5 state of the hash  for  the  Request
	Authenticator, because the Request Authenticator is hashed second.
	

	  3.4 User-Password Based Password Attack

	

	The use of a  stream  cipher  to  protect  the  User-Password  attribute
	results in a vulnerability that allows an  attacker  to  circumvent  any
	authentication rate limits imposed by the  client.  The  attacker  first
	attempts to authenticate to the client using  a  valid  username  and  a
	known (and likely incorrect) user password. The attacker  then  captures
	the resulting Access-Request packet and determines  the  result  of  the
	MD5(Shared Secret + Request Authenticator) operation (in  the  same  way
	as in the previous  attack).  The  attacker  can  then  replay  modified
	Access-Request  packets,  using  the  same  Request  Authenticator   and
	MD5(Shared Secret + Request Authenticator) value, changing the  password
	(and the associated User-Password attribute) for  each  replay.  If  the
	server does not impose user based  rate  limits,  this  will  allow  the
	attacker to efficiently perform an exhaustive  search  for  the  correct
	user password.
	

	Note that the attacker can only use  this  method  to  attack  passwords
	that  are  16  characters  or  less,  as  the  User-Password  protection
	mechanism uses a chaining method that includes  previous  ciphertext  in
	the state after the first 16 octets of output.
	

	Any sort of strong data  authentication  in  the  Access-Request  packet
	would make this attack impossible.
	

	  3.5 Request Authenticator Based Attacks

	

	The security  of  RADIUS  depends  on  the  generation  of  the  Request
	Authenticator field. The Request Authenticator must be both  unique  and
	non-predictable in order for the RADIUS  implementation  to  be  secure.
	The RADIUS protocol specification does not emphasize the  importance  of
	the Request Authenticator generation, so there are  a  large  number  of
	implementations  that  use  poor   PRNGs   to   generate   the   Request
	Authenticator. If the client uses a PRNG that repeats values (or  has  a
	short cycle), the protocol ceases  to  provide  the  intended  level  of
	protection.
	

	The last two of these attacks require the attacker to cause  the  client
	to  produce  a  particular  identifier  value.  This  is  generally  not
	particularly difficult, as identifiers were never meant  as  a  security
	feature. The actual method of identifier generation is not specified  by
	the protocol specification, but the most  common  method  of  generating
	the identifier is to increment a one octet  counter  for  each  request,
	and include the counter value as the identifier. Because the  identifier
	generation is normally deterministic, it  often  doesn\'t  increase  the
	work factor very much at all. An attacker can insert a series  of  extra
	requests to the client, forcing the desired identifier to  reoccur  much
	more rapidly than it would normally. Even if  the  identifier  were  not
	generated in a readily attackable way, it would still only increase  the
	work factor by 256 times.
	

	  3.5.1 Passive User-Password Compromise Through Repeated Request

	 Authenticators

	

	If the attacker can sniff the traffic between the RADIUS client and  the
	RADIUS server, they  can  passively  produce  a  dictionary  of  Request
	Authenticators,   and   the   associated    (protected)    User-Password
	attributes. If the attacker observes a repeated  Request  Authenticator,
	they can remove any influence of the Shared Secret  from  the  first  16
	octets of the passwords by XORing the first 16 octets of  the  protected
	passwords together. This yields the first 16  octets  of  the  two  (now
	unprotected) user passwords XORed together.
	

	The impact of  this  attack  varies  according  to  how  good  the  user
	passwords are. If the users all  chose  random  passwords  of  the  same
	length, the attacker can  gain  nothing  because  no  information  about
	either password can be extracted.  Unfortunately,  this  is  a  somewhat
	unlikely occurrence. In  reality,  users  choose  passwords  of  varying
	lengths (generally less than 16 characters) and of varying quality.
	

	The easiest problem for the attacker to exploit is the  case  where  the
	two passwords are of different lengths. Ideally for  the  attacker,  the
	passwords are both less than 16 characters long  and  are  significantly
	different lengths. In this situation, one  of  the  passwords  has  more
	padding than the other, so the non-overlapping characters of the  longer
	password are XORed with \'0\'  (the  characters  do  not  change).  This
	results in the non-overlapping characters of the longer  password  being
	exposed to the attacker with no analysis.
	

	More complex attacks are available if the attacker makes the  assumption
	that the users chose  low-entropy  passwords.  In  this  situation,  the
	attacker  can  perform  an  intelligent  dictionary  attack  guided   by
	statistical analysis of the overlapping region. This  dictionary  attack
	can be further refined by noting the length of  the  two  passwords  and
	the trailing portion of  the  longer  password,  and  then  only  trying
	passwords with this length and ending.
	

	Even passwords longer than 16 characters are at risk from  this  attack,
	because  the  attacker  still  gains  information  about  the  first  16
	characters of the  password.  This  provides  a  firm  basis  for  later
	attack, if nothing else.
	

	  3.5.2 Active User-Password Compromise through Repeated Request

	 Authenticators

	

	The  attacker  can  attempt  to  authenticate  many  times  using  known
	passwords  and   intercept   the   generated   Access-Request   packets,
	extracting the Request Authenticator and User-Password  attributes.  The
	Attacker  can  then  XOR  the  known  password  with  the  User-Password
	attribute  and  be  left  with   the   MD5(Shared   Secret   +   Request
	Authenticator) value. The attacker generates  a  dictionary  of  Request
	Authenticator  values  and  associated  MD5(Shared  Secret   +   Request
	Authenticator) values.
	

	When the attacker sees a valid Access-Request packet that has a  Request
	Authenticator value that is in the attacker\'s dictionary, the  attacker
	can recover the first  16  octets  from  the  protected  region  of  the
	User-Password field by looking up the  associated  MD5(Shared  Secret  +
	Request Authenticator) value from the dictionary and XORing it with  the
	intercepted protected portion of the User-Password attribute.
	

	  3.5.3 Replay of Server Responses through Repeated Request Authenticators

	

	The  attacker  can  build  a  dictionary  of   Request   Authenticators,
	identifiers and associated server  responses.  When  the  attacker  then
	sees a  request  that  uses  a  Request  Authenticator  (and  associated
	identifier) that is in the dictionary, the attacker  can  masquerade  as
	the server and replay the previously observed server response.
	

	Further, if the  attacker  can  attempt  to  authenticate,  causing  the
	client to  produce  an  Access-Request  packet  with  the  same  Request
	Authenticator  and  identifier  as  a  previously  observed   successful
	authentication, the attacker can replay the valid looking  Access-Accept
	server response and successfully  authenticate  to  the  client  without
	knowing a valid password.
	

	  3.5.4 DOS Arising from the Prediction of the Request Authenticator

	

	If the attacker can predict future values of the Request  Authenticator,
	the attacker can pose as the client and create a  dictionary  of  future
	Request Authenticator values (with either the  expected  identifier,  or
	with   every   possible   identifier)   and    associated    (presumably
	Access-Reject) server responses. The attacker  can  then  masquerade  as
	the server and respond to the client\'s (possibly valid)  requests  with
	valid looking Access-Reject packets, creating a denial of service.
	

	  3.6 Shared Secret Hygiene

	

	The RADIUS standard specifically permits use of the same  Shared  Secret
	by many clients. This is a very bad idea, as it provides attackers  with
	more data to work from  and  allows  any  flawed  client  to  compromise
	several machines. All RADIUS clients  that  possesses  the  same  shared
	secret can be viewed as a single RADIUS client for the  purpose  of  all
	these attacks, because no RADIUS protection is applied to the client  or
	server address.
	

	Most client and server implementations only allow shared secrets  to  be
	input as ASCII strings. There are only  94  different  ASCII  characters
	that can be entered from a standard US style keyboard (out  of  the  256
	possible). Many implementations also restrict the total  length  of  the
	shared secret to 16 characters  or  less.  Both  of  these  restrictions
	artificially reduce the size of  the  keyspace  that  an  attacker  must
	search in order to guess the shared secret.
	

	  4 Conclusions

	

	  4.1 Summary Findings

	

	The RADIUS protocol has several interesting issues that arise  from  its
	design.  The  design  and  policy  characteristics  that  seem   to   be
	principally responsible for the security problems are as follows:
	

	  * The User-Password protection technique is flawed in many ways. It

	    should not use a stream cipher, and it should not use MD5 as a

	    cipher primitive. (note 3.2; attacks 3.3, 3.4, 3.5.1, 3.5.2)

	

	  * The Response Authenticator is a good idea, but it is poorly

	    implemented. (attack 3.1)

	

	  * The Access-Request packet is not authenticated at all. (attack

	    3.4)

	

	  * Many client implementations do not create Request Authenticators

	    that are sufficiently random. (all attacks in 3.5)

	

	  * Many administrators choose RADIUS shared secrets with insufficient

	    information entropy. Many client and host implementations

	    artificially limit the shared secret key space. (note 3.6)

	

	 Update

	 ======

	

	3APA3A [http://www.security.nnov.ru] added :
	

	There are more problems in RADIUS protocol and some of implementations:
	

	1. There is no way RADIUS  server  can  validate  Access-Request  packet
	really originated by NAS (RADIUS client)  before  (and  even  after,  if
	packet has no  User-Password  attribute)  decoding  all  attributes.  It
	opens a possibility to spoof source IP  for  this  kind  of  packets.  I
	think this is a major weakness in RADIUS protocol rather then all  hard-to-exploit
	cryptographic M-i-t-M issues.
	

	Example: according to RFC 2865 each RADIUS packet  can  be  up  to  4096
	bytes. It allows to put > 2000 attributes into  a  single  packet.  Most
	RADIUS servers implementations allocate  maximum  attribute  length  for
	each attributes, it means for each attributes  >  256  bytes  of  memory
	will be allocated. So, it\'s possible to lock >512K of memory  and  amount
	of CPU time with a single 4K packet. Nice possibility to DoS.
	

	Attached is simple flooder to flood server with packets  like  this.  It
	doesn\'t spoof source IP, so it can only be used  to  test  your  RADIUS
	server (you must use it from IP registered as NAS).
	

	2.  RFC  2865  requires  unpredictability  of  authenticator  value   in
	Authentication Request packet. Many RADIUS servers and client  libraries
	implementations  do  not  follow  it.  Many  of  them  have  code   like
	srand(time(0) + getpid()) (or  even  srand(time(0))  +  rand().  As  you
	know, the number of rand() states is very  limited  and  it\'s  easy  to
	predict  the  state  of  PRNG.  It  opens  possibility  to   spoof   NAS
	Authentication Request.
	

	For example Cistron RADIUS has this flow in proxy  module.  Many  RADIUS
	client libraries also have this flow.
	

	3. Most of current freeware RADIUS server implementations (and  some  of
	commerce ones) are derived from Cistron. And  most  of  them  (including
	Cistron itself) have buffer overflow in digest calculation (in  case  of
	Cistron  itself  it\'s  static  data   overflow   in   calc_acctdigest()
	function). This function adds shared secret to packet data to  calculate
	digest, but space for  shared  secret  never  allocated  in  buffer.  If
	packet is exactly of allocated size (in case of Cistron it\'s 1024  -  they
	do not exactly follow RFC) string pointer located after  the  buffer  in
	memory will be overwritten with shared secret.  Probably  this  overflow
	can only lead to DoS. Since overflow occurs before  packet  is  checked,
	it can be exploited from spoofed IP.
	

	 

	------------7E11520E3F0B8FBE

	Content-Type: application/x-compressed; name=\"kill_radius.tgz\"

	Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

	Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=\"kill_radius.tgz\"

	

	H4sIANAE8TsAA+067W7byrH5Sz3FNOk9oRTFluSP5NhxAMWWE+E4sivLaXsTg6DIlbTXFMlySTlu

	mlfsQxToA/T0BTqzu/yWnaAX5xQXVwskFpezs/O187W84Z5nRbbLE7HlPPplRqfb6ezv7j7q4Hix

	L//iTFc+499ur9d51Hmx82K31+nsvsD33f2dvb1H0PmF6CmNRMR2BPBo5dnuQ3B//fkf//z5Hz//

	7Z9///nXIOvXGtutBrTgt0P3AG6KptBeQXeru9Xb2gHUSne78+N27yV0Xxz09g46e7DTv+jv9GHw

	OYTfEoJx/2R4dQl9x2FCwJj9KWEiBjuOIz5NYgYzLwhcFhGo6TTT5Ys4Dg+2t29vb7cEc5KIx3db

	vh+stqIEIbcbjcYT7jte4jJ47PGppm3xuDD/SsQuD7YWr8tTCE1zpcmI+/MyoBPfhaw85bPYnVbQ

	3YltETg3LK7PEwKxZpovK3gTnyNZtb04/tvmfnnejkJ7m96Up5fuXm0n9pnHcn8aq4C7oORkIbDl

	2J5jJr7gc5+54CzQzltBEodJ3IbKNPdptmEYQCN7yf0Y5CuP+c3DRkNaizFmcRL5YPswvADbdSPS

	+SwKlvQy8BmIJAw9LtcDHi/ftSMX3CAGP4jtmAf+llRvguh3ehZuEVqExnQCH61GUxRaqLJm40vD

	wL+JQ4RIKIP7SInBZ2CSjCw7DnxTQbfhB+434egIOk3kJVJ0Dkf9k5OxNTofDQ4b6STKXEh0h42v

	jQcZQx6IN7BhEYiYwHx7ySCIihAPMzdncY0/Qlbkjp6ZHxutRYhUpqsNsFNmTRuOMknJ1U34zVGR

	uwLP+apFiMuQAFoxvSPS08UoptHV2VlhlZlu2ywLrWGgfAzk/MKObD/gdiqRN9x3YZV4PovsKffo

	/AL0fTr4Nh6YSC5yUJ5L2+dh4tnoCk5Gl4CMRpwJiAOShj9nEC8YoJHN4wUEM3qSS7WEEelwVgTh

	wn8aw24bRLBE1vBgPxVwGwV4wGndtuJ9ET5/vbD0EhSV4H9mwSxnsglfvs27geZhLNnSCe/MH+w2

	KKREWLuOMLcvu2hXZ/wGD0Uc+YikDegQwfZu7TtBFiTgU0cajDILhBrRVurJRS/ahqLZiMhpy2Pp

	S+MhNn14rexd72CqVRKSTq3BPIHiNHw0hC4+0uuPPjyH7jXOdEi9mmh6o+hWhANMUObj02MQRO1u

	58d9CJyYxQIV+rmNB8WFJRoThKRtnLUjUhEeiRi1Cr29/S2J5V1wy1YMBYaqEuAnyymLUIfwPxh8

	wbOjOT7KFaRixMyXyRLeT67IFAhGIpEbSX9L03jyb4PoRrSBfXZYGOOyuynGGTyWcz5HY4wBDYNF

	5EVVLBF0Oh0gZb3EY4mG7AZLa8WcOIisMAi8j/2ryTvrw+B4cj62zgajVu/6MFPhB9vjLpqvkDRG

	KsCh3YGDjg7VMepfopUeo8eVVi7BaB05UhuFy2BqC/SIgWJSrRIQRnxFh+KG3Wkyn7hshn4NJDEX

	/ctLIgXM7n4zJeU4YrTE1iyAYoGEUmEApndIicIrY0OJZzOVREs9K3tCD2TwQ/JKUlr07HLX0ltJ

	cym+c4LEj1F72o7IHH+Tw9MBQ8MjpZhcwgCHV+S346Y+O3U1NBHo2TN1No01WuLX8OxIs2I24Qfo

	fJ7NkCp5UMvEdvXx1d7rfeDy2R0ESZSKjhC2K5pRHLWV/0EDx+indS4ST6qc+8jRUvp6fBMFyXwB

	70/21BIRAI/RG9mehzYpFog5DubSFlPfpLd49ozcxTfNULJrpoJW7DYLPrnvU2zFsxjQHkQILHBf

	7UY12W1ytXO+Um6V5hOBwBUb2qIDj+eS+QItVp7iOPPFcgFiri5qwy3H6IJSQvwkHlyw1NLDw2lT

	5F7a6OKRoFtE+FQGTElargQtGnI9uXVR2AqDKC7FTYpghbhpIFUriptGS6xCEgv+URGP3qiIhz4S

	/2/D48QNH5NHlHaKgKUI0NHWoh/9OFgIE4GevxYWkdHUrpF8EB5S0IFbZaWWcoF4nL40IHMyajiY

	+h7WZrmbznX300kVq+qwStI1y6gDoouyP+5ilYXvvlZJI/B0IB9SntNk9hH9tPR0JHK9RDDflTGo

	pWd00KHEVv+m5D71GUDy0d5BYmHiKP1NqfPM1Q8x5kielbJpZImmK2KLhyofSzMiuZKmLLQXGgLD

	yzKI2QMgLWEfGtlronZlewDxCtfMXGQrzkUQuTMMeA6+kZK4V8ZGVcPqh+LIgPIQNjKnmV03SEHW

	wyDyqOv3hvTGMgFB2s0f1NZt6GTJh5qh1APBtBrSc/NYUZ6ZvHpN2XGqsIvfW5Lhq5ML6+J8PNGA

	plIaAqjCx+yfWsPRYNKGy/Pjn6yTt+P+eyQCM6hXhKxwiJTLNRRVW2T5+S6D0WR43J8Mz0fWePC7

	q8ElbachuSsNpmgf2p40QDa3wHxfmEVAxXtx5tmRufusosnm9+JKs73UvelF6eMatJhTZfarkvQ0

	41cKkO5aUP5uasss2m0Lg1jBtJWqUQfK3zXRpNrw9FPnaapyRKKhZcIpbHRQWBvN7CX37nAPravC

	K9pJlzv4vnzWNIi2ByUQ7e2QLxW6j3oUuV9R/nfYRGWnIpHeBoP19RE5g8N1L3raqWpEEo/yIirM

	S9MppSUlcRMVBoUitER0SXGgLRMrvfQoFLVHByMtYmuyRllmcs6OT10fUqh4CkzaFquGknWopESZ

	ek8lHUZuwjKif20UAooMGHSQlzb3Tek2oznm5dK14s/Vx2vEiX5Ze00M1XQOIPOw6W9VMKVP5BPw

	F5oCoSMqd+Evf8EnXIGiwpKYmxJ771oVeh16jUsMU1deRaCdFKgpgxcyFOEmiPzxlaDAfQD/JUDG

	2ajQ0pFu6pP/uA0SSee6eSgX544A4Cv+08/FwKJWdK/bmq22CiYkrv90P+z/2yi01X6xPb7R/93t

	7exS/3d/Z+/F3j71grv7nb3dTf/31xjbLXQLrQ8sEljNHEi/KZvBBbvIWsG7qhXc7Wx3X0J392Bv

	/6D7I5DgskbwdgMaT/jMp/z4bPhGtYWtd1lVW5zTPYbCTsal9May9pClVxSg96WSn+peGUNU3UDg

	amEk62bCk/Jg/G/olywgXXnf2U7iAOuPGbWd8d0327/oOdfMsijy611q1bhOey3HC+bcyA6GhCFm

	qGZ6pZvJbcxQI4F8lzrMsklj3zCf3k6xclqq3hzJKSWdum+J7alGAGoHJsP3A+v3Q8xjLv94adFT

	4wmsb2Dn09mUbCc9oejzrv9hkKEgLcN9WPSaNdiw2MSqHLHKPwXB593+fC4OkFN9ATAjG7sc/vfg

	/NS6Gl0O344GJ5j4TCSHa+ZllMR9ogglfNqf9M8OsgZeod/dTOHKZGHmriz4w2B0cj42PzezfN38

	DK9fg2zQpGY+6F9Yl5P+eFJJ7XuV/k6eRhpGdz97d/wO13/on10N6NXbyTu9vADyvv8H3GE8HL1V

	q3t7uwae5fHpca+78/IA1HUHdJ739nbSnl2xvVRN/KtFSHd/d68EfHw8eQh4P1OJlZ3xgtTkXu9O

	NKu9Tk2gF4Nj6+pybBi7vR/XSdswcjHnr08Gb67eUo2EyYq++HDZNJk3QaUwBVA5jzUcj0ys+w03

	gC9QX/YFPlGGhylQElOOZj79FD9tHqazq9CSiDFtdAO6RkFUh/Ulfr5EyuerfvgKtwvuMbPTzAyr

	0kxwuUM3GpjFfVFlKa6i3gXW9Ne64DQMnWyrB0KQPawQa1AooTN0Rstnn6m3CydDVGR/Mhkfrt8c

	6+WErd9dzxC+h2mSOCpUyLkKGdLE76NDslIgRE3UNlbTIXMqM6rpYtRRVmmQFlYnQtIr7eVbqpDp

	8Hp96EYH4MkMJGYlXWoCZjc8hpeK6wyPjTU5/4mOSBCyCDP0XKZYnVBZpu+GXtJCI0X4sewNrnO+

	cy5ytpVjuegPx9mNniq2Dgwju7lNMIBgneYQDfq2R97tPtetb13pybhsXCSx7ulRn/sO1IEiDeg7

	AurzT5lspSo4tQ7jfIj1JtPXx0jT8U+DCdgCbpnn4QoMhlho2J5HvoywUvmgwjTSHPEZZ+6Bcco9

	T102lvaWoRSppjoF11coFxoNlarttCtzYFxRK3jK4lvGZM1iRcxZSSZyxCqQPtQGhLSVbmTdr1zf

	InLy+jufLpXliSUWqG1DQaeKzyYJVk+qbbib/dSGn1vJ/Y0tCsISRBbksb0MC4dISbeEqUVyykAK

	razcpBBoFQoys5JOM0u7IPdJ2pwlvkMd9ML9BB4F5YyFPWPKz6a30219FY3btfObbDUbpNfTaUMt

	9dJCOR1zLXy7cA4AaW7TK5d5fMljEa/D9n14cKXiJYsVp8OzAbTKcDUoj4t7IXUYxgRYgkqHTqxl

	pKXCPeFSpJgUV8UrNaaigesqP1jrqiuupMgU+/kK2vE+eIlM/aYj8QAWrY0KGnlvrx5pG/m4HgX3

	efkuwOVR+XZ0RmaQRTi01zT+Te/U5lnj+j4weUFeRFmElnrR4IhveiflkuLMyL4XXCLPwYvbqGU5

	r3kQk7dl9VcY8e55U2NBXpkcygQNuhSLTod/eD84wP2XoR3LoiBNklJBzFlsVIVXh8In16gIrwyF

	C3OgTAZorlWobMNMrmB78sqXrsv9IIY/JTxmRKvOnJAP+iLGkWltyX3k375YSgBtKP5SUqP1i6Xt

	FBCAR6tpklBoEVY+lIkxiGpjx1/k/nTDcS30DbtTwPijAFuBcvmciZSm9AOs7NSmYc8sB8lWaj/3

	TOvPBZgTMUJdgjJaaWST1jhzUyvKY1x1t7TbKtGiE4z4nPu29/27YRAPpMWCz26z5q7SG72fRay2

	aatIV3jLfEmZ2gsfwlsl3JaKCjVCKics3bOAUfNaw/hvIsT50NJUPiS/7CssGdTcssMPbSFugyjT

	CVmyhWlMrMzkXsR1aqnm0BZGSU7KmTY0eaYpM1S2VgjhLZp15FcGFedGDj7TGkFJrRWpJ5VVUZEH

	KAFJZCU8GHhZXMFUh8IYUgWphMoaF0F4Z9YC9DqoXgWscMlZJGEZrCpkxkGZihZly7U1ve9YVNqy

	SuPSvqkHJll61AJJooNwWkOswYbKdbXZt8JUuy1GX180CmUI3fmHdiTSIzJNZjP6jqdMOo8oHUWs

	+SeCA9llqSQh9QZByW17wbzEYBu2traa2Srr7ejq2LLQqC0r492ywDTV1xhgqpq/Dd029JrNrMY+

	TH+UdgtlI+gX2hBDA4t8iTbdD7fD1ObjdfaSDnfafAhcX6x9QV2JTKiX9BEVpn0LLEfuYMmFg1WS

	7bMgEVVRK4awLggt+tpPfQSR6VDdflkUW2fS1RU+VqQCBPWY1SX5ZSaUhIUwhU38OLDNLMSm38OV

	0dQ+gdQo6NON7//qrRgzvOCWRY6dmaeIyzElWgp0j+vf3vcllE6UyAL6l8eD0Yn1Zjjqj/9ILnPG

	PdRQMTirmTeccm6z7MWruSkezCIFOpWf1peS70nzlfTA5a5b2RhmcSXqZGtPUS2bsmfnx/0z63J0

	MR6OJqflrrMdyc+g5bcZvjLhXEKZaciyuZJdL2N1RFRxtPo3Vq+wYuRC3oJmvDRyngrXA8jRf/pu

	ZDM2YzM2YzM2YzM2YzM2YzM2YzM2YzM2YzM2YzM2YzM2YzM2YzM2YzM2YzM24//K+BfMiG/TAFAA

	AA==

	

	------------7E11520E3F0B8FBE--

	

	

	 Update

	 ======

	

	3APA3A [http://www.security.nnov.ru] added :
	

	There is also problem with some  vendor-specific  RADIUS  authentication
	implementation. For example Microsoft has it\'s  specific  attributes  defined
	in RFC 2548. These attributes allow MS-CHAP  and  MS-CHAPv2  authentication
	via RADIUS.
	

	There is design flow in this authentication scenario which makes  it  vulnerable
	against M-i-t-M attack.
	

	As it was said before RADIUS uses some cryptographic schema  to  encrypt
	User-Password or CHAP-Password attribute by XORing it  with  MD5  digest
	obtained from message authenticator and shared secret.
	

	Microsoft  doesn\'t  use  same  trick   for   it\'s   MS-CHAP-Challenge,
	MS-CHAP-Response and MS-CHAP2-Response attribute.  This  fact  opens  possibility
	of both replay and spoof  attack  against  MS-CHAP  and  MS-CHAPv2  authentication.
	The only things attacker need to know are packet  authenticator  and  MS-CHAP
	attributes of any successfully authenticated packet (or _any_  valid  user
	account).
	

	Scenario:
	 

	  1. Attacker  logs  in  to  NAS  with desired account+invalid password

	     (user1 + wrong password)

	  2. NAS sends authentication packet to RADIUS

	  3. Attacker  changes  MS-CHAP attributes (this can be attributes from

	  sniffed  packet,  that  is  MS-CHAP-Challenge + Response from previous

	  user1  logon  or  attacker can use attributes of known account, may be

	  guest).

	  4. RADIUS  authenticates  packet  based  on  attributes  provided  by

	  attacker and sends Access-Accept to NAS.

	  5. NAS logons attacker as user1

	

	  MS-CHAPv2 is also vulnerable in same scenario.

	

	If NAS has weak PRNG and it\'s possible to guess packet authenticator  blindly
	this attack can be turned from M-i-t-M to remote.
	

	Note: this is not a software bug, this is design flow. This flow  is  not
	in MS-CHAP (which is vulnerable to M-i-t-M attack itself) or in  MS-CHAPv2
	(which is immune to M-i-t-M). The flow is in the way MS-CHAP  attributes
	are used in RADIUS. This way is defined in RFC 2548.
	

	RADIUS itself is vulnerable to same attack, in some cases it  may  allow
	privilege escalation: for example user with only PPP access to  NAS  can
	try to login to NAS via telnet and change Service-Type attribute  of  Access-Request
	packet from Login to Framed to be  authenticated  by  RADIUS.  Everything
	depends on RADIUS and NAS configuration (the good  practice  for  RADIUS
	server is always send back  Service-Type  attribute).  If  Access-Accept
	doesn\'t contain Service-Type attribute or NAS doesn\'t check it -  user
	will be logged via telnet.
	

	  

	P.S. I think RADIUS must be treated as unsecure protocol, like  LDAP  or
	SNMP, and never intended to be secure because of  sensitive  information
	sent in cleartext. The perfect solution about RADIUS is to use it in  conjunction
	with IPSec, if RADIUS traffic cross untrusted network.

SOLUTION

	 Update

	 ======

	

	In short,  Microsoft  Security  Response  Center  says  that  priviledge
	elevation would require to be already Admin on the machine to work.
	

	 Editor\'s note : Although no parties provided code to proove right either way, Microsoft claims are somewhat dubious.

	

	 ======

	

	  4.2 Suggested Protocol Additions

	

	Selection of a well understood symmetric block  cipher  to  protect  the
	user  password  would  be  good  practice.  A  new  User-Password   like
	attribute that uses an alternate encryption scheme should be created.  I
	suggest TDES (as specified in ANSI X9.52) used in CBC mode. If this  new
	attribute is used, the User-Password attribute should not be.
	

	Ideally the block cipher would be keyed independently  from  the  shared
	secret,  but  this  may  prove  unworkable  for  compatibility  reasons.
	Another option would be to key the cipher from  some  derived  value  of
	the shared secret  and  the  request  authenticator.  For  instance  the
	cipher could be keyed  from  the  output  of  an  HMAC  of  the  Request
	Authenticator (where the HMAC is keyed  by  the  shared  secret)  or  by
	seeding a cryptographic PRNG with the  shared  secret  and  the  request
	authenticator.
	

	Instead of using  an  ad  hoc  keyed  hash  primitive  in  the  Response
	Authenticator, an accepted Message Authentication Code (MAC)  should  be
	used. An HMAC would be an ideal choice for this primitive. In  addition,
	the Access-Request packet would benefit from authentication.
	

	Though MD5 is a cryptographic hash  that  could  be  used  in  the  HMAC
	primitive, it has several significant attacks  against  it.  The  RADIUS
	protocol would benefit from using SHA-1 instead of MD5 for HMACs.
	

	In order to protect the Access-Request,  Access-Accept  and  Access-Deny
	packets, a new attribute should be created that  contains  a  SHA-1-HMAC
	of the entire RADIUS packet (with the SHA-1-HMAC attribute data  set  to
	0). If this attribute is present, the receiving client or server  should
	compute the HMAC for the entire RADIUS packet  (with  the  HMAC  set  to
	zeros) and verify that the result is the same as  the  stored  HMAC.  If
	the result is not the same, the packet should be discarded.
	

	When the  server  generates  a  RADIUS  Access-Accept  or  Access-Reject
	packet with a SHA-1-HMAC, it should set the  Response  Authenticator  to
	the associated Request Authenticator. If  a  client  receives  a  RADIUS
	Access-Accept  or  Access-Reject  packet   that   has   the   SHA-1-HMAC
	attribute,  it  should  not  test  for  the  validity  of  the  Response
	Authenticator.
	

	When a client  generates  a  RADIUS  Access-Request  packet,  it  should
	include the SHA-1-HMAC attribute. When  the  server  receives  a  RADIUS
	Access-Request packet, it should verify the SHA-1-HMAC attribute.
	

	 Update

	 ======

	

	There is just such an attribute defined as a  RADIUS  Extension  in  RFC
	2869, called the  Message-Authenticator.  This  attribute  contains  the
	output from an MD5 based HMAC, keyed with  the  shared  secret,  of  the
	entire RADIUS packet. This attribute adequately protects RADIUS  packets
	that include  this  attribute.  Unfortunately,  this  attribute  is  not
	required to be consistently used (in fact, it is  only  required  to  be
	used when the new EAP-Message attribute is used). RFC 2869 does  suggest
	that this attributes be used in cases where the User-Password  attribute
	is not included in the RADIUS Access-Request packet; unfortunately,  the
	vulnerability seen  in  section  3.4  requires  that  the  User-Password
	attribute is in use. Further, RFC 2869 does not suggest that the  server
	and client should  have  a  mode  where  packets  received  without  the
	Message-Authenticator are discarded. Without  this  mode,  the  attacker
	can simply strip off the Message-Authenticator attribute from  a  RADIUS
	client Access-Request packet, modify the  packet  and  then  replay  the
	resulting packet. (It should be noted that  the  attacker  cannot  strip
	off this attribute from a server Access-Accept or Access Reject  packet,
	as  that  message  is   separately   authenticated   by   the   Response
	Authenticator).
	

	The Message-Authenticator attribute could provide an  effective  defense
	if it were required to be more consistently used.  Clients  and  servers
	should be able to be placed in a mode where RADIUS packets  without  the
	Message-Authenticator attribute are silently discarded.
	

	Miquel van Smoorenburg added : In the 1.6.5 snapshot of Cistron  Radius,
	soon the be the real 1.6.5, this has  been  fixed  for  Linux  by  using
	/dev/urandom to seed the random generator.
	

	  4.3 Suggested Client Behavior Modifications

	

	Authenticator Behavior
	

	The RADIUS specification should require a strong cryptographic PRNG  for
	generation of the Request-Authenticator, such as the PRNG  specified  in
	ANSI X9.17 appendix C or FIPS 186-2, appendix 3.
	

	Shared Secret Behavior
	

	The RADIUS  specification  should  require  each  RADIUS  client  use  a
	different Shared Secret. It should also require the shared secret to  be
	a random bit string at least 16 octets long  that  was  generated  by  a
	strong cryptographic PRNG.
	

	In order to facilitate entry of this bit  string,  clients  and  servers
	should allow for input of  arbitrary  binary  data.  Quite  likely,  the
	easiest solution is to allow for the entry of hexadecimal digits.
	

	Miquel van Smoorenburg : Also fixed in the 1.6.5 snapshot.
	

	  4.4 General Comments

	

	Both servers and clients should support the  base  RADIUS  protocol  and
	this extended RADIUS protocol. Both the server  and  the  client  should
	allow the administrator to enable the use of these RADIUS extensions  on
	a client-by-client basis.  This  should  be  an  explicit  configuration
	option, not just an automatic  determination  made  by  the  server.  An
	automatic determination made by the  server  could  lead  to  an  attack
	where the attacker attempts  to  force  the  client/server  interactions
	into the old RADIUS mode.
	

	If it is not possible to change the  RADIUS  protocol,  the  system  can
	still be made much more secure by  just  following  the  suggestions  in
	section  5.3,  which  can  all  be  implemented  while  still  remaining
	completely compliant with the existing RADIUS protocol.
	

	  4.5 Why Modify RADIUS?

	

	So, why attempt to modify RADIUS at all? Why  not  just  go  to  another
	(presumably more modern, more  secure)  protocol?  Well,  for  the  most
	part, the  answer  is  \"Because  such  a  protocol  doesn\'t  currently
	exist.\" In the near future, however, DIAMETER is likely to be  released
	by the IETF.
	

	DIAMETER is the planned RADIUS replacement. The great  majority  of  all
	the protocol work that has gone  into  DIAMETER  has  been  directed  to
	removing some of  the  functional  limitations  imposed  by  the  RADIUS
	protocol.  Effectively  no  work  has  been  done  as  relates  to   the
	client/server security of the protocol. (CMS is defined, but this  is  a
	security layer for the proxy to proxy interaction,  not  the  client  to
	proxy/server interaction)
	

	So, does this mean that they continue  to  use  even  RADIUS\'s  ad  hoc
	system? No, they removed all security functionality from  the  protocol.
	They did the protocol designer\'s equivalent of punting. Section 2.2  of
	the current DIAMETER protocol spec says:  \"Diameter  clients,  such  as
	Network Access Servers  (NASes)  and  Foreign  Agents  MUST  support  IP
	Security, and MAY support TLS. Diameter servers MUST  support  TLS,  but
	the administrator MAY opt to  configure  IPSec  instead  of  using  TLS.
	Operating the Diameter protocol without any security  mechanism  is  not
	recommended.\"
	

	So, all security aspects of the protocol are  handled  by  IPSec  and/or
	TLS. From a security aspect, this strikes me as a very good  idea.  Both
	IPSec  and  TLS  are  fully  featured  (sometimes  too  fully  featured)
	protocols that many people have reviewed. (That\'s already  much  better
	than RADIUS ever did).
	

	Examining this from a slightly different angle gives me some  cause  for
	concern, however. It strikes me that the  overhead  imposed  by  a  full
	TLS/IPSec  implementation  is  very  significant  for  many  current-day
	embedded devices. This would seem to indicate  that  (at  least  in  the
	near future) manufactures are going to either continue to use RADIUS  or
	ignore the DIAMETER standard and perform DIAMETER without TLS or IPSec.
	

	Because of this, I suspect that it would be advantageous to push for  at
	least minimal RADIUS protocol revision.
	

	  5 Previous Work

	

	There has been some independent previous work with the RADIUS protocol:
	

	Attacks 3.5.3 and 3.5.4 are  likely  the  attacks  referred  to  in  the
	RADIUS RFC.
	

	The known password attack on the shared secret using the  Access-Request
	packet (attack 3.3) appears to have been first  observed  in  September,
	1996       by       Thomas       H.       Ptacek.        Paper        #1
	[http://skoda.sockpuppet.org/tqbf/radius-security.html]
	

	The known password attack on the shared secret using the  Access-Request
	packet (attack 3.3), and the shared secret attack on  the  Access-Reject
	and Access-Accept packets (attack 3.1) were  independently  observed  in
	July,  1997  by  Reilly   (rich.friedeman@ANIXTER.COM)   Shared   Secret
	Recovery                            in                            RADIUS
	[http://baroque.sdsu.edu/hyper/sdsu_sec/sdsu_sec.jul97/0004.html]
	

	  6 Bibliography

	

	RFC 2138, \"Remote Authentication Dial In User  Service  (RADIUS)\",  by
	C.    Rigney,     A.     Rubens,     W.     Simpson,     S.     Willens.
	[http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2138.txt]
	

	The                DIAMETER                Base                 Protocol
	[http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-07.txt]
	

	DIAMETER              CMS              Security              Application
	[http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-cms-sec-02.txt]
	

	FIPS                                                               186-2
	[http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips186-2/fips186-2.pdf]
	

	

	The Handbook of Applied Cryptography, by Alfred J Menezes, Paul  C.  van
	Ooschot,                Scott                A.                Vanstone.
	[http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/hac/index.html] Chapter 5, chapter  6
	and  chapter  9.  Most  notably:  The  MD5  based  stream  cipher  as  a
	synchronous  stream  cipher  (6.1.1,  ii)  The  use   of   cryptographic
	functions in pseudorandom number  generation  is  discussed  in  section
	9.2.6. The use of a MDC in the creation of a MAC is discussed in 9.5.2.
	

	An Analysis of the TACACS+ Protocol and  its  Implementations  by  Solar
	Designer [http://www.openwall.com/advisories/OW-001-tac_plus.txt]


TUCoPS is optimized to look best in Firefox® on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986-2014 AOH