Telecom and Logistics Associates 

Security NEWs Service: TLAnews

publication: Christian ALT  new6.gif (1031 bytes) TLAalert    Security Service 
Translate this page from:  Save Time and Money 

6.6.2000 Security: Major DoS attack for FW-1
A major vulnerability on the firewall VPN-1 made by Checkpoint, was found by Lance Spitzner from Enteract.com

En français: Une attaque majeure en Deni de service sur FW-1
Une vulnérabilité majeure a été trouvée par Lance Spitzner de Enteract.com sur le firewall de Checkpoint VPN-1

 
English version
 CPU mysteriously hits 100% utilization, system locks up. Some systems may also crash, depending on OS type.

I have reason to believe that every installation of FW-1 is vulnerable, regardless of Operating System type or version/patch level of the FW-1 installation.  However, this has only been tested and confirmed with ver 4.1 SP1 on the Nokia, and ver 4.1 on NT and Solarix x86 platform.

CPU mysteriously hits 100% utilization, system locks up. Some systems may also crash, depending on OS type.

There is NO way to protect against it.
FW-1 does NOT log these attacks in the firewall logs.

Résumé en français

L'attaque est basée sur la fragmentation des paquets IP. La CPU monte mystérieusement à 100 %. Certains systèmes pourraient même s'arrêter.

L'auteur pense que tous les systemes sont vulnérable si ils sont constitué de la version 4.1 avec le Service Pack 1 (SP1)

Pour le moment cela a été verifié sur platforme NT, Nokia et Solaris x86

Il n'y a pas de protection pour le moment. Et il n'y a pas de trace de ce type d'attaque dans les logs.

Il semble que le traitement effectué par VPN-1 sur les paquets fragmentés s'effectue une fois que l'ensemble des paquets soient réassemblés. Si le paquet ne parvient pas à être reconstitué complétement par VPN-1, la session n'est pas considèrée comme complète et le firewall attend la suite des fragments. 

In the following lines we reprint the complete alert message from Lance Spitzner.

 <DISCLAIMER>
It was never my intent to identify a DoS attack on FW-1. I was attempting to research and understand how FW-1 handles IP Fragmentation.  Everthing that follows is a result of that research. Full findings of my research can be found at  http://www.enteract.com/~lspitz/fwtable.html.
</DISCLAIMER>

On Saturday, May 27, I identified a major DoS attack for FW-1. CheckPoint was immediately notified.  Since then, they have developed a short term solution and are currently working on a long term solution (see details below).

Symptopms
---------
CPU mysteriously hits 100% utilization, system locks up. Some systems may also crash, depending on OS type.


Installations Vulnerable
-------------------------
1.  I have reason to believe that every installation of FW-1 is vulnerable, regardless of Operating System type or version/patch level of the FW-1 installation.  However, this has only been tested and confirmed with ver 4.1 SP1 on the Nokia, and ver 4.1 on NT and Solarix x86 platform.

2.  There is NO way to protect against it.  Your rulebase cannot stop this attack.  If your rulebase is denying everything, you are still vulnerable.

3.  FW-1 does NOT log these attacks in the firewall logs.  Not only will the firewall will be taken out, but it is difficult to determine why.  Illegally fragmented packets (such as those generated by jolt2) may be logged by Unix systems to /var/adm/messages.


Exploit
-------
Most frag based attacks that use incomplete or illegal fragments will work, including jolt2.  The firewall does not have to be attacked directly, if the frags are routed through the firewall for a system behind the firewall, FW-1 is still taken out.

Reason
------
FW-1 does not inspect, nor does it log, fragmented packets untill the packet has first been completely reassembled.  Since these exploit packets are never fully assembled, they are never inspected nor logged. Thus, the firewall's own rulebase cannot be used to protect against the attack. For more information on FW-1 IP Fragmentation reassembley, see http://www.enteract.com/~lspitz/fwtable.html

The actual CPU utilization is most likely the result of the application attempting to reassemble hundreds or thousands of incomplete and illegally fragmented packets.  As stated above, the firewall rulebase
cannot block these packets, as they are never inspected.

Other firewalls may have the same problem and vulnerability.

Solutions
---------
1.  CheckPoint has developed a short term solution to the problem.  A percentage of CPU utilization is due to console error messages on some Unix systems. By disabling FW-1 kernel logging, some CPU utilization will be saved.  However, all FW-1 kernel logging is disabled, you will have no capability for logging any firewall
kernel events. At the command line on the Firewall, type as root:                 

 fw ctl debug -buf

2.  Ensure the operating system has the latest patches.  Most operating system have recently released patches that help protect against fragment attacks.

3.  Run an IDS module (such as snort).  When you detect frag attacks block the Src at the router (remember, the firewall CANNOT stop the attack, its rulebase is powerless).  However, this method may not work with spoofed Src packets.

4. CheckPoint is developing a long term solution, which will be distributed as part of a later Service Pack.  However, this fix was not available for testing at the time of this post.

Thanks
------
I appreciate the help and involvement from the following people in helping with this issue.

Chris Brenton, Dartmouth's Institute for Security Technology Studies
Dameon Welch-Abernathy, http://www.phoneboy.com/fw1

Joe DiPietro, CheckPoint
Robert Slayton, CheckPoint
Mark Elliott, CheckPoint

Lance Spitzner
http://www.enteract.com/~lspitz/papers.html

 


 

Author information.
Copyright © [Telecom and Logistics Associates Sàrl]. All rights reserved.
Revised: juin 06, 2000 .

All information provided is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act upon such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the facts of the particular situation.