draft-ietf-ftpext-sec-consider-02.txt

ProFTPd 是一款基于GPL协议的可配置的FTP服务器

FTPEXT Working Group                                         Mark Allman
Internet Draft                              NASA Lewis/Sterling Software
Expires: October, 1998                                   Shawn Ostermann    
                                                         Ohio University    
                                                             April, 1999
    
        
                      FTP Security Considerations
                <draft-ietf-ftpext-sec-consider-02.txt>
    

Status of this Memo
                                    
    This document is an Internet-Draft.  Internet-Drafts are working
    documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
    and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also distribute
    working documents as Internet-Drafts.

    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
    months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
    at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
    reference material or to cite them other than as ``work in
    progress.''

    To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
    ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet- Drafts
    Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
    munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or
    ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).

    Distribution of this document is unlimited.  Please send comments
    to the FTP Extension working group (FTPEXT-WG) of the Internet
    Engineering Task Force (IETF) at <[e-mail]>.
    Subscription address is <[e-mail]>.
    Discussions of the group are archived at
    <URL:http://w3.hethmon.com/ftpext/>.

Abstract
    
    The specification for the File Transfer Protocol contains a number
    of mechanisms that can be used to compromise network security.  The
    FTP specification allows a client to instruct a server to transfer
    files to a third machine.  This third-party mechanism, known as
    proxy FTP, causes a well known security problem.  The FTP
    specification also allows an unlimited number of attempts at
    entering a user's password.  This allows brute force "password
    guessing" attacks.  This document provides suggestions for system
    administrators and those implementing FTP servers that will decrease
    the security problems associated with FTP.

1   Introduction

    The File Transfer Protocol specification [PR85] provides a mechanism
    that allows a client to establish an FTP control connection and
    transfer a file between two FTP servers.  This "proxy FTP" mechanism

Expires: April, 1999                                            [Page 1]

draft-ietf-ftpext-sec-consider-02.txt                       October 1998

    can be used to decrease the amount of traffic on the network; the
    client instructs one server to transfer a file to another server,
    rather than transferring the file from the first server to the
    client and then from the client to the second server.  This is
    particularly useful when the client connects to the network using a
    slow link (e.g., a modem).  While useful, proxy FTP provides a
    security problem known as a "bounce attack" [CERT97:27].  In
    addition to the bounce attack, FTP servers can be used by attackers
    to guess passwords using brute force.

    This document does not contain a discussion of FTP when used in
    conjunction with strong security protocols, such as IP Security.
    These security concerns should be documented, however they are out
    of the scope of this document.

    This paper provides information for FTP server implementers and
    system administrators, as follows.  Section 2 describes the FTP
    "bounce attack".  Section 3 provides suggestions for minimizing the
    bounce attack.  Section 4 provides suggestions for servers which
    limit access based on network address.  Section 5 provides
    recommendations for limiting brute force "password guessing" by
    clients.  Next, section 6 provides a brief discussion of mechanisms
    to improve privacy.  Section 7 provides a mechanism to prevent user
    identity guessing.  Section 8 discusses the practice of port
    stealing.  Finally, section 9 provides an overview of other FTP
    security issues related to software bugs rather than protocol
    issues.

2   The Bounce Attack

    The version of FTP specified in the standard [PR85] provides a
    method for attacking well known network servers, while making the
    perpetrators difficult to track down.  The attack involves sending
    an FTP "PORT" command to an FTP server containing the network
    address and the port number of the machine and service being
    attacked.  At this point, the original client can instruct the FTP
    server to send a file to the service being attacked.  Such a file
    would contain commands relevant to the service being attacked (SMTP,
    NNTP, etc.).  Instructing a third party to connect to the service,
    rather than connecting directly, makes tracking down the perpetrator
    difficult and can circumvent network-address-based access
    restrictions.

    As an example, a client uploads a file containing SMTP commands to
    an FTP server.  Then, using an appropriate PORT command, the client
    instructs the server to open a connection to a third machine's SMTP
    port.  Finally, the client instructs the server to transfer the
    uploaded file containing SMTP commands to the third machine.  This
    may allow the client to forge mail on the third machine without
    making a direct connection.  This makes it difficult to track
    attackers.

    


Expires: April, 1999                                            [Page 2]

draft-ietf-ftpext-sec-consider-02.txt                       October 1998

3   Protecting Against the Bounce Attack

    The original FTP specification [PR85] assumes that data connections
    will be made using the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [Pos81].
    TCP port numbers in the range 0 - 1023 are reserved for well known
    services such as mail, network news and FTP control connections
    [RP94].  The FTP specification makes no restrictions on the TCP port
    number used for the data connection.  Therefore, using proxy FTP,
    clients have the ability to tell the server to attack a well known
    service on any machine.

    To avoid such bounce attacks, it is suggested that servers not open
    data connections to TCP ports less than 1024.  If a server receives
    a PORT command containing a TCP port number less than 1024, the
    suggested response is 504 (defined as "Command not implemented for
    that parameter" by [PR85]).  Note that this still leaves non-well
    known servers (those running on ports greater than 1023) vulnerable
    to bounce attacks.
    
    Several proposals (e.g., [AOM98] and [Pis94]) provide a mechanism
    that would allow data connections to be made using a transport
    protocol other than TCP.  Similar precautions should be taken to
    protect well known services when using these protocols.

    Also note that the bounce attack generally requires that a
    perpetrator be able to upload a file to an FTP server and later
    download it to the service being attacked.  Using proper file
    protections will prevent this behavior.  However, attackers can also
    attack services by sending random data from a remote FTP server
    which may cause problems for some services.

    Disabling the PORT command is also an option for protecting against
    the bounce attack.  Most file transfers can be made using only the
    PASV command [Bel94].  The disadvantage of disabling the PORT
    command is that one loses the ability to use proxy FTP, but proxy
    FTP may not be necessary in a particular environment.

4   Restricted Access

    For some FTP servers, it is desirable to restrict access based on
    network address.  For example, a server might want to restrict
    access to certain files from certain places (e.g., a certain file
    should not be transferred out of an organization).  In such a
    situation, the server should confirm that the network address of the
    remote hosts on both the control connection and the data connection
    are within the organization before sending a restricted file.  By
    checking both connections, a server is protected against the case
    when the control connection is established with a trusted host and
    the data connection is not.  Likewise, the client should verify the
    IP address of the remote host after accepting a connection on a port
    opened in listen mode to verify that the connection was made by the
    expected server.

    

Expires: April, 1999                                            [Page 3]

draft-ietf-ftpext-sec-consider-02.txt                       October 1998

    Note that restricting access based on network address leaves the FTP
    server vulnerable to "spoof" attacks.  In a spoof attack, for
    example, an attacking machine could assume the host address of
    another machine inside an organization and download files that are
    not accessible from outside the organization.  Whenever possible,
    secure authentication mechanisms should be used, such as those
    outlined in [HL97].

5   Protecting Passwords 
    
    To minimize the risk of brute force password guessing through the
    FTP server, it is suggested that servers limit the number of
    attempts that can be made at sending a correct password.  After a
    small number of attempts (3-5), the server should close the control
    connection with the client.  Before closing the control connection
    the server must send a return code of 421 ("Service not available,
    closing control connection." [PR85]) to the client.  In addition, it
    is suggested that the server impose a 5 second delay before replying
    to an invalid "PASS" command to diminish the efficiency of a brute
    force attack.  If available, mechanisms already provided by the
    target operating system should be used to implement the above
    suggestions.

    An intruder can subvert the above mechanisms by establishing
    multiple, parallel control connections to a server.  To combat the
    use of multiple concurrent connections, the server could either
    limit the total number of control connections possible or attempt to