From: Rob Shein (shoten@starpower.net)
Date: Wed Feb 05 2003 - 13:46:42 EST
Ahh, there's a sticky issue. On one hand, it's very arguable that you
violated the scope of your "get out of jail free card," by engaging a device
outside the scope of your client's network. Let's face it; you could have
just run traceroute to check the hops, there was no need to SNMP query
machines that did not belong to your client. On the other hand, you're
operating from the moral high ground; you're not trying to hack anyone, you
wish no harm done, and you want to tell the ISP that they have a problem so
they can fix it. You seem to have two choices in my mind: tell them, and
hope they don't overreact, or keep it to yourself so that you can stay out
of harm's way. Either way I would definitely NOT involve your client. If
the ISP overreacts they could conceiveably hold it against your client and
terminate service, citing a violation of acceptable use policy.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rod Strader [mailto:Strader@doeren.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 7:21 PM
> To: Kevin Reynolds; pen-test@securityfocus.com
> Subject: RE: Routes that are susceptible to SNMP
>
>
> To all I am not trying to get into the ISP just want to know
> how to help the client notify them about the issue.
>
> The tool I use does a trace route and tells information that
> it finds along the way. In this case it discovered the
> gateway before the client had a community string of public.
>
> The information displayed is in the information window which
> I cut out and pasted for all of your input.
>
> I believe this is on the gray area, where the service
> provider is providing a service to the client and their
> community string could leave the client open to potential harm.
>
> I have not tested the gateway merly used the information the
> tool has provided about the path to the target.
>
> My question is how do I provide this information to the
> client so they can give the information to their provider.
> With out trouble on anyones part.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Reynolds [mailto:reynolds25@adelphia.net]
> Sent: Tue 2/4/2003 7:01 PM
> To: Rod Strader; pen-test@securityfocus.com
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Routes that are susceptible to SNMP
>
>
>
> What about the private community string? Good chance
> that the RW community
> string is still private.
>
> Kevin
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rod Strader" <Strader@doeren.com>
> To: <pen-test@securityfocus.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 1:55 PM
> Subject: Routes that are susceptible to SNMP
>
>
> Good day everyone,
>
> I am currently on a vulnerability assessment gig and
> found that a router
> on the way to my clients target is susceptible to snmp
> with a community
> string of public. This device when looking at it shows
> the arp table
> having my clients targets IP address in it. What is the general
> consensus of how dangerous this is to my client. I
> don't know if I can
> change anything with same community string but I can
> review all the
> information on the device. Here is some of the
> information I found
> walking the mib:
>
> Description: Ascend Max-1800 BRI S/N: 8371001 Software +6.0.10+
>
> This device appears to be the gateway router before
> their email server.
> The arp table still has the target in it.
>
> Please comment!
>
> Rod Strader
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security
> Intelligence Alert (SIA)
> Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA
> service which
> automatically alerts you to the latest security
> vulnerabilities please see:
> https://alerts.securityfocus.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided by the SecurityFocus Security Intelligence Alert (SIA)
Service. For more information on SecurityFocus' SIA service which
automatically alerts you to the latest security vulnerabilities please see:
https://alerts.securityfocus.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 10:53:27 EDT