Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: Re: Secure Perlmonks

by Mirage (Sexton)
on Jul 18, 2003 at 04:32 UTC ( #275499=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Re: Secure Perlmonks
in thread Secure Perlmonks

If someone is taking the time to sniff packets on your network, then you have likely got a lot more to worry about then just your perlmonks password.
the time is just a simple dsniff that runs in the background.

Also you should consider what kind of network you are on. Say you are at work, well then its likely you're on a switched network
switched networks are no real match, as you can fake packets that will confuse the switch, so you can get all the packages you want. I think especially as a security expert you shouldn't feel all safe because its may seem hard it do - as long as it is possible there is the danger.

By the way, hackers are not people who enter into machines and try to harm others.
see here

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Secure Perlmonks
by SyN/AcK (Scribe) on Jul 18, 2003 at 05:58 UTC

    Yes yes, I'm well aware of the difference between hackers and crackers. To me, the terms are interchangable. Its not my fault the media decided to call crackers, hackers.

    I don't think that you completely understood the answer to my question. When I said

    If someone is taking the time to sniff packets on your network, then you have likely got a lot more to worry about then just your perlmonks password.

    I was refering to the network as say your home computer. I was trying to make the point that you should be alot more concerned with someone sniffing passwords other than just your perlmonks password, or with something potentially worse, say using your netbios shares (or any other vulnerability for that matter) to "hijack" your computer.

    I agree, dsniff is a simple enough tool to use, but the point that I was trying to initially make is that you should be much more concerned about the other vulnerabilities inherent on most peoples home computers.

    As for your comment about switched networks,

    switched networks are no real match, as you can fake packets that will confuse the switch, so you can get all the packages you want. I think especially as a security expert you shouldn't feel all safe because its may seem hard it do - as long as it is possible there is the danger,

    I think that this is an unfair statement. While it is true that there is some inherent insecurities involved with a switched network environment, it has proven to be a viable solution for may small business (as well as many large scale businesses). It again comes to my point that you should be most concerned with other things.

    As a security expert, its not as important to recognize and address every single potentially exploitable hole, as it is to prioritize and address the most significant problems. I was merely trying to show that there are other things to be more concerned about. ARP poisoning, while definitely not to be taken lightly, is not as dangerous as some of the other hacks, or "cracks" (whatever), that take much less skill to accomplish.

      Yes yes, I'm well aware of the difference between hackers and crackers. To me, the terms are interchangable. Its not my fault the media decided to call crackers, hackers.
      Ok, sorry for misunderstanding you.

      I was refering to the network as say your home computer. I was trying to make the point that you should be alot more concerned with someone sniffing passwords other than just your perlmonks password, or with something potentially worse, say using your netbios shares (or any other vulnerability for that matter) to "hijack" your computer.

      The point is, that I often use my notebook from other networks(with wireless lan, so no switching) where I don't know everyone. I do know that most of these people there are able to use techniques to get any information that may give some fun, such as account information. I already use other means such as pop3s (and I don't have open netbios shares...) to minimize open vulnerabilities, and I wondered if it was possible to do so with perlmonks.

        Well, at this point, with wireless technology so new, you are pretty much at the mercy of the people around you. I would say that your best solution would therefore be to do your browsing "off" of your actual machine.

        Perhaps the best solution, therefore, would be to do your surfing thru a proxy. More importantly a proxy with SSL capabilities. I believe that someone here has already mentioned squid, and I think that would be an excellent solution.

        Something else to consider would be the anonymous web browsers out there. I think one is at anonymizer.com... I have not looked into these technologies much, but I believe that the idea is that you sign on for the service, and you are able to do all of your web browsing through there proxy server (which features encrypted communications) thereby eliminating the clear text passwords eminating from your machine (as I believe that they would actually be coming from the proxy server).

        Hopefully one of these suggestions will prove acceptable.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://275499]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (5)
As of 2022-08-13 23:40 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?