Weekly Edition
Return to the Security page
| |||||||||||||
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H)
The H has an article about a back door that was recently put into the ProFTPD server code.
"The back door provides the attackers with complete access to systems on which the modified version of the server has been installed. On installation, the modified version informs the group behind the back door by contacting an IP address in the Saudi Arabia area. Entering the command 'HELP ACIDBITCHEZ' results in the modified server displaying a root shell.
[...]
Ironically, to place their back door, the attackers used a zero day vulnerability in ProFTPD itself, which the developers were using to make the source code available to users." (Thanks to Jan-Frode Myklebust who gave us a heads-up about this issue).
(Log in to post comments)
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 2, 2010 23:18 UTC (Thu) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588) [Link]
Simple solution, install vsftpd :)
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 1:17 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Or quit using FTP! Who deploys it any more?
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 1:33 UTC (Fri) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Seconded. If you don't need upload, use HTTP. Otherwise, use SFTP.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 5:22 UTC (Fri) by whacker (guest, #55546) [Link]
HTTP has a PUT method, which you could use for uploads.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 7:45 UTC (Fri) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
Which is prone to different types of attacks (just see the HTTPÂ PUT denial of service from a few days ago)..
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 20:02 UTC (Fri) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Sure, but http and ssh gotta be there anyway. Removing FTP is removing one more way to get cracked with no loss of ability.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 8:57 UTC (Fri) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018) [Link]
Not sure HTTP is as bandwidth-efficient as FTP. Does anyone know better?
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 9:15 UTC (Fri) by Np237 (subscriber, #69585) [Link]
HTTP actually is a little bit more bandwidth-efficient than FTP. The gain is marginal, though.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 11:47 UTC (Fri) by intgr (subscriber, #39733) [Link]
Not only is HTTP more bandwidth-efficient, but it's also more resource-efficient.
* Only one socket/TCP connection is needed for each download -- FTP needs 2 * Much lower latency: only one round-trip to fetch a file -- FTP needs at least 5 (USER, PASS, CWD, PASV and RETR, but clients often do more requests, such as SIZE, TYPE, SYST etc). The TCP+IP packet headers from these alone outweigh an HTTP request * HTTP can also re-use connections for multiple requests; FTP always establishes a separate data connection for each download
So yes, FTP is an obsolete, inefficient and insecure protocol for all purposes.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 16:31 UTC (Fri) by ESRI (guest, #52806) [Link]
I'd say the "client" space is still a big win for FTP with many mature and powerful clients like FileZilla, etc.
Sure you can write something yourself or find some Java-based or HTML-based clients that I'm sure are somewhat promising -- or head down the MFT path if you're big enough...
But FTP has a leg up there still and customers by and large prefer it for large transfers it seems.
And, no slight against vsftpd, but ProFTPD's configurability sets it apart.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 16:52 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
I just use Webdav, personally.
It has built-in support for Gvfs, Kio, Windows XP/7/Vista, OS X, and everybody else that matters.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 16:55 UTC (Fri) by intgr (subscriber, #39733) [Link]
> I'd say the "client" space is still a big win for FTP with many mature and powerful clients like FileZilla, etc.
That's true, I was concentrating on the anonymous downloads use case because that's where efficiency really matters.
For authenticated file transfers, where performance isn't that important, you'll probably want SFTP anyway. Most if not all these powerful clients already support SFTP/SCP. You also get rsync for free, at the flip of a switch.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 4, 2010 18:25 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
The problem with SFTP is that OpenSSH implementations depend to much on the Unix way of doing things. This does not mesh up well with business needs.
Here is what people want for their businesses:
Think of it as SFTP as a JBOSS program. If somebody like Redhat was to create something like that it would be a big hit with many enterprises. There are currently a shitload of expensive and poorly programmed applications that do this sort of thing for businesses. If there is a good open source one already I am very sorry for missing it.
I know that it's horrible and distasteful. But it's what they want.
I've worked for several different businesses of radically different stripes for nearly a decade. Ranging from 200 employees to several thousand. They were all very different, but they all had in common that they required sending signficant data to and from customers and vendors as a core business requirement. Due to regulatory concerns, contractual obligations, and just plain stupid bias they had to deal with multiple protocols and formats of the data based on customer and vendor preference... lots of stuff like ftp is entirely not up to them.
If somebody like IBM or Redhat or some other big name that is trusted and has experience with the regulatory issues created a application like this that was cheap and easy to deploy then it would go a very long way to killing ftp once and for good.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 4, 2010 18:26 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Oh and SSL/TLS PKI, Kerberos, SASL, LDAP, AD support and all that crap also.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 7, 2010 2:13 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link]
There are other SSH implementations out there. For the bazaar.launchpad.net code hosting service, we used Twisted's Conch module.
User names and public keys are pulled from a database, and a virtual file system layout is provided to the user based on both their individual permissions and user, project, and branch names found in the database (on disk storage is keyed off the database branch ID).
These things aren't impossible to do with SSH.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 9, 2010 5:15 UTC (Thu) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
I don't understand the hate for "the UNIX way of doing things." Just put an SFTP server, a lightweight HTTP server, and an ftp server inside an LXC container and write a few Python or Ruby scripts. And yes, you can even give it a web interface for administrators.
Another approach that seems to be popular lately is using Amazon S3 and its clones. Walrus and Rados Gateway are two open-source implementations of S3. S3 has cryptographic signatures, advanced permissions controls, uses HTTP or HTTPS (so it goes through any firewall), and is in general very well thought-out. You can even set up buckets where the user has to pay for the data he stores. You can set up buckets where every change is versioned, so that data is never lost. And so on.
> I know that it's horrible and distasteful. But it's what they want.
It's horrible and distateful to suggest re-inventing the wheel, without learning from the past. Transferring files is actually rather pleasant.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 13, 2010 20:24 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
You don't need any of that. All you need is an interface (probably both C/language-of-choice and a command-line wrapper wrapped around it) which allows you to invoke protocol-dependent shell scripts (or other thing-of-choice) to do the actual transferring.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 1:58 UTC (Fri) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588) [Link]
Good call.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 4:38 UTC (Fri) by rriggs (subscriber, #11598) [Link]
Business 101.
People who serve customers who demand FTP have FTP servers. It's sad, but there are still people that were trained on how to use FTP a decade or more ago and don't want to learn anything new. And they work for companies with money. And they'll take their business to people who will give them FTP access. If even one of your bigger customers threatens to take their business elsewhere because of it, you will run an FTP server.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 8:09 UTC (Fri) by ceplm (guest, #41334) [Link]
and people who use FTP know for many years they should use secure FTP daemon. Why do you think there is a program called Very Secure FTP Daemon (vsftpd)?
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 10:43 UTC (Fri) by lkundrak (subscriber, #43452) [Link]
I thought the "VSFTPD" acronym actually stood for "Inflexible FTP server that can not even log failures properly" ;)
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 16:53 UTC (Fri) by gidoca (subscriber, #62438) [Link]
Yeah, and Microsoft products are lightweight, because they have "micro" in their name... ;)
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 16:54 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
[quote]Business 101.
People who serve customers who demand FTP have FTP servers. It's sad, but there are still people that were trained on how to use FTP a decade or more ago and don't want to learn anything new. And they work for companies with money. And they'll take their business to people who will give them FTP access. If even one of your bigger customers threatens to take their business elsewhere because of it, you will run an FTP server.[/quote]
Business 201.
People who actually care about security and still use FTP are people that setup throw-away ftp-specific accounts and use signed/encrypted files.
Better then TLS!
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 4, 2010 14:02 UTC (Sat) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link]
seriously: WinSCP and FileZilla are about as point-and-click as it gets. I really doubt that it's anything but inertia that's keeping FTP around.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 7:42 UTC (Fri) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] Who deploys it any more?FTP is still the lowest common denominator way to transfer files when you have to ensure access from mixed platforms of varying ages. That is basically any large corporation. I don't think it will go away for a long time.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 13:54 UTC (Fri) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640) [Link]
Unless they have firewalls, then ftp becomes a bitch.
ftp needs to die already.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 21:52 UTC (Fri) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]
So do stupid firewall( admin)s.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 9:37 UTC (Fri) by sjlyall (subscriber, #4151) [Link]
I have a few customers who need to upload files so I was going to use the excuse of moving to new servers recently to push them to sftp.
But it turns out that it doesn't quite work with RHEL/Centos 5 because while Redhat backported the chroot to their version of sshd they didn't backport the "Match" command so you can't chroot just a limited number of users (ie NOT the interactive or admin logins) easily.
There are a few other options (manually created chroot, maintain own ssh packages) but they all seemed a bit too much trouble. I'll review things when I move to RHEL6 I guess.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 10:08 UTC (Fri) by arekm (subscriber, #4846) [Link]
There is no single sftp server that would match proftpd (or even pureftpd) capabilities, configuration abilities, flexibility etc.
That's what prevents for example me from disabling ftp daemon.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 16:47 UTC (Fri) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]
HTTP does not have sane directory listing capability.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 3, 2010 23:20 UTC (Fri) by ajf (subscriber, #10844) [Link] Well, there is WebDAV... but I'm not sure how comfortable I am calling it sane.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 4, 2010 17:55 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
It works for me.
I use it as a file system in Linux and in Windows. There is native support for it in all OSes nowadays. I like it.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 4, 2010 21:48 UTC (Sat) by HenrikH (guest, #31152) [Link]
Yeah, but the directory listing in WebDAV is not something that I would like to call sane though. Too much complicated xml stuff.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 6, 2010 3:27 UTC (Mon) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
FTP doesn't even *have* a standard for directory listing. The closest thing it has is the LIST command, which returns a bunch of totally free-form text. Want to display that to the user in a graphical form, or use it in some kind of scripting context? Good luck-- you'll have to write N different parsers for your favorite N different ftp servers.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 6, 2010 17:46 UTC (Mon) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link]
I had to do that one time. It was only three parsers for me because that covered most options.
I believe it was Windows IIS, Linux (all the FTP daemons seemed to just use ls format) and I think BSD had one just a little different.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 6, 2010 21:13 UTC (Mon) by marcH (guest, #57642) [Link]
> FTP doesn't even *have* a standard for directory listing. The closest thing it has is the LIST command, which returns a bunch of totally free-form text.
At least it has the command.
> Good luck-- you'll have to write N different parsers for your favorite N different ftp servers.
It is probably not very hard considering I never met nor even heard about this problem before now.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 7, 2010 13:30 UTC (Tue) by jond (subscriber, #37669) [Link]
With all due respect, it's clearly a massive whole in the FTP spec, and another key example of how not to design a protocol, up there with the default (non-passive) control channel stuff. You personally not having experienced the problem doesn't really change that.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 7, 2010 14:30 UTC (Tue) by marcH (guest, #57642) [Link]
> You personally not having experienced the problem doesn't really change that.
Uh, "personally"?
Will all due respect, users do not care a bit about how is badly designed the protocol or whatever other obscure internal implementation detail. They just want features and FTP has sadly still an edge in a number of use cases. Sad but true.
Back door in ProFTPD FTP server (The H) Posted Dec 4, 2010 16:55 UTC (Sat) by marcH (guest, #57642) [Link]
Indeed. FTP sucks in many ways but sorry HTTP is still NOT a good substitute for FTP. Whereas FTP is very close to a remote file system, HTTP does not come near.
rsync rocks, it "just" needs better GUIs.
|
|||||||||||||