One possibility I have not heard discussed would be to write a wrapper
that can distinguish the difference between protocol messages sent by an
SMTP program and a person composing them at a Telnet prompt.  The former
would likely arrive as a single packet per protocal message, while the
latter would likely arrive as a single character per packet (Telnet
generally does not buffer lines).  Another option might be to send back
a Telnet control/negotiation message - an SMTP program would likely
ignore it, while a Telnet program would respond.  I havent tried either
of these approaches, but think they would detect most user attempts to
spoof SMTP using Telnet.

- Randy Smith


----Original Message-----
   >From:       Paul D. Robertson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
   >To:                 [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
   >Cc:                 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   >Subj:       RE: Restrict telnet to port 25 via firewall.
   >Sent:       Monday, March 25, 2002 3:38 AM
   >
   >On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Navin Mehra/MUM/IN/STTL wrote:
   >
   >> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:25:35 +0530
   >> From: Navin Mehra/MUM/IN/STTL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   >> To: Madhur Nanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   >> Subject: RE: Restrict telnet to port 25 via firewall.
   >> 
   >> 
   >> Thanks for the feedback.
   >> But the problem is anybody can compose a mail, via telneting to
port 25.
   >
   >Mail is spoofable.  That's a flaw in the protocol.  Telnet isn't the
only 
   >way to spoof mail.
   >
   >> and then impersonatting the person can send a mail on his behalf.
Can i
   >> enable any sort or authorisation on the pix firewall or is there a
setting
   >> in the Lotus Notes server R5.
   >
   >If you want the machine to receive mail from the Internet, the best
you 
   >can do is to ensure it's not an open relay.  As mentioned, there are

   >client-side mail integrity solutions like S/MIME and PGP/GPG.  
   >
   >If you're relying on SMTP for authenticity, you need to either
switch 
   >mechanisms or add client-side validation, or accept the fact that
the 
   >protocol has major flaws.
   >
   >Paul
 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
   >Paul D. Robertson      "My statements in this message are personal
opinions
   >[EMAIL PROTECTED]      which may have no basis whatsoever in
fact."
   >
   >_______________________________________________
   >Firewalls mailing list
   >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   >http://lists.gnac.net/mailman/listinfo/firewalls
   >

_______________________________________________
Firewalls mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnac.net/mailman/listinfo/firewalls

Reply via email to