I just finished a paper dealing with TLS (ssl 3.1) relative to email security between 
client and server
and opportunistic use between servers.

I enclose it in the body for review and comment.

Please post any comment to me directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED], and not to the list.
I enclose a list of relative links at the bottom of my paper.

Thank you for your time.

Ian Briggs


*****************************************

Email security.  SSL 3.1 / TLS 1.0 deployment.
Ian Briggs
Web, Internet, and E-Commerce Security

Good infrastructure security relies on a layered approach, much like an onion.  A good 
security policy must assume eventual failure of one or more security devices or 
policies, and therefore will create multiple security compartments.  The final layer 
of security must be designed to protect specific assets, separate of any other layers, 
and limit the overall damage any one intrusion may cause.  In this paper I will 
address several security policies that concern the secure transmission of email 
between client(s) and server(s) and transmission between one or more servers.  
Separate email security issues such as non-repudiation, digital signatures, 
encryption, intrusion detection, host-firewalls, server security and client security 
have been successfully addressed in depth by other publications.  It is important to 
address all aspects in relationship to security concerning email as part of an 
all-encompassing security policy, as without a layered security policy both the host 
and the server are susceptible to core security breaches that would neutralize secure 
transmission of email as an effective policy.

Lets assume a single client on a LAN has been compromised either through hacking,  spy 
ware, or employee malfeasance. With modern networking tools such as ARP poisoning and 
various network sniffer tools publicly available, the single compromised machine may 
now have access to all unencrypted email traffic on its network segment, allowing 
relatively non-intrusive access to private communications between multiple parties for 
the indeterminate future.  POP3 and IMAP protocols communicate both the body of the 
message and the authentication in clear text.

An example traceroute shows 10 network hosts between my client and my mail server.  
Each of these hosts and the associated network segments may be operating in a 
promiscuous mode allowing covert interception of all email traffic.  In addition to a 
visible host, network taps may allow interception of the traffic directly from the 
transport media without any discernable network interference.  Interception of network 
traffic between a host computer and a primary mail server would not be detectable and 
would allow full access to my day to day email correspondences.

Assuming the client machine is secure, and also assuming each hop between the client 
and the mail server is secure, we now encounter the problem of security between mail 
servers.  SMTP transfers mail messages between servers in clear text.  A traceroute 
between my mail server and the primary AOL mail server shows 15 hosts, each of these 
may be compromised or operating intentionally in a promiscuous manner. We encounter 
the same problems with network traffic interception that we encountered with 
transferring mail between the client and the mail server as we do between mail servers.

A final security issue often overlooked concerns identity hijacking.  Several major 
security intrusion tactics involve attacking DNS directly to allow redirect exploits.  
The SMTP protocol does not allow for identity verification via a server certificate 
through a naming authority, nor verification of name to IP mapping.  Although host and 
server compromise is the primary focus of many security policies, the actual routes of 
transmission between the client machine and its mail server, and/or your mail server 
and another mail server are often ignored and easily exploited.

Furthermore I feel I must at least note the increased amount of interest in pursing 
intelligence gathering, without civil rights considerations, against people both in 
the United States and abroad under the banner of increased US security.  I believe the 
security solutions here better implement a secure form of email communication that 
inhibits non-intrusive (read clandestine) intelligent gathering.  The primary form of 
large scale intelligence gathering, relative to email communications, would be the 
deployment of �sniffing posts� throughout major network exchange points (naps), 
microwave relay points, and deployment within the networks of major internet 
providers.  Securing the transfer of email relative to client to server, and server to 
server, would significantly effect the large scale collection of intelligence and 
further secure the private exchange points between networks from promiscuous 
intelligence gathering.

Anyone on your network can read SMTP, POP3, and IMAP traffic that crosses the network 
because all three communication protocols sends both its messages, and any appropriate 
authentication, in clear text.  Unencrypted email is susceptible to interception at 
every point within a network.  The significance of access to the username and password 
during the authentication can not be underestimated, as many networks use the same 
username and passwords for access to VPN, network resources, remote access, and 
payroll as they do for email.

Secure Socket Layer (SSL), now being addressed specifically as Transport Layer 
Security (TLS)1.0, addresses security issues related to message interception during 
transportation between hosts.  The deployment of TLS, client and server side, is the 
primary defense against compromised clients or promiscuous networks intercepting email 
in route from the client to the server, or from the mail server to another mail 
server.  SSL, originally developed by Netscape, quickly hit version 2.0 and currently 
is version 3.x.  The current version of SSL, SSL 3.0 has evolved into the Internet 
Engineering Task Force (IETF) Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.0 protocol, sometimes 
referred to as SSL 3.1.  

TLS allows three specific advantages when addressing email security issues.  First, 
the peers identity can be authenticated using asymmetric, or public key, cryptography 
(e.g., RSA DSS, Diffie-Hellman, ElGamal, etc.).  This allows the safe exchange of 
encrypted information, coupled with an authorized naming certificate which can allows 
clients to verify that the IP address and name are the consistent with the DNS 
records, inhibiting �man in the middle� and DNS spoofing exploits.  


Second, the TLS negotiation exchange and transfer protects the content of email from 
interception while in route between two TLS enabled clients.  Finally the contents of 
a message can not be modified en route between two TLS negotiated hosts.  Violation of 
TLS can be detected by either party.

Client and server side deployment of TLS is relatively easy.  Nearly all major email 
clients such as Eudora, Outlook, Outlook Express and Netscape Mail, include the option 
to initiate a TLS connection for IMAP, SMTP and POP3 connections. The majority of mail 
servers such as; Exchange 5.5, Exchange 2000, IceWarp Email Server 2.0 and Postfix 
allow opportunistic TLS between servers.  Once server side TLS is deployed, the amount 
of opportunistic TLS communication between mail servers quickly exceeds the average 
amount of TLS communication between mail clients and servers.  Although the TLS is 
application protocol independent RFC3207 requires specific configuration relative to 
public SMTP servers.  Public SMTP servers must allow normal SMTP connection upon the 
failure to negotiate a TLS connection, this allows the continued transfer of mail, 
keeping the security benefits of TLS or the failure to negotiate TLS, invisible to the 
actual process of successfully delivering email.

Most major email programs such as Eudora, Outlook Express, and Netscape including 
options to initiate a SSL connection for both IMAP and SMTP and POP3.  Corporate and 
personal security policies should mandatory use of SSL/TLS for all mail clients.  This 
simple step initially secures the communication lines between client and mail server.  
In the rare case that the client software does not support SSL connections, the use of 
a SSH-2 client along with port forwarding to a remote server is suggested.  There are 
several different ways to implement SSH-2 port forwarding, variations of 
implementation are relative to ease of use and overall deployment cost, and therefore 
will not be addressed in this paper directly.

Email represents one of the most significant forms of communications in the Internet, 
yet the majority of email communication relies on aging protocols that were not 
designed to implement security concerns.  At the same time, email communication 
systems can be extremely sensitive to interruptions of service and over obtrusive 
security measures.  TLS addresses both of these concerns with a balance of strong 
secure encryption while appearing relatively transparent to the overall process.  In 
order to maintain a "reasonable" level of internal and external security in today�s 
large network environment, security policies should require the implementation of TLS 
as the sole connection protocol for IMAP, SMTP and POP3 connections within the LAN 
environment and opportunistic use of TLS between SMTP servers.




 List of Popular Arp tools.  http://neworder.box.sk/codebox.links.php?key=arptl
 Sniffers.  http://neworder.box.sk/codebox.links.php?key=sniffb
 POP3 Request for Comment ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1939.txt
 IMAP Request for Comment ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1203.txt
 SMTP Request for Comment ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2821.txt
 Transport Layer Security Request for Comment ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2246.txt
 Eudora SSL/.TLS directions.  http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2174hq.html
 SSL Configuration. 
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/exchange2000/maintain/security/secexsrv.asp
 TLS Confirguration.  
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/exchange2000/maintain/security/secexsrv.asp
 TLS Configuration.  http://www.icewarp.com/Solutions/Corporate/Powerful_Features.asp
 StartTLS Configuration.   http://www.homeport.org/~adam/starttls.html
 SMTP TLS RFC ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3207.txt
 SSL/TLS Configuration.  http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2307hq.html
 Client Configuration.  http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/System/intro/16/node12.html
 Client Configuration.  http://oit.utk.edu/helpdesk/email/ssl.html


Reply via email to