On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:12:52 +0100 Pedro Melo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Aug 23, 2008, at 7:32 PM, Dirk Meyer wrote: > > Pavel Simerda wrote: > >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:21:38 +0200 > >> Dirk Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> UPnP is a working choice, but bad. Just google for it. > >> > >> I know what UPnP is. > > > > I mean: google why it is a bad choice :) See below > > > >>> Since it is based on HTTP attackers found a way to open ports on > >>> your router. > >> > >> Please be more precise, this is not a useful piece of information > >> at all. > > > > OK. UPNp uses HTTP. If an attacker knows your router IP address (in > > many cases 192.168.1.1) he can use your browser to open port > > forwarding on your router so you expose services (windows has a lot > > of services that should be closed to the outside). > > An attacker with access to 192.168.1.1 is inside your network. He is > already inside with access to your services, the game is already lost. +1 > > First link I found using google: > > http://www.haveyougotwoods.com/archive/2008/01/15/common-home- > > router-exploit-upnp-enabled-routers-only.aspx > > I'm not defending UPnP really, but this attack boils down to: you > download an application and allow said application to access your > network. > > And the author is surprised that this is a security risk? UPnP > exploits should be the least of his problems. > > (I don't know much about Flash, but I though it had the same same- > source security mechanisms of Javascript, and in that case the > attack described would not work) > > Best regards, -- Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
