TunnelVision - How Attackers Can Decloak Routing-Based VPNs For a Total VPN Leak (CVE-2024-3661) (www.leviathansecurity.com)
from otter@lemmy.ca to technology@lemmy.world on 07 May 2024 00:55
https://lemmy.ca/post/20720928

Good summary by another user in the crosspost over in !programming@programming.dev:

lemmy.ca/post/20720943

#technology

threaded - newest

Technus@lemmy.zip on 07 May 2024 01:49 next collapse

The fancy transition for every single paragraph as you scroll is unnecessary and distracting.

just_another_person@lemmy.world on 07 May 2024 02:29 next collapse

Pretty rough and clever. Probably used in espionage for some time now. Sounds like static addresses and network namespaces solves for most of the problem though.

ramble81@lemm.ee on 07 May 2024 02:52 collapse

Yeah. Easy to check and get around this. Check your routes before transmitting data, also set up your VPN to push /2s if this relies on /1s, nuke extra routes, etc.

Novel idea though that most people wouldn’t think to look for, but at the end of the day any system will follow its routing table.

Technus@lemmy.zip on 07 May 2024 03:30 collapse

also set up your VPN to push /2s if this relies on /1s,

I don’t think this is a smart way to mitigate this because it could easily result in an arms race. Push /2s, the attacker will switch to /3s; push /4s, the attacker will switch to /5s, etc. Every +1 is going to require doubling the number of routing table entries.

That can’t continue forever, obviously, but it’s going to result in a negative experience for the user if the VPN client has to push hundreds or thousands of routes to mitigate this attack.

tblFlip@pawb.social on 07 May 2024 09:50 collapse

breaking news: researchers discover that network protocols work as intended. mindlessly connecting to an untrusted network is still a bad idea.

to quote the article: “Do not use untrusted networks if you need absolute confidentiality of your traffic” or use HTTPS and a SOCKS5 proxy