Nmap Security Scanner
*Intro
*Ref Guide
*Install Guide
*Download
*Changelog
*Book
*Docs
Security Lists
*Nmap Hackers
*Nmap Dev
*Bugtraq
*Full Disclosure
*Pen Test
*Basics
*More
Security Tools
*Pass crackers
*Sniffers
*Vuln Scanners
*Web scanners
*Wireless
*Exploitation
*Packet crafters
*More
Site News
Site Search:
Exploit World
Advertising
About/Contact
Credits
Sponsors:




firewall-wizards logo Firewall Wizards mailing list archives

Re: i-cap proposals
From: ArkanoiD <ark () eltex net>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:10:58 +0300

nuqneH,

On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 02:43:41AM -0500, lordchariot () earthlink net wrote:

ICAP does appear to be HTTP-centric, but that's somewhat deceiving. It is a
little more flexible than you may think. Much of the HTTP-like impression
you have could be due to the protocol resembling HTTP itself, but there are
design considerations for extensibility (so I am told).

You are describing the REQMOD method that is used in basic URL, filename,
mime-type and basic header filtering. Great for speed and can make many
policy decisions from header data provided it via caches, proxies or
firewalls.

The RESPMOD method is more complex and provides the ability to take chunks,
trickles or streams of data from a gateway device and pass it to a robust
content scanning engine for AV, mobile malicious code determination, magic
byte validation or even animated gif detection for ad blocking.

Yep, that's right, but the way icap servers tells the proxy wich content is
to be scanned definitely deals with those ridiculous "filename extensions"
anyways :-(

We use ICAP for all of the aforementioned filtering and more with HTTP, SSL,


Could you please describe exactly how SMTP session data are passed to icap
server? The standard does not specify it - so it is implementation dependant.
We definitely need a separate document to standardize non-http protocol
handling.

FTP and SMTP. POP3/IMAP would be really nice. I think the challenge is
decoding those protocols and extracting the relevant data for presentation
to ICAP and re-inserting them so as not to break the email protocol itself.
There's little tolerance in some areas that make it difficult to be
transparent between the client/server.

Yes, IMAP is a content inspection nightmare - it was really insane to deisgn
it the way each one of zillion ways to get an email sliced to little pieces
and sucked down is mandatory to be implemented on server and, thus, on
the proxy!

I successfully use milter filtering with pop3, though, and it is more easy
to use inspect IMAP subset most common clients utilize rather than do
full imap implementation on the proxy.

I don't claim to be an expert on ICAP itself, but many of the original
contributors to the protocol work for us and continue to refine the protocol
for use with our ICAP products and the rest of the community. If you have
some specific questions, I can _try_ to get answers from them directly.

That would be nice. I'd like to share my ideas with them and to have things
fixed and improved in the next protocol revision.


Qapla'
erik
_________________________________________________
Erik Elsasser                  System Engineering
CyberGuard Worldwide             Northeast Region

Qapla'

    ArkanoiD (ADVA technologies ltd)
 

-----Original Message-----
From: firewall-wizards-admin () honor icsalabs com
[mailto:firewall-wizards-admin () honor icsalabs com] On Behalf Of ArkanoiD
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 11:33 AM
To: firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
Cc: jmartin () netapp com; danzig () akamai com
Subject: [fw-wiz] i-cap proposals

Shame on me, though i joined i-cap mailing list quite early looking for
universal content inspection protocol, i found it too http-bound for general
use and seeing no live code for a long period of time somehow lost 
interest. I underestimated the project's future and thus made no
contributions.
It is late now, but there are some major design problems:

1) response content entities icap deals with defining inspection policy
are..
surprise, "filenames with given extensions". (Transfer-* headers)
Wait, there is no such thing when we are not dealing with local storage! 
There are content types! And those may be multipart of various types
(real pain for inspection proxies to deal) and so on.

2) It is still HTTP-bound. There should be recommendations on how to deal
with SMTP, POP3, IMAP, FTP and other - we should standardize how those
requests are being presented to ICAP.

Any ideas what to do now? ;-)

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards



email protected and scanned by AdvascanTM - keeping email useful - www.advascan.com 

[host=TEST]

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]