Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Analytics

5/4/2006
04:45 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Yes, Virginia, VOIP Can Be Secure

A live demo at Interop shows that with app-level gateways, deep packet inspection, and VPN, VOIP can be hardened from attack

One of the biggest knocks on VOIP technology is its lack of security. But at the Interop show this week, a group of vendors and technicians has quietly been demonstrating secure, multivendor VOIP connections -- both from within the LAN and from remote users over a VPN.

The InteropLabs VOIP demo focuses on two major areas of security: protecting the SIP gateway from attack and supporting remote users connecting via a VPN. The demo shows that it is possible to support VOIP within the closed confines of a single enterprise, though it also exposes potential problems with network address port translation (NAPT) that will need to be solved in live deployments.

In the demo, border protection starts with a SIP-aware application layer gateway or deep packet inspection. During call setup, the phones negotiate the call parameters they are willing to accept and what UDP ports, or ephemeral ports, they will use for voice packets. A non-SIP-aware firewall can't handle the ephemeral ports, and the voice connection between the phones could never be completed.

As Craig Johnson, systems engineering manager for Check Point, explains, "the SIP firewall has to be session-aware so that when a call ends -- either through a hang-up or a time-out -- the ephemeral ports are closed. Otherwise, avenues for malicious activity like toll fraud are possible."

The SIP-aware firewall also can stop denial-of-service attacks, which bombard the SIP gateway with registration and call requests, effectively cutting off legitimate calls or sending malformed SIP packets to the SIP gateway.

In addition to supporting ephemeral ports, SIP-aware firewalls and routers -- especially in remote offices -- must also be aware of NAPT, rewriting both the UDP packets and the network information in the SIP packets. Unlike IPSec, SIP offers no standards for NAPT traversal. In SIP networks, NAPT is achieved through packet rewriting or by changing routes within the receiving phone's network. The former is the less intrusive option.

What about encryption?
The InteropLabs VOIP demonstration used IPSec and an SSL VPN to encrypt the traffic between the remote user and central LAN, but it did not include encryption of SIP and voice traffic. The IETF has drafted some standards for encryption of SIP and RTP, and some products, including Sipera's IPCS310, support TLS and secure RTP. But vendors and other experts disagree on the immediate need for VOIP encryption.

Executives at Nortel acknowledge that encrypting VOIP eventually will be necessary. But as Aziz Khadbai, general manager of Converged Nortel Networks, observes, "VOIP installations today are within closed networks managed by a single entity. In the context of an internal network, the need for encryption is less critical than if the traffic passes over untrusted networks."

Robert Moskowitz, senior technical director at ICSA Labs, disagrees. "The CSI/FBI study shows that 80 percent of [VOIP] attacks are from insiders," he says. "Consider the ease of SIP hijacking and the ease of header manipulation. It's easy to become a man-in-the-middle and effectively wiretap all VOIP communications." Moskowitz cites an article on Voipinder entitled "Examining Two Well-Known Attacks on VOIP," which demonstrates such an attack.

Experts say the decision on whether to encrypt VOIP depends on how the VOIP travels over the network, the enterprise's need for security, and the state of the building's physical security.

— Mike Fratto, Editor at Large, Dark Reading

Organizations mentioned in this story

  • Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. (Nasdaq: CHKP)
  • Computer Security Institute (CSI)
  • ICSA Labs
  • Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
  • Nortel Networks Ltd. (NYSE/Toronto: NT)
  • Sipera Systems

    Mike Fratto is a principal analyst at Current Analysis, covering the Enterprise Networking and Data Center Technology markets. Prior to that, Mike was with UBM Tech for 15 years, and served as editor of Network Computing. He was also lead analyst for InformationWeek Analytics ... View Full Bio
     

    Recommended Reading:

    Comment  | 
    Print  | 
    More Insights
  • Comments
    Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
    COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
    Dark Reading Staff 7/9/2020
    4 Security Tips as the July 15 Tax-Day Extension Draws Near
    Shane Buckley, President & Chief Operating Officer, Gigamon,  7/10/2020
    Russian Cyber Gang 'Cosmic Lynx' Focuses on Email Fraud
    Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/7/2020
    Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
    White Papers
    Video
    Cartoon
    Current Issue
    Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
    This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
    Flash Poll
    The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
    The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
    This report describes some of the latest attacks and threats emanating from the Internet, as well as advice and tips on how your organization can mitigate those threats before they affect your business. Download it today!
    Twitter Feed
    Dark Reading - Bug Report
    Bug Report
    Enterprise Vulnerabilities
    From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
    CVE-2020-15105
    PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
    Django Two-Factor Authentication before 1.12, stores the user's password in clear text in the user session (base64-encoded). The password is stored in the session when the user submits their username and password, and is removed once they complete authentication by entering a two-factor authenticati...
    CVE-2020-11061
    PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
    In Bareos Director less than or equal to 16.2.10, 17.2.9, 18.2.8, and 19.2.7, a heap overflow allows a malicious client to corrupt the director's memory via oversized digest strings sent during initialization of a verify job. Disabling verify jobs mitigates the problem. This issue is also patched in...
    CVE-2020-4042
    PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
    Bareos before version 19.2.8 and earlier allows a malicious client to communicate with the director without knowledge of the shared secret if the director allows client initiated connection and connects to the client itself. The malicious client can replay the Bareos director's cram-md5 challenge to...
    CVE-2020-11081
    PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
    osquery before version 4.4.0 enables a priviledge escalation vulnerability. If a Window system is configured with a PATH that contains a user-writable directory then a local user may write a zlib1.dll DLL, which osquery will attempt to load. Since osquery runs with elevated privileges this enables l...
    CVE-2020-6114
    PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
    An exploitable SQL injection vulnerability exists in the Admin Reports functionality of Glacies IceHRM v26.6.0.OS (Commit bb274de1751ffb9d09482fd2538f9950a94c510a) . A specially crafted HTTP request can cause SQL injection. An attacker can make an authenticated HTTP request to trigger this vulnerabi...