153
submitted 6 months ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.ml
all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml 49 points 6 months ago

The researchers believe it affects all VPN applications when they’re connected to a hostile network and that there are no ways to prevent such attacks except when the user's VPN runs on Linux or Android.

Once again, Linux with a win!

[-] dave@feddit.uk 16 points 6 months ago

Partially. The summary isn’t quite in line with the detail:

Android is the only operating system that fully immunizes VPN apps from the attack because it doesn't implement option 121. For all other OSes, there are no complete fixes. When apps run on Linux there’s a setting that minimizes the effects, but even then TunnelVision can be used to exploit a side channel that can be used to de-anonymize destination traffic and perform targeted denial-of-service attacks.

[-] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 3 points 6 months ago

I disagree with one of their points

Network firewalls can also be configured to deny inbound and outbound traffic to and from the physical interface. This remedy is problematic for two reasons: (1) a VPN user connecting to an untrusted network has no ability to control the firewall and (2) it opens the same side channel present with the Linux mitigation.

Sure, they can't control the network firewall, but why would you do that when you can change your local firewall? Set an iptables rule to drop all traffic going out the physical interface that isn't destined for the VPN server. I'm 70% sure some vpn clients do this automatically.

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 29 points 6 months ago

Really interesting. Dhcp optional routes overriding VPN tunnel routing rules.

[-] BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago

Dang option 121.

I told him 120 options was enough, but he just had to keep adding options.

[-] meleethecat@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

120 options should be enough for anyone.

[-] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

119 is too few and 121 is too many.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 3 points 6 months ago

120 options is too many, we should make standard that works for everyone

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 21 points 6 months ago

Any vpn solution that uses a TCP/IP shim in full tunnel mode will ignore option 121 or any other routing options (static routes, etc). Most corporate VPNs like Global Protect/Cisco Any Connect, Appgate, etc will enforce full-tunnel. Any user who is using a VPN for privacy reasons should also use a full tunnel as well especially when connecting to an untrusted networks.

[-] BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago

Why doesn't my internet look like that stock image tunnel of 1 and 0?

[-] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 23 points 6 months ago

Skill issue

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 6 points 6 months ago

Linux and android unaffected, go figure. Anyway..

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 months ago

Not quite what the article says:

When apps run on Linux there’s a setting that minimizes the effects, but even then TunnelVision can be used to exploit a side channel that can be used to de-anonymize destination traffic and perform targeted denial-of-service attacks. Network firewalls can also be configured to deny inbound and outbound traffic to and from the physical interface. This remedy is problematic for two reasons: (1) a VPN user connecting to an untrusted network has no ability to control the firewall and (2) it opens the same side channel present with the Linux mitigation.

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 3 points 6 months ago

It only works if you have split tunnel setup, which I don't think anybody does for commercial privacy VPNs

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago

Do you mean the attack only works against people with a split tunnel setup?

[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 months ago

How did nobody discover this sooner if it is a common network option? This seems like it should have been well known to professionals. Who dropped the ball?

[-] ulkesh@beehaw.org 3 points 6 months ago

So basically don’t be stupid when on a network you don’t control. I mean I would think that would be common sense by now. Just because you’re on a VPN doesn’t mean that the local network doesn’t have some semblance of capabilities.

And maybe I read it wrong, but perhaps don’t use DHCP on a network you don’t control. Wouldn’t that wholly mitigate this?

I get that this is concerning for people who don’t know any better. But I don’t think it’s as devastating as the title makes it sound.

[-] xabadak@lemmings.world 1 points 6 months ago

how would you not use DHCP when connecting to coffee shop wifi?

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 1 points 6 months ago

Your vpn should be running on a middlebox and have firewall rules to prevent leaks.

this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
153 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

35003 readers
172 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS