Auth failure delays

View: New views
4 Messages — Rating Filter:   Alert me  

Auth failure delays

by Timo Sirainen :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Currently Dovecot works like this when authentication fails:

 - the delay is always at least auth_failure_delay seconds (default: 2s)
 - each failed attempt doubles the delay for that specific imap/pop3
connection (no such delays for e.g. smtp)
 - the delay's upper limit is 3 minutes

For v2.0 I was planning on making dovecot-auth process do these checks
and keeping the state in anvil process:

 - the delay is always at least auth_failure_delay seconds (default: 2s)
 - for each remote IP address the delay is doubled, regardless of how
the request comes (imap, pop3, smtp, etc).
 - the delay's upper limit is .. hardcoded to 15 secs? i kind of hate
the thought of making this configurable.
 - each successful authentication from the IP resets the IP's delay
 - the delay happens before authentication is even attempted, so even
successful auth attempts will have the delay (unless of course there
haven't been auth failures from that IP)

If the upper limit is 15 secs, that means max. 240 auth attempts per
hour per IP. The reason I was thinking 15 secs is because I have some
vague memories about Thunderbird dropping connection after 15 or maybe
30 seconds of idling.

If user has one successful login, it's of course possible to get around
the delay doubling by just doing failed attempt -> successful attempt ->
failed -> success -> etc. But probably no one is really going to try to
do that, and even if they did it's still not that bad. The second
successful login will still have that 2 second delay before it resets
the delay. So that's still max one auth/2 seconds or max. 1800 auth
attempts/hour.

Any thoughts?


signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: Auth failure delays

by Steffen Kaiser-9 :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:

> Any thoughts?

The only two remarks I have are that some well-known IPs should be able to
bypass this check, e.g. NATed gateways of the organisation and that
external IDSs (e.g. fail2ban) should be able to pick up the possible
breakin, maybe you can configure Dovecot to send failed logins to syslog,
too, even though it logs to file normally.

My subjective feeling is that such "hammering" attacks from a single host
origin from a misconfigured auto-POPer than an attack nowadays.

Regards,

- --
Steffen Kaiser
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBSvfMdXWSIuGy1ktrAQLKTAf/e7cQ6ONK0HuqkBeg3NBotXsRf0qeeOmZ
w857YOQJqqGVrnCBQVaA7OWVBlAMhfpM3Nc/WMth4/vooXz8wWp3Y+Bqpw1Iex1M
qOI2nIX+Jep4a8/3XExmWlh5gsQRWQRhkWNY12nu2jqEe0QT4VgqrMIs7YPgXTel
fmWSWHA3HySKiRbP+pwzPZH1B6aEAysK3W/BHycS5/HWab4E60LiyncBtMm24eKZ
dRZ1NqOhknNX8E6lbnNagQL/J1Cnge1drT0/FvYNunuMPpgWVopBw73sifC/Xh9A
RhOIjcw56MN0CNvJBBW692FGNMjiSanHJztLb/1iop8LT4+bmvrWvA==
=W9T5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Auth failure delays

by Timo Sirainen :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 09:01 +0100, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
> > Any thoughts?
>
> The only two remarks I have are that some well-known IPs should be able to
> bypass this check, e.g. NATed gateways of the organisation

Hmm. That seems like way too much trouble. Even just on/off setting
annoys me.

> and that
> external IDSs (e.g. fail2ban) should be able to pick up the possible
> breakin, maybe you can configure Dovecot to send failed logins to syslog,
> too, even though it logs to file normally.

This also seems kind of weird.. Why couldn't fail2ban or whatever just
parse the normal log files? Or maybe you should just configure syslog to
log to those two different locations?



signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: Auth failure delays

by Timo Sirainen :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 16:41 -0500, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 09:01 +0100, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
> > > Any thoughts?
> >
> > The only two remarks I have are that some well-known IPs should be able to
> > bypass this check, e.g. NATed gateways of the organisation
>
> Hmm. That seems like way too much trouble. Even just on/off setting
> annoys me.

Maybe:

 - If hash(user+password) has already been tried from the IP within n
minutes, trying it again wouldn't increase the delay.

But that might increase the memory usage too much.. But maybe it could
be limited to just n hashes and it wouldn't be too bad.



signature.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment