Nessus
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NESSUS CRASHING CITRIX METAFRAME SERVERS

To: nessus@list.nessus.org
Subject: Re: NESSUS CRASHING CITRIX METAFRAME SERVERS
From: Dan Harkless <nessus.list07@harkless.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:10:52 -0700
Cc: John Scherff <JScherff@24hourfit.com>
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: nessus-list1@securepoint.com
Delivered-to: nessus@list.nessus.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:04:04 EDT." <45F89B84.7090707@tenablesecurity.com>
List-archive: <http://mail.nessus.org/pipermail/nessus>
List-help: <mailto:nessus-request@list.nessus.org?subject=help>
List-id: Discussion of Nessus software <nessus.list.nessus.org>
List-post: <mailto:nessus@list.nessus.org>
List-subscribe: <http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus>, <mailto:nessus-request@list.nessus.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus>, <mailto:nessus-request@list.nessus.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: nessus-bounces@list.nessus.org
On March 14, 2007, "George A. Theall" wrote:
> On 03/14/07 19:37, Dan Harkless wrote:
> > I talked to John in private email and he says that he confirmed that
> > 'Thorough tests' was causing his Citrix service DoS.  He also says the
> > problem didn't start occurring until they applied some recent (at the time)
> > Citrix patches.
> 
> Someone's reported this to Citrix, right?

I'm not sure.  I haven't experienced the problem, so I wouldn't be able to
report it very effectively.  I'll CC John on this mail in case he's not
still a subscriber and we can see what he says.

> > However, I also heard from a member of a different security group at my
> > company who saw my post, and he says that they use 'Thorough tests' against
> > Citrix servers without issue.  That plus the fact that the IMA service
> > (which was getting stopped in John's caes) isn't exposed on the servers I'm
> > scanning (just the ICA service, 1494/tcp) indicates to me that it should be
> > safe to turn on 'Thorough tests'.  
> 
> As you note, the port range is indeed a consideration when enabling 
> thorough tests. Many of the service detection plugins by default probe 
> only the well-known port(s) associated with that service. Enabling 
> thorough tests will cause those plugins to probe any open port which is 
> still marked as an unknown service. So if you know that the only service 
> that doesn't handle invalid input well is the the ICA service on port 
> 1494 (because, say, of testing in a lab), you should be able to enable 
> thorough tests and stay clear of trouble as long as you omit 1494 from 
> the port range.

Actually it's the IMA service that apparently has the problem, with ICA /
1494 being okay.  Thanks for the tip on excluding problem ports.

-- 
Dan Harkless
http://harkless.org/dan/
_______________________________________________
Nessus mailing list
Nessus@list.nessus.org
http://mail.nessus.org/mailman/listinfo/nessus

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>