Reply-message and supplicant

[Alexander Clouter]

A.L.M.Buxey at lboro.ac.uk wrote:
> 
>> No one in London wants to go to Sussex though and from my logs it does 
>> not look like anyway from Sussex wants to go to London either ;)
>> 
>> If someone gives me something better to use in my RADIUS packets then 
>> I'm game.  Meanwhile I keep meaning to glue 'exec' and 'fortune' 
>> together and see if anyone notices.
> 
> I've been having a lok at such packets on the national proxy and wonder
> if its because people are just blamming a reply-message in at an wrong
> stage...eg during Auth? would a default entry in use users file or
> SQL group reply table cause such wrongness? most likely.
> 
I have an entry in my 'users' file for if people insist on sending their 
username without a realm, or mix inner/outer domains, <insert other 
braindead-ness>.  It's more for me whilst looking through my SQL logs, 
however I also slip into my Reply-Message a comment if the 
authentication attempt was against a test (non-production use) account.

> crack-pipe question of the day:
> 
> could reply messages be used with some smart server-end code to provide 
> a data communication channel? ie user A has code that attempts to use EAP
> with special username coding...the remote server is designed
> to throw responses in EAP messages...which the modified supplicant
> on the client can then extract? this could tunnel traffic through
> an 802.1X restricted network? in fact, is the inner EAP traffic limited
> at all?  once the authentication outer layer is started i should be
> able to just keep throwing data back/forward through that tube? 
> 
Alternatively the 'smart server-end' could just send an Access-Accept :)

Cheers

-- 
Alexander Clouter
.sigmonster says: Available while quantities last.