Page 1 of 1

Can we skip those (anti-)MITM options when only user/pass based auth is being done?

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:10 am
by akbsol
Hi all,

When we use only auth-user-pass-verify to authenticate connections and client config doesn't have any certs expect a <ca> and <tls-auth> section, are the options such as: remote-cert-tls server & tls-remote still needed?

From my understanding, as the client doesn't have any common CA signed certificate & key of his own, he has no way to impersonate as the server? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks.

Re: Can we skip those (anti-)MITM options when only user/pass based auth is being done?

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:50 pm
by akbsol
Any one ?? Please suggest.

Re: Can we skip those (anti-)MITM options when only user/pass based auth is being done?

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:07 pm
by TinCanTech
akbsol wrote:Please suggest
Suggest: Most people prefer more security than less ..

MITM attacks are carried out by a Man-In-The-Middle .. not your client or server.

Re: Can we skip those (anti-)MITM options when only user/pass based auth is being done?

Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:41 am
by akbsol
Thanks for replying. The suggestion sought by me though wasn't about what most people prefer :-)

I simply wanted to know the theoretical possibility of MitM as outlined here:

https://openvpn.net/index.php/open-sour ... .html#mitm

when client configs don't have any certificate except <ca> and authentication is simply based on username-password. The page above lists methodologies to adopt:

"To avoid a possible Man-in-the-Middle attack where an authorized client tries to connect to another client by impersonating the server, make sure to enforce some kind of server certificate verification by clients."

But when no client has any certificate & key of his own, can he still impersonate?