Re: usual iploggers miss some variable stealth scans

From: antirez (antirezat_private)
Date: Sat Jan 22 2000 - 06:02:48 PST

  • Next message: D. J. Bernstein: "The 200 trusted .com servers"

    On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 11:36:01AM -0800, Oliver Friedrichs wrote:
    > variables in a stack unrelated to TCP state that can be used to identify
    > an OS - and are also virtually impossible for someone to fix.  Virtually
    > every commercial and free OS supports different IP otions, and will
    > handle them in different ways.  It would be virtually impossible to get
    > every vendor to synchronize what they support.  TCP options give you
    > even more variety.  CyberCop Scanner 5.5 uses a variety of these methods
    > to identify the target OS..  Anthony Osbourne can probably comment more
    
    Also it's possible to use the ID field of the IP protocol to check if
    some host are Win*, OpenBSD > 2.5 or Other using a few of often not logged
    packets. the Win* ID has different byte ordering, OpenBSD is truly-random
    and others incremental. IMHO it's a lot important that OS detection is
    done using few often not logged packets. For example the algorithm used
    in nmap and in queso does a fixed number of tests and checks if the profile
    match a table. A better algorithm may do an initial test using only
    not logged packets and do all tests only if required. A lot of people think
    that OS detection is just a joke but think at buffer overflows: what shell
    code the attacker will use?
    About the flags not logged by iplogger the correct way to avoid this is
    to log all packets that does NOT match a list of "sane" packets.
    The 'unclean' module of Netfilter do a lot of checks in order to discard
    all not standard packets: it's a good idea if you are frustrated by
    TCP/IP-stack attacks. Anyway since using IP ID you are able to do a SYN
    scan using a fake IP address maybe it's more important to fix the
    ID predictability issue than iplogger.
    Finally: if OS TCP/IP stacks synchronization is so hard to reached maybe
    we need some RFC that comments all not clear TCP/IP issue? I want hope
    that vendors (except Microsoft...) will follow the RFC.
    
    antirez
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 15:30:30 PDT