Re: Code Red Doesn't care about TCP sessions?

From: rottzat_private
Date: Thu Aug 09 2001 - 16:03:40 PDT

  • Next message: Milan Goellner: "Antw: Looking for a better scanner for CodeRed"

    >Mark Wiater wrote:
    > A closer look at the data showed that many of the Code Red attacks were
    > directed at machines that I KNEW were not able to receive port 80 through the
    > firewalls. So how did Code Red get so far as to send the GET request when
    > there was no SYN, SYN/ACK, ACK???
    Below is an attempt to reach port 80 on a windows machine running
    ZoneAlarm.
    ZoneAlarm blocked it, so it never sent the GET request.
    
    08/09-07:36:19.844186 0:A0:C5:E5:F6:93 -> 0:1:2:37:9:A7 type:0x800
    len:0x3E
    x.x.x.x:2558 -> x.x.x.x:80 TCP TTL:116 TOS:0x0 ID:61104
    **S***** Seq: 0x5597AF30   Ack: 0x0   Win: 0x4000
    TCP Options => MSS: 1460 NOP NOP SackOK
    
    =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
    08/09-07:36:23.060729 0:A0:C5:E5:F6:93 -> 0:1:2:37:9:A7 type:0x800
    len:0x3E
    x.x.x.x:2558 -> x.x.x.x:80 TCP TTL:116 TOS:0x0 ID:61142
    **S***** Seq: 0x5597AF30   Ack: 0x0   Win: 0x4000
    TCP Options => MSS: 1460 NOP NOP SackOK
    
    =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
    08/09-07:36:29.624051 0:A0:C5:E5:F6:93 -> 0:1:2:37:9:A7 type:0x800
    len:0x3E
    x.x.x.x:2558 -> x.x.x.x:80 TCP TTL:116 TOS:0x0 ID:61194
    **S***** Seq: 0x5597AF30   Ack: 0x0   Win: 0x4000
    TCP Options => MSS: 1460 NOP NOP SackOK
    
    =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
    > 
    > A tcpdump showed that all of the code red communications were unidirectional.
    > It didn't bother to wait (more than 350ms) for a response from the Web server
    > before it sent it's ACK and then GET request.  This behaviour was consistent
    > for all ip addresses that could not respond via port 80 because of the
    > firewall.
    > 
    > Am I the only one to see this behaviour?
    If the firewall blocked it, I don't see why it would bother sending a
    GET request, it must have thought it was an open port, I've never seen
    CR send a GET request to a closed port.
    
    
    Peter
    -- 
    rottz at securityflaw dot com
    Founder of Securityflaw
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service.
    For more information on this free incident handling, management 
    and tracking system please see: http://aris.securityfocus.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 07:30:48 PDT