Re: ACK scan - RESOLUTION

From: Todd Ransom (transomat_private)
Date: Fri Aug 10 2001 - 07:27:50 PDT

  • Next message: Reeves, Michael (GEAE, Compaq): "Looking for a better scanner for CodeRed"

    I finally tracked the ACK scans all the way down.  It turns out to be a RTT
    calculation performed by a network device made by RadWare.  Once I started
    capturing all traffic from these machines I could see a pattern:
    
    them -> me 37852 udp
    them -> me icmp echo req
    them -> me tcp ack          * this is what snort picked up
    them -> me tcp syn           * radware waits for syn/ack then RSTs the
    connection
    
    I found this explanation at SANS:
    
    http://www.sans.org/y2k/031401.htm
    
    hopefully this will keep someone else from spending several days tracking
    this down like I did.
    
    TR
    
    =========================
    "Information is not knowledge."
    --Caleb Carr
    
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Todd Ransom" <transomat_private>
    To: <incidentsat_private>
    Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 10:35 AM
    Subject: ACK scan
    
    
    > I got several nmap tcp ping events from one of my snort sensors the other
    > day.  As I started digging into it the traffic starts to look more and
    more
    > strange.  I wanted to bounce it off the list and see if anyone else had
    seen
    > anything similar or could (in)validate my thoughts on this.  Here goes.
    >
    > I got 20 of these (abbreviated ACID output) from 5 different addresses:
    > ======
    > [2001-08-02 11:43:58]IDS28/scan_probe-nmap_tcp_ping
    > IPv4: attacker.com -> fw.my.org
    >       hlen=5 TOS=0 dlen=40 ID=59958 flags=0 offset=0 TTL=55 chksum=45800
    > TCP:  port=80 -> dport: 51723  flags=***A**** seq=193
    >       ack=0 off=5 res=0 win=1024 urp=0 chksum=64006
    > Payload: none
    > ======
    > I concluded that these are not normal traffic because:
    >   1.. The ack bit is set but the ack number is 0, which makes no sense.
    >   2.. the sequence number of all the packets is less than 1000.  For a 32
    > bit field this is just too coincidental.
    >   3.. The windows size of 1024 also looks suspicious to me.
    > So they look like crafted packets.  I pull out nmap 2.54 Beta 6 and run an
    > ACK scan.  The sequence numbers and ACK are reasonable numbers.  So either
    > this is an old version of nmap or it's not nmap or it's generated using
    some
    > other option from nmap.
    >
    > According to the nmap man page ACK scans can be used for a few different
    > things.
    >   1.. Determine if a host exists.  I don't think this is the purpose
    because
    > so many of them are going to the same machine.  He only needs one or maybe
    2
    > packets to determine this.
    >   2.. Determine whether or not a host is behind a stateful firewall.  A
    > stateful firewall will drop the packet, a non-stateful will pass it b/c of
    > the presence of the ACK bit and you should get a RST from the remote host.
    > Some things that are funny:
    >
    >   1.. The TTLs are all between 53 - 56 for all packets.  I would expect
    them
    > to differ more than that, being from different subnets.  From this I
    > conclude all the source addresses except 1 are spoofed.
    >   2.. I did a traceroute to try and find out which of the networks would
    > come up with a TTL close to 53.  Every single source address is around
    10-15
    > hops away from me and they are all behind firewalls that rewrite the TTL
    > just before the destination.  HUNH?!?  This throws a kink in everything
    else
    > I've concluded.  Either someone REALLY did their homework before scanning
    me
    > or there's something here I'm not seeing.
    >   3.. Mixed in with the rest was this one packet:
    > ======
    > [2001-08-02 16:04:29]IDS28/scan_probe-nmap_tcp_ping
    > IPv4: attacker.com -> fw.my.org
    >       hlen=5 TOS=0 dlen=40 ID=7842 flags=0 offset=0 TTL=52 chksum=41042
    > TCP:  port=80 -> dport: 53  flags=***A**** seq=55
    >       ack=0 off=5 res=0 win=1024 urp=0 chksum=58172
    > Payload: none
    > ======
    >
    > Aha!  A scan to port 53.  There is one packet to 51723 from this address
    and
    > one to 53 from this address.  Now I REALLY think the rest are spoofed and
    > this one address is my attacker.
    >
    > TR
    >
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --
    > 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 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 - 12:51:49 PDT