lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100427175508.046911A53049@f12.poczta.interia.pl>
Date: 27 Apr 2010 19:55:07 +0200
From: Przemyslaw Borkowski <xperience@...eria.pl>
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: STP mitm attack idea

As I read in many white papers about attacks on Spanning Tree Protocol, I found mitm attack on two STP switches, one station and two ethernet NICs.
That attack is in most cases useless because:
- we need physical access to two (not one switch)
- two cards in station
As two cards are possible, that access to two switches in one ie. office is almost impossible.
My idea for modification of this attack needs:
- two stations to attack by mitm (A and B)
- two or more switches with STP protocol
- two attacking stations connected to two different switches in way beetween attacked stations (C and D) 

A ---- switch 1 ----- switch 2 ----- B
          |              |
          |              |
          C              D

Take first scenario:
1. A - sends frame to B
2. Switch 1 - accepts frame and forwards it to switch 2
3. Switch 2 - accepts frame via link from switch 1 and forwards it to B

Second scenario:
1. Station C and station D starts to send frames to break link beetween switch 1 and switch 2, and announce non existing connection and switch from C port on switch 1 to D port on switch 2

A ---- switch 1 --X-- switch 2 ----- B
          |              |
          |              |
          C  --no conn-- D
2. Station A sends frame to B
3. Frame is forwarded to C station
4. Station C stores frame in memory
5. After equal timing station C and station D repair link beetween switch 1 and 2
6. station C resends stored packet to station D (ie in tunnel or encapsulated in ip packet)
7. stations C and D break link beetween switches 1 and 2
8. station D sends transmitted packet to station B

Advantages
- no need for one station with two links to two switches
- needs two stations, either compromised or not (in large multiswitch enviroment with many stations sometimes we can find in example two compromised windows or linux hosts)
- when we have good timing and packet detection method, we can separate one protocol connection from whole traffic

Disadvantages of method.
- stops whole traffic beetween switches, and needs delicate timing
- when link beetween switch 1 and 2 is working we can't see frames that flying across wire

Additional information.
- timing question, ie - retransmition time beetween tcp frames, and time to break and repair link - is it possible to do it before frame is retransmited?

Uh that's all. Please think about it is possible, because my programming skills are to low to make it working.

With regards
Xperience

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ