full-disclosure - New MSN Servers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri Mar  3 10:39:39 2006
From: nocfed at gmail.com (nocfed)
Subject: New MSN Servers

On 3/3/06, ZeuZ <zeuz.netraptor@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi everybody, yesterday I was about to update something in my MSN Space and
> I found out something... Suddenly logginet.passport.com redirected me to
> www.msn-int.com (65.54.202.62) and at first I thought it was some kinda
> spyware, so I Switched to Linux and tryed again, and again the same... So I
> decided to check out with NMAP and I found out this:
>  Starting Nmap 4.01 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-03-04 03:03
> CET
>  DNS resolution of 1 IPs took 0.03s. Mode: Async [#: 1, OK: 0, NX: 1, DR: 0,
> SF: 0, TR: 1, CN: 0]
>  Initiating SYN Stealth Scan against 65.54.202.62 [1672 ports] at 03:03
>  Discovered open port 80/tcp on 65.54.202.62
>  SYN Stealth Scan Timing: About 26.67% done; ETC: 03:05 (0:01:22 remaining)
>  The SYN Stealth Scan took 102.54s to scan 1672 total ports.
>  Initiating service scan against 1 service on 65.54.202.62 at 03:05
>  The service scan took 7.10s to scan 1 service on 1 host.
>  Warning:  OS detection will be MUCH less reliable because we did not find
> at least 1 open and 1 closed TCP port
>  For OSScan assuming port 80 is open, 39518 is closed, and neither are
> firewalled
>  For OSScan assuming port 80 is open, 38324 is closed, and neither are
> firewalled
>  Insufficient responses for TCP sequencing (3), OS detection may be less
> accurate
>  For OSScan assuming port 80 is open, 41733 is closed, and neither are
> firewalled
>  Host 65.54.202.62 appears to be up ... good.
>  Interesting ports on 65.54.202.62:
>  (The 1671 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: filtered)
>  PORT   STATE SERVICE VERSION
>  80/tcp open  http    Microsoft IIS webserver 6.0
>  Device type: firewall
>  Running (JUST GUESSING) : Netscreen ScreenOS (85%)
>  Aggressive OS guesses: Netscreen 5XP firewall+vpn (os 4.0.3r2.0) (85%)
>  No exact OS matches for host (test conditions non-ideal).
>  TCP/IP fingerprint:
> SInfo(V=4.01%P=i686-pc-linux-gnu%D=3/4%Tm=4408F60C%O=80%C=-1)
>  TSeq(Class=C%Val=1E240%IPID=Z%TS=U)
>  T1(Resp=N)
>  TSeq(Class=C%Val=1E240%IPID=Z%TS=U)
>  T1(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=7D77%ACK=S++%Flags=AS%Ops=)
>  T2(Resp=N)
>  T1(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=7D77%ACK=S++%Flags=AS%Ops=)
>  T2(Resp=N)
>  T3(Resp=N)
>  T2(Resp=N)
>  T3(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=7D76%ACK=O%Flags=AS%Ops=)
>  T4(Resp=N)
>  T3(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=7D76%ACK=O%Flags=AS%Ops=)
>  T4(Resp=N)
>  T5(Resp=N)
>  T4(Resp=N)
>  T5(Resp=N)
>  T6(Resp=N)
>  T5(Resp=N)
>  T6(Resp=N)
>  T7(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=7D78%ACK=S++%Flags=A%Ops=)
>  T6(Resp=N)
>  T7(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=7D78%ACK=S++%Flags=A%Ops=)
>  PU(Resp=N)
>  T7(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=7D78%ACK=S++%Flags=A%Ops=)
>  PU(Resp=N)
>  PU(Resp=N)
>
>  TCP Sequence Prediction: Class=constant sequence number (!)
>                           Difficulty=0 (Trivial joke)
>  IPID Sequence Generation: All zeros
>  Service Info: OS: Windows
>
>  Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 140.366 seconds
>                 Raw packets sent: 3421 (153KB) | Rcvd: 2069 (98.1KB)
>
>
>  So, literally MSN Network is derivating space's user's data trhough some
> firewall to another host, perhaps just to  increase something in user's
> accounts...
>  I also cheked out with a traceroute of the hops it was making... Until hop
> 21 here there where no coincidence, diferent rotuers and diferent gateways
> in the process...  but then they started to center in SAAVIS (both MSN.ES
> and MSN-INT.COM)
>  Now, should this be considered as a mere Microsoft new idea or is just a
> problem that I'm having?
>  Maybe it's just me, but I want to be sure, seems like if Microsoft was
> about to change it's system network once again....
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter:
> http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
>

Do you expect them to only have one peer?

Do you expect them to not use load balancing but only 1 server?

I fail to see a point here.