full-disclosure - info on ip spoofing please

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

Date: Tue Apr 11 21:55:06 2006
From: ian.t7 at hotmail.co.uk (Ian stuart Turnbull)
Subject: info on ip spoofing please

Excellent response Brendon. Thanks heaps.
I was reading the infamous Markoff / Tsutomu Shimomura attack at 
http://www.totse.com/en/hack/hack_attack/hacker03.html

and I guess I assumed that as they did not know each other personally then 
Markoff must have found a way to locate 2 computers conversing with each 
other randomly? Perhaps this assumption was not correct?
Though from the test it appears Markoff DID find a way of doing this - ie, 
finding 2 computers talking to each other NOT on his own LAN / network???


>From: Brandon Enright <bmenrigh@...d.edu>
>To: Ian stuart Turnbull <ian.t7@...mail.co.uk>
>CC: bmenrigh@...d.edu, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] info on ip spoofing please
>Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:42:21 +0000
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from mailbox4.ucsd.edu ([132.239.1.56]) by 
>bay0-pamc1-f1.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 
>11 Apr 2006 13:42:37 -0700
>Received: from smtp.ucsd.edu (smtp.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.49])by 
>mailbox4.ucsd.edu (8.13.6/8.13.5) with ESMTP id 
>k3BKgWM2066017(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 
>verify=OK);Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: from moray.bmenrigh.dyndns.org (cpe-72-130-186-31.san.res.rr.com 
>[72.130.186.31])by smtp.ucsd.edu (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id 
>k3BKgLci061774;Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])by 
>moray.bmenrigh.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982551EE4DB;Tue, 11 Apr 
>2006 20:42:21 +0000 (UTC)
>X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jEHjJx36Oi8+Z3TmmkSEdPtfpLB7P/ybN8=
>References: <BAY112-F8AAC63A6AF32C102B39D099CD0@....gbl>
>X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.2.1 X-Greylisting: NO DELAY (Trusted relay 
>host);processed by UCSD_GL-v2.1 on mailbox4.ucsd.edu;Tue, 11 April 2006 
>13:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
>X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 38349 k3BKgWM2066017 mailbox4.ucsd.edu)
>Return-Path: bmenrigh@...d.edu
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Apr 2006 20:42:37.0761 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[781BBB10:01C65DA8]
>
>On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 20:37 +0100, Ian stuart Turnbull wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > At
> > 
>http://www.iss.net/security_center/advice/Underground/Hacking/Methods/Technical/Spoofing/default.htm
> >
> > was this comment :-
> >
> > QUOTE "
> > Examples of spoofing:
> >
> > man-in-the-middle
> > packet sniffs on link between the two end points, and can therefore 
>pretend
> > to be one end of the connection "
> >
> > My question is How can you sniff packets on a link that your machine is 
>NOT
> > on ie NOT on the same subnet??
> >
> > Why am I at a loss to understand this. Is there a command/software that
> > allows one to
> > say: sniff packets on port x of IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx ?
> >
> > Please put me out of my agony on this.
> > Thanks for any info you can give.
> >
> > Ian t
> >
>
>In general you can not arbitrarily monitor the traffic of any random
>host.  If the host you are trying to attack is not relatively local
>there is little to no chance you'll be able to sniff the traffic.
>
>For more local hosts though, if you can directly influence the network
>devices separating you from your victim there is a chance you will be
>able to redirect traffic for an attack.
>
>The two more common methods for performing MITM attacks are ARP spoofing
>and Spanning Tree spoofing.  Several tools can perform ARP poisoning
>(ettercap comes to mind).  There is an excellent overview of attacks
>with Spanning Tree in Cisco's _Network Security Architectures_ (ISBN:
>1-58705-115-X).
>
>If you goal isn't to modify the stream for a MITM attack but just watch
>the traffic, CAM table flooding can reduce the switch/vLAN to the
>behavior of a hub.
>
>For a discussion of all of these attacks see
>http://www.rootsecure.net/content/downloads/pdf/layer2sniffing.pdf
>
>All that being said, it still may not be possible to manipulate the
>network in any useful way.  Cisco and other vendors have mechanisms that
>can be turned on for most of their devices that detect and prevent many
>or all of the above attacks.
>
>For those with Cisco devices looking to protect against said attacks,
>limiting the number of MACs per port and turning on BPDU Guard
>(http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/65.html) is typically all that
>needs to be done.
>
>Regards,
>
>Brandon
>
>--
>Brandon Enright
>Network Security Analyst
>UCSD ACS/Network Operations
>bmenrigh@...d.edu
>

_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters