full-disclosure - Idle scan rediscovered!!!

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20060505230855.GF3277@sentinelchicken.org>
Date: Sat May  6 00:09:08 2006
From: tim-security at sentinelchicken.org (Tim)
Subject: Idle scan rediscovered!!!

> I'm aware of this fact. As I figure all my tests were done from the same
> box, I'll still have to check it out. Let me test it more intensively
> after this week-end and I'll let you know.

Ah, sorry, didn't mean to state the obvious.

On a side-note, I don't know if anyone has ever observed (and published)
that setting up a tarpit for all TCP ports can effectively defeat some
forms of idle scans at the victim side.  (I'm thinking in terms of a
tarpit like iptables' version of it, where all blocked ports are instead
tarpitted with SYN/ACKs and no further responses.)  I don't see a way in
which an attacker can actually determine which ports are serviceable
through an idle host.  Anyone else worked through the scenarios and care
to point out the problems with this defense strategy?  I haven't really
thought through all the cases...

tim