Message-Id: <20100705225617.6B4CE1200AA@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:56:17 -0700
From: "epixoip" <epixoip@...h.com>
To: nbrito@...ure.org
Cc: focus-ids@...urityfocus.com, full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk,
	pen-test@...urityfocus.com, security-basics@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: [Tool] - inundator - an intrusion detection
	false positives generator.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1




Oh, for fuck's sake...

<acerbity>

Wow, you've really called us out on this one. How embarrassing for
us.

Please accept our sincerest apologies, Mr. Brito. We now understand
how phrases like "inundator is a modern twist on an old concept"
and "Snot, fwsnort's snortspoof, and possibly others beat us to the
punch" can be incredibly obtuse and largely indecipherable,
requiring *at least* a third grade education for full
comprehension. We accept full responsibility for failing to write
this announcement with the lowest common denominator in mind, and
promise to limit our vocabulary to only words found on
http://simple.wikipedia.org in future posts.

Also, thank you for taking the time to hi-jack our announcement by
linking to your incredibly superior NNG tool. We failed to include
it in our list of credits, and it brings us much shame. Please
excuse us while we prepare for Seppuku.

</acerbity>

To set the record straight right up front, we never stated this was
an original idea. In fact, we clearly stated this was *NOT* an
original idea. And we *DID,* in fact, credit SNOT -- and fwsnort's
snortspoof as well -- even though we discovered them after we had
already begun working on Inundator. We didn't credit IDSwakeup,
because while IDSwakeup is kind of cool, it uses a static set
payloads to generate the false positives, and we use a dynamic set.
We thought parsing Snort's rules files to dynamically build attack
payloads was at least original, but when we learned otherwise, we
credited the only other two apps we could find that did something
similar: SNOT and snortspoof. So we're definitely going out of our
way here to give credit where credit is due, even though we had no
knowledge of these applications when we thought of the concept.
Again, all of this was clearly explained in plain English.

Now then, back to you.

At first I presumed you were just a self-important moron who
couldn't be bothered to actually read the full text of the
announcement before crafting your witty reply on your iPhone and
publicly embarrassing yourself on four separate mailing lists
concurrently. That is until I paid a visit to your outstanding
little blog, and realized that not only are you a self-important
queef, but you're also a little fucking crybaby who wants credit
and attention for every original thought you didn't have.

As we can clearly see from your blog, "ANY INFORMATION TAKEN FROM
THIS BLOG MUST GIVE THE CREDITS TO THE AUTHOR AND ADD A BACKLINK TO
THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE." This must mean you observed some parallel
between NNG and Inundator, and thus feel we should be giving you
some sort of credit and a backlink (although I suppose the backlink
has already been covered by you douching all over this thread.)
Let's see what sort of parallels could possibly exist between NNG
and Inundator:

From http://packetstormsecurity.org/filedesc/nng-4.13r-
public.rar.html:

"Description: NNG is a tool that creates crafted packets to cause
MS02-039 false-positives against IPS/IDS. NNG does not have the
same approach used by Snot and Stick, where the main goal is DoSing
the IPS. Instead, NNG tries to make IPS/IDS "numbed" enough to have
the leakage of real attack.

"Author: Nelson Brito"

First of all, I don't think SNOT's main goal was to DoS the IPS, as
you so cleverly state. Second, I have no fucking clue what "NNG
tries to make IPS/IDS 'numbed' enough to have the leakage of real
attack" is even supposed to mean. I see some English words there,
but that sentence means fuck-all.

So from what I can gather, your little tool is capable of send a
single packet mimicking MS02-039. Bra-fucking-vo, how innovative.
So it isn't multi-threaded, no attempt is made to send the attack
anonymously, you're using a single static payload, and you
essentially have little to no user configuration at all. What's the
point? I actually have no idea what the actual goal of NNG is,
other than to serve as a POC for why pattern matching is full of
fail. But then again, that's something we've known for over a
decade (although I see you still give presentations on the topic as
if it were both new and original), so again -- what is the point of
NNG? Even snortspoof, though dated and pretty much useless by
today's standards, is vastly more impressive than NNG, as it at
least makes an attempt to anonymize attacks and dynamically parses
an array of signatures to generate an attack instead of hard-coding
ONE payload. Who are you giving credit to for NNG, by the way? Oh
that's right -- yourself, even though there is literally nothing
original about NNG. By the way, I like how you have a file named
"Authors" in the NNG source tarball, where you list yourself and
your contact information twice.

Your pathetic piece of shit doesn't even come close to what
Inundator does, so why the fuck would we give NNG credit? Were you
so disillusioned by your own self-importance that you honestly saw
a parallel between NNG and Inundator? Or perhaps you were just
trying to drive traffic to your little piece of shit by linking
everyone to it after trying to make yourself look superior? No, I
honestly think your cunt start aching at the thought of us
crediting SNOT and snortspoof, but not NNG. Reality is a bitch, huh.

Here's my advice to you, Mr. Brito: slap some vagisil on your
aching pussy and shut the fuck up. Nobody has heard of you, and
nobody has heard of NNG. Get over yourself.


Oh, and Inundator is still available at
http://inundator.sourceforge.net/


Stay classy,
/epixoip.


On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:51:48 -0700 Nelson Brito <nbrito@...ure.org>
wrote:
>That is not new and you should give the credits, not just for NNG
>(http://packetstormsecurity.org/filedesc/nng-4.13r-
>public.rar.html), but you are missing STICK, SNOT and and
>IDSWAKEUP as well.
>
>Nelson Brito
>Security Researcher
>http://fnstenv.blogspot.com/
>
>Sent on an  iPhone wireless device. Please, forgive any potential
>misspellings!
>
>On Jul 1, 2010, at 10:25 PM, "epixoip" <epixoip@...h.com> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>>
>> homepage: http://inundator.bindshell.nl/
>> deb repo: deb http://inundator.sourceforge.net/repo/ all/
>> gpg key : http://inundator.sourceforge.net/inundator.asc
>>
>> Announcing the release of inundator v0.5!
>>
>> inundator is a modern twist on an old concept -- it's an
>> IDS/IPS/WAF evasion tool, used to anonymously flood intrusion
>> detection systems with false positives in order to obfuscate a
>real
>> attack. inundator leverages the vagueness and poor quality of
>> Snort's rules files to generate completely harmless packets /
>HTTP
>> requests that contain just enough keywords to trigger a false
>> positive. We thought this was an original idea, but it looks
>like
>> Snot, fwsnort's snortspoof, and possibly others beat us to the
>> punch. However, these tools were developed around the turn of
>the
>> century, are quite dated and well-forgotten, and overall quite
>> inferior to inundator.
>>
>> inundator is full featured, multi-threaded, queue-based,
>supports
>> multiple targets, and requires the use of a SOCKS proxy for
>> anonymization. Via Tor, inundator is capable of generating
>around
>> 1000 false positives per minute. Via a high-bandwidth SOCKS
>proxy,
>> you might be able to generate ten times that amount.
>>
>> The general idea is one would launch inundator prior to starting
>an
>> attack, allow it to run during the attack, and continue to run
>it a
>> while longer after you've accomplished the attack. The goal, of
>> course, is to generate an overwhelming number of false positives
>so
>> that your real attack is essentially buried within the other
>> alerts, minimizing the chance of your attack being detected. It
>> could also be used to ruin an IDS analyst's day, or keep an
>> organization's infosec department busy for a while. I suppose it
>> could also be used to test the effectiveness of an IDS, but no,
>not
>> really.
>>
>> inundator is implemented in Perl (version >= 5.10 is recommended
>> due to ithreads bugs in previous versions), and has been tested
>on
>> Debian Lenny, Debian Squeeze, Ubuntu Jaunty, BackTrack4, and Mac
>OS
>> X against Snort v2.8.5.2. It is presumed to work on all POSIX
>> operating systems. Hell, it might even work on Windows.
>>
>> /epixoip.
>>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Charset: UTF8
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 3.0

wpwEAQMCAAYFAkwyYxEACgkQacHgESW3wZrghAQAoaUr7ZCmRKhpVs86cvXCHphwB/V9
XCmQFCodPp6puHkCe0KqonLXBLCrW92qjVObOxW8TYlb56JKrZs0EV/jGLKUSrlcfgh7
0/UMwH/vAL0C+PowgHuWFZSGSpLsKk5vUC+9YrKz0/oRkCVj4Ypks6Rd+VAUetzuNIeT
W60Z6o0=
=uHzo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists