| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <003ed0e5d9ab89d9897138c0e87c6b8c.squirrel@gameframe.net> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:17:09 +0300 From: nix@...roxylists.com To: "T" <fulldisc@....hu> Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: Compromised VPN provider out there? > Hi > > To any security-aware VPN providers out there reading this: > > More than 800 hosts (mostly from Asia) started hitting TorVPN.com's > webserver on HTTPS with login requests. > > Before blocking them all (and adding them to the proxy list section of my > site after testing, heh) > I decided to temporarily log the attempted usernames and passwords for a > few seconds to see what the deal was. > > The usernames and passwords do not seem to be from dictionaries, more like > someone got a hold of plaintext > userinfo from somewhere and figured enough of them could be valid for > TorVPN.com to make it worth > the time to write a script and start bruteforcing (and monitor results, > because when I changed the login > URL, they updated their script in less than 5 minutes). > > I believe the most likely reason for an attacker to try check for password > re-use on my site is if their > accounts are from another VPN provider's database - which is why I am > writing this. > > Below you will find a list of usernames (not posting the passwords) that > were logged in those few seconds. > (None of them are actual real users on TorVPN, they are not part of any > public list that can be found with Google) > > - vlai1214 > - BHGboat > - haines > - Mod95TZc > - JJOM54 > - johnnieak > - hair7 > - hair18 > - flipperke > - outhcent > - haipas > - hainline > - anxdpphh2334 > - rgcBCN > - Pretty26 > - hair11 > - hairaP > - cyrren > - tomba73 > - mikemaynard25a > - jamesmorrow > - lending2 > - laynec > - willthekiller > - chrisn > - chulony79 > - firefox > > If someone-who-isn't-me obtains similar info from an attack, manages to > log in to another VPN provider > with the logged accounts, sends me an e-mail about this success, I will > post the results. > > If anyone has already experienced a similar password bruteforce on their > VPN-website, do not hesitate to post details. > > Whoever hammered my server, I'd like to thank you for possibly helping to > uncover an ownage, as well as for helping me > re-fill the list of proxies on my site with working ones. > > Kind regards, > https://torvpn.com/ > > ps: a couple of IPs with the most attempts > > # 189.127.120.253 -> 927 > # 64.79.72.52 -> 868 > # 186.225.60.90 -> 785 > # 217.112.128.247 -> 732 > # 203.122.19.11 -> 699 > # 178.132.216.182 -> 699 > # 146.255.9.124 -> 664 > # 222.165.175.246 -> 646 > # 188.230.77.233 -> 632 > # 190.90.100.103 -> 584 > # 188.241.71.1 -> 583 > # 201.65.25.85 -> 563 > # 202.47.88.46 -> 561 > # 208.94.244.15 -> 494 > # 187.0.32.6 -> 485 > # 210.212.144.214 -> 484 > # 196.1.178.254 -> 474 > # 201.234.220.99 -> 474 > # 190.145.74.10 -> 472 > # 184.164.142.214 -> 465 > # 89.235.50.141 -> 461 > # 175.111.192.12 -> 461 > # 186.225.106.146 -> 450 > # 188.127.231.78 -> 450 > # 200.1.110.146 -> 449 > # 93.99.16.254 -> 434 > # 84.22.50.42 -> 422 > # 93.89.84.220 -> 401 > # 201.234.58.212 -> 396 > # 187.60.96.7 -> 379 > # 125.21.55.194 -> 374 > # 121.254.133.150 -> 366 > # 202.46.69.4 -> 363 > # 157.181.228.181 -> 361 > # 201.49.77.7 -> 361 > # 46.4.33.41 -> 360 > # 206.212.249.237 -> 358 > # 202.29.97.2 -> 355 > # 46.162.1.253 -> 354 > > Just due to curiosity, I picked up the first proxy (189.127.120.253) and ran it against http://nixapi.com/ip-reputation-lookup. The result was 'HTTP L3 (Transparent) proxy 189.127.120.253:3128 - Verified 03:49:38 ago.' How came im not surprised that public proxies are being abused for brute force attacks? About a year ago, I setup a public proxy for testing purposes, after ~two day uptime what I can remember; Over 500 simultaneus connections all the time I think there was only 0.1% human users, the rest were abuse bots/scripts Bandwidth used constantly: 15-50Mbps/second (I remember capping it to 50Mbps) to prevent network lag issues to other services) There were several hundreds of thousand connections in very short time ... > > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > _______________________________________________ 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