Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: Foolin an IDS ? |
|---|---|
| Date: | Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:27:59 +0530 |
Regarding this interesting discussion I would like to add some thoughts: I would like to discuss IPSes primarily here. Yes, they are pretty messy in handling the application layer decoding. As told by David, application layer attacks like RPC Fragmentation are very effective to bypass them. Apart from that there are some other miscellanious (boring) stuff like data encoding, language locales encoding, mixed encoding and some file system syntax problems (yes, some unfixed problems do exist in Apache running over Windows versions). However these problems are not practically exploitable in common cases. BUT Leaving apart all these problems apart, I feel the major problem is how the device is handling the protocol decoding logic. Any clever guy with some experience in IPSes will know what the major problem with them is. It's the difference in protocol decoding logic of protection device and that of application which it is protecting or *maybe* the "vantage point problem" . But the reason for occurrence of "vantage point problem" is not precisely what Thomas said, from my personal experiences. False positives and false negatives can arise due to following reasons... 1. Most protocol decoders use lexing and parsing. A bug in the lexing and parsing scheme (something which leads to a un-accountable state of parser) can lead to failure of protocol decoder. This can lead to the protection device bypass depending on how it handles the connection on failure. (Question: How do we know where lexing and parsing is implemented? Ans: Well, ummm...in case of open source apps like Apache see source. IPS decoders are copy cats) 2. Most protocol decoders follow RFC specifications. However as all of you know, the applications are the worst implementations of RFC. Any of these issues can lead to succesful bypassing of protection device a) Delimiters used in application and those specified in RFC are different (for text based protocols primarily). It leads to bad decoding of various entities of protocol. b) State variables are not commonly stored in protocol decoders of devices, which can lead to false positives. c) Differnet entities of protocols have max limits in different applications like Apache, IIS (RFC does not specify limits). Many applications handle these limits with some escape logic like "eatline till newline" for session continuation. This is major point where you can strike. d) Device protocol decoding logic is pretty simple and weak, so it's easy to break too. Summarizing it all, do a diff of decoding logic of application (can take Open Source servers as test beds) which the IPS is protecting and the prescribed RFC standard and you will know how to bypass the box. :))) On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:17:06 -0500, Thomas Ptacek <tqbf@arbor.net> wrote:
Research subsequent to the papers that Paxson, Newsham, and I wrote established the term "vantage point problem" to describe the failure mode where a monitoring system gets tripped up by the differences between its own protocol logic and the logic of a real implementation of that protocol on an end system. We've seen vantage point problems in a variety of places --- probably most notably in HTTP and in SMB. My considered opinion is that vantage point problems are the "buffer overflow" vulnerability of the monitoring/integrity field. I think most people would concede at this point that the best solution to buffer overflow attacks is to preclude them from existing: automatic bounds checking, least-privilege OS enforcement, and stack/heap integrity guards. Chasing the "next" buffer overflow and following the discover/wait/publish/patch cycle is probably not an effective strategy. Similarly, the real solution for the vantage point problem is to preclude consistency problems --- by proxying, scrubbing, or moving functionality closer to the end-systems. So I guess that I'm saying that you're right, David, and that there are lots of places to look besides TCP headers for these problems. On Dec 1, 2004, at 4:49 PM, Maynor, David (ISS Atlanta) wrote:Aside from looking at this the best way to learn to evade IDS/IPS is an understanding of the protocols that they are protecting. This doesn't mean just TCP/UDP; this also means things like MSRPC, HTTP, SSL and such.--- Thomas H. Ptacek // Product Manager, Arbor Networks (734) 327-0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Your IDS Is your IDS deployed correctly? Find out quickly and easily by testing it with real-world attacks from CORE IMPACT. Go to http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/CoreSecurity_focus-ids_040708 to learn more. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Your IDS Is your IDS deployed correctly? Find out quickly and easily by testing it with real-world attacks from CORE IMPACT. Go to http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/CoreSecurity_focus-ids_040708 to learn more. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: Intrushield vs. ISS once more..., Brito, Nelson (ISS Brazil) |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [in] what is required for an engineer to become an SECURITY engineer, Curt Purdy |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Foolin an IDS ?, Thomas Ptacek |
| Next by Thread: | RE: Foolin an IDS ?, Maynor, David (ISS Atlanta) |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |