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: [Full-Disclosure] Pentesting an IDP-System |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sat, 29 May 2004 14:47:33 -0500 |
On Saturday 29 May 2004 06:03, ph03n1x wrote:
Do you guys have an idea how i could test it more efficiently, is there some software that automatically tries to attack with a bunch of the most common and new exploits so i dont have to do it manually? Preferably some GPL or other "free" stuff since i dont have a budget for this.
Check out the Metasploit Framework, it was designed with IDS testing in mind. There is an environment option that you can set from the console that forces all "nop" instructions to be randomized; you may want to try setting this and see if the attack is detected at all :) [1] The Framework is available from: http://metasploit.com/projects/Framework/ Version 2.0 is the latest public release. If you read through the Crash Course PDF on the documentation page, it will describe how to configure random nop sleds, as well how the system works in general. The 2.0 release includes about twenty exploits; updated and new modules are sent out to the Framework mailing list. If you have any questions about using the Framework, or the general development status, drop us a message at msfdef[at]metasploit.com. -HD 1. Something you may want to keep in mind is that intrusion detection systems which follow a first-exit methodolgy (Snort, etc) will normally report only one event for a given attack. If the "nops" rule matches before the exploit rule, that would be the only event reported. The Snort team has added something called "event queueing" in the 2.1.3/2.2 version (currently in CVS), that allows much better control over which types of events override each other. Some day we may post our paper on bypassing every single signature with event masking...
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Full-Disclosure] [waraxe-2004-SA#031 - Multiple vulnerabilities in e107 version 0.615], Janek Vind |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Full-Disclosure] [SECURITY] [DSA 509-1] New gatos packages fix privilege escalation, debian-security-announce |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Full-Disclosure] Pentesting an IDP-System, Jay Beale |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Full-Disclosure] Pentesting an IDP-System, Dave King |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |