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] SSH brute force blocking tool |
|---|---|
| Date: | Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:38:37 +0000 |
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 04:27:24PM -0500, J. Oquendo wrote:
Tavis Ormandy wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by modification, I simply subsituted the name for the logfile I use. Thanks, Tavis.So for the third time now. Explain to me how I am backdooring someone's system.
J, Please calm down. You have made a programming error in your script that attempts to eliminate the minor `log noise` from incorrect ssh logins with a script that can be subverted to execute arbitrary shell commands.
[root@localhost include]# uname -a
Linux int-mrkt 2.6.18-1.2200.fc5 #1 Sat Oct 14 16:59:26 EDT 2006 i686
i686 i386 GNU/Linux
[root@localhost include]# awk '/error retrieving/{getline;print $13}'
/var/log/secure|sort -ru
222.171.20.252
211.137.74.58
My logs parse out addresses not named and there is no redirection going
on.
Yes, but you assume a fixed format of the log entries. This is not the case. The string "error retrieving" is easily placed in the log by setting it as your username and attempting to login. You also assume that the multiple log entries generated by a failed login are logged atomically (ie, no other log entries will appear between these two entries), this is also not the case.
If you want to say "Hey... It should be written as such" then gladly do so. But posting "hey you're backdooring the planet" like a jackass is moronic.
J, you asked people to install your "security tool" which contacts you with enough information to find out who installed it and where, and contains several rather obvious security flaws. If I mistook stupidity for malice, I apologise.
Line by line on my machines it does what it needs to do and it does so just fine.
This is because your logs dont contain any entries specially crafted by an attacker to subvert your machine. I'm sure some members of the list are already attempting this on your web server, so you can check your logs for examples.
Did you see any notes of Gentoo on the comments? I didn't because I don't use it, never have, don't care to. So if it does something different on Gentoo, let's use the brain for a moment... "Gee this works horrible on Gentoo. The author is a shitty writer... I think I should let him know" as opposed to "Oh my gawd he's backdooring you".
It's a standard format J, my log entries look identical to yours. It has nothing to do with Gentoo. Thanks, Tavis. -- ------------------------------------- taviso@sdf.lonestar.org | finger me for my pgp key. ------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Full-disclosure] SSH brute force blocking tool, Michael Holstein |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Full-disclosure] SSH brute force blocking tool, gabriel rosenkoetter |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Full-disclosure] SSH brute force blocking tool, J. Oquendo |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Full-disclosure] SSH brute force blocking tool, gabriel rosenkoetter |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |