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: Strange attack question - seems udp |
|---|---|
| Date: | Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:43:16 -0700 |
Since the 1500 size is almost certainly an MTU, I'll guess
that those "offset" numbers are indicating that this is an
IP layer fragment; the UDP header information (including port
numbers) is at offset 0 and so is not available when examining
these fragments.
There used to be a common brute-force DoS, often implemented
in VBasic, that went something like
allocate buf[64K bytes]
send to target
repeat until killed
In my experience, the "send to target" was usually done with
ICMP rather than UDP, but that's an implementation detail. The
point was that this punted slicing of the buffer by MTU to the
IP layer, which is what you're seeing.
IP-layer fragmentation is a very bad idea, not least because
the fragments have inadequate header information. As you've found,
the reassembly process is rarely really robust, and can be subject
to DoS problems of its own. So when you say
After receiving many packets like these on 3-4 interfaces, Cisco starts loosing packets and acts abnormal.
I'm not terribly surprised. REMEDY: You can add an access list (or a line to your existing access list) to block fragments. Anybody who really cares about talking to you will either do PMTUD or set a sane MTU. These big fragments will still try to take up your bandwidth (talk to your ISP about blocking them upstream), but your router will be stable. David Gillett
-----Original Message----- From: Mihai Tanasescu [mailto:mihai@duras.ro] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 11:09 AM To: incidents@securityfocus.com Subject: Strange attack question - seems udp Hello, I've been getting things like these recently: 21:00:52.941148 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 127, id 28639, offset 11840, flags [+], length: 1500) 86.104.102.16 > 70.84.247.164: udp 21:00:52.941271 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 127, id 28639, offset 13320, flags [+], length: 1500) 86.104.102.16 > 70.84.247.164: udp 21:00:52.941394 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 127, id 28639, offset 14800, flags [+], length: 1500) 86.104.102.16 > 70.84.247.164: udp 21:00:52.941517 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 127, id 28639, offset 16280, flags [+], length: 1500) 86.104.102.16 > 70.84.247.164: udp 21:00:52.941640 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 127, id 28639, offset 17760, flags [+], length: 1500) 86.104.102.16 > 70.84.247.164: udp I have 24 subnets inside a Cisco 3750. After receiving many packets like these on 3-4 interfaces, Cisco starts loosing packets and acts abnormal. I have gathered the output show above from a Linux machine with tcpdump which acts as a border router. What I find strange is that there is no port specified (src,dst) and that the length of the packets is always 1500. Is there any way to filter something like this on the Cisco switch ? Is it caused by a virus or by a human ? (I have seen it from 3-4 different interfaces at a time and with 4-6 different destination IPs) Any help will be greatly appreciated. Sorry if I have posted this to the wrong list.
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Strange attack question - seems udp, Carles Fragoso i Mariscal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Odd Increase in Malformed Packets Aimed at Port 0, crusher |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Strange attack question - seems udp, Christoph Gruber |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Strange attack question - seems udp, Mihai Tanasescu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |