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: | Raw sockets vs connect() scanning on windows/linux |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:45:05 -0700 |
All, Quick question. I was recently reading a blog post at http://dmiessler.com/study/synpackets/ and realized I need to brush up on which scanners out there on Windows & linux by default use raw vs connect() packets. The issue is that raw socket packets have a differing length and that many products are coded to look for raw socket packets (44 bytes) and treat them differently than connect() packets (60 bytes). There are also some cases where I want to use raw sockets for certain scan-types and not be stuck with connect()'s and/or I want consistent results across scans regardless if connect() or raw sockets are used. On the linux side, anyone know which scanners modify the raw socket packet creation to craft 60 byte packets to mimic exactly the typical connect() packet to get around products which are smart enough to tell the difference and change behaviors accordingly? I know that with XP SP2 Microsoft removed raw sockets and there was a workaround that was subsequently broken with MS05-019 & later patches, and that 2k3 server you can still utilize raw sockets. What's the latest scoop on windows scanners in this regard and the linux question above? I could run the testing myself but wondered if list members already had the jump on it. If not... Looks like I have some late nights ahead of me :) -- Erin Carroll Moderator SecurityFocus pen-test list "Do Not Taunt Happy-Fun Ball" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This list is sponsored by: Cenzic Need to secure your web apps NOW? Cenzic finds more, "real" vulnerabilities fast. Click to try it, buy it or download a solution FREE today! http://www.cenzic.com/downloads ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: SonicWall Scanning Problems, Paul Melson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Raw sockets vs connect() scanning on windows/linux, John Lampe |
| Previous by Thread: | SonicWall Scanning Problems, dcampbell |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Raw sockets vs connect() scanning on windows/linux, John Lampe |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |