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.




Network Security Security-Basics
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: about CAM table overflow attack?

Subject: RE: about CAM table overflow attack?
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:30:35 -0500
Unfortunately, it is still possible.  Because every switch has a hardware
limitation, the CAM table can only be *so* big.  Even in the big boys, like
the 6500, it still has a limit to how many mac addresses can be held at one
time.  Once this limit is reached, the traffic comes flooding.  

However, there are features in the newer versions of IOS that limit how many
macs can be seen from one port.  You can set the number higher than usual
(maybe 25-50 on a 6500), so that someone can plug in a 4 port switch and
traffic will still pass, but it will prevent someone from sending 10000+
macs into the switch for malicious reasons.

felix lin
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Zhong [mailto:sagiko@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 4:04 AM
To: inoutsec@gmail.com
Cc: security-basics@securityfocus.com
Subject: Re: about CAM table overflow attack?

I am just curious whether this behaviour is still valid in newer
switches, like those IOS 12+ ... it sounds to me a very old tricks and
seems the successful rate for this type of attack is very lower
nowadays.



On 18 Apr 2006 20:11:45 -0000, inoutsec@gmail.com <inoutsec@gmail.com>
wrote:
Basically what would happen is all traffic would be flooded to all
ports.(No VLANS Yet) This would happen to only unkown traffic though, that
is MAC addresses that are not in the CAM.

If the VLAN is configured then, only ports on the same VLAN would receive
the broadcasts. The nature of VLANs prevent broadcast from being delivered
to another VLAN.

Hopes this helps.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This List Sponsored by: Webroot

Don't leave your confidential company and customer records un-protected.
Try Webroot's Spy Sweeper Enterprise(TM) for 30 days for FREE with no
obligation. See why so many companies trust Spy Sweeper Enterprise to
eradicate spyware from their networks.
FREE 30-Day Trial of Spy Sweeper Enterprise

http://www.webroot.com/forms/enterprise_lead.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This List Sponsored by: Webroot

Don't leave your confidential company and customer records un-protected. 
Try Webroot's Spy Sweeper Enterprise(TM) for 30 days for FREE with no 
obligation. See why so many companies trust Spy Sweeper Enterprise to 
eradicate spyware from their networks.
FREE 30-Day Trial of Spy Sweeper Enterprise

http://www.webroot.com/forms/enterprise_lead.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This List Sponsored by: Webroot

Don't leave your confidential company and customer records un-protected. 
Try Webroot's Spy Sweeper Enterprise(TM) for 30 days for FREE with no 
obligation. See why so many companies trust Spy Sweeper Enterprise to 
eradicate spyware from their networks.
FREE 30-Day Trial of Spy Sweeper Enterprise

http://www.webroot.com/forms/enterprise_lead.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>