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: [Snort-sigs] new Q signature |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:30:04 -0500 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
This is a new follow up to an old post from Jon (2003-02):
- -------------- cut here ---------------- As previously mentioned, I've been using the following rule to track any machines that spew packets containg 'cko', which is associated with the Q backdoor:
alert tcp $EXTERNAL_NET any -> $HOME_NET any (msg:"Possible Q-Backdoor traffic"; content:"cko"; depth:3; dsize:3;)
I've compiled some information about this traffic in the hopes that it helps someone. Since my first email (beginning of Februrary), I've caught 2042 packets coming into my network that tripped this signature.
Common characteristics for all of these packets include:
* all tcp * low ttl * ACK and PSH flags set * sequence # set * payload is "cko"
...
Traffic leading up to the final 'cko' packets always seems very routine - -- your average web browse, mail traffic, etc. All source hosts that were not the server in the connection seem to be random dialup/dsl machines from around the globe.
Any feedback or information about these (or other similar) "attacks" would be much appreciated, either publicly on this list or privately via email.
- -------------- cut here ----------------
I saw the same sort of traffic today, but that traffic is not the result of a backdoor. There was never a resolution to Jon's post though, so I thought I'd take a stab at clearing up the mystery.
The pattern is:
1) Normal traffic from a public IP; 2) Connection closed normally (FIN,ACK;ACK) 3) A second or two later, mystery packet with low TTL, ACK/RST, Reset cause: cko 4) We send an "ACK" 5) RST,ACK from remote with Reset cause: ehnc
This isn't exactly like Jon's traffic was. His had ACK/PSH instead of ACK/RST. He also didn't mention the "ehnc", but if his system wasn't generating the "ACK" that mine is you wouldn't see that packet. So this might not be the same thing he was seeing, but it seems pretty close. Especially seeing the normal traffic first, followed by the weird packets with low TTL and "cko" payloads.
My traffic was generated by one of my customers using a SonicWall firewall. For some reason, after the connection was closed down by our web server and ack'd by the remote, the firewall itself generated its own packet to try to shutdown the connection. This packet has the "cko" payload. Here is the SonicOS description of its reset packets:
http://www.sonicwall.com/services/pdfs/technotes/SonicOS_TCP_RST.pdf
I'm not entirely clear why the firewall felt it needed to close the connection itself since it had already been properly closed. It doesn't do that for every connection. We sent e-mail to that customer twice and neither of those connections was followed by the the firewall "cko" traffic. However, two HTTP connections made by the customer to us were both followed by the "cko" packet. I also don't know why the TTL is so low on the "cko" packets.
- --
Kirby Angell Get notified anytime your website goes down! http://www.alertra.com key: 9004F4C0 fingerprint: DD7E E88D 7F50 2A1E 229D 836A DB5B A751 9004 F4C0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBeTWM21unUZAE9MARAj/hAKCIpL9OX/e1mLQz9wcVocDezBdFkQCcDssy jOshr37T7Z/h+sWCCl8yV0w= =oeMX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Snort-sigs] Snort signatures for PBX, Teicher, Mark |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Snort-sigs] Possible False Positive, Nigel Houghton |
| Previous by Thread: | [Snort-sigs] Snort signatures for PBX, Teicher, Mark |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |