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 Snort-Signatures
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Snort-sigs] Storm worm rule

Subject: Re: [Snort-sigs] Storm worm rule
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:54:13 -0800
We've had this one covered in emerging threats sigs (botht he regular
edonkey and the encrypted ones) for a very long time now.

Were you running these, and if so were they not hitting?

Matt

Jason Haar wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
This is a packet capture of a known storm-infected host.  Normal data 
payload 
size is either 2 bytes or 25 bytes.

0000  00 0f 23 aa 37 40 00 0d  ed ac 93 40 81 00 00 02   ..#.7@.. ...@....
0010  08 00 45 00 00 35 85 2b  00 00 74 11 ef 1c 81 6e   ..E..5.+ ..t....n
0020  f1 06 80 67 df 93 f7 9b  1c 52 00 21 94 10 10 a6   ...g.... .R.!....
0030  4b 69 53 29 56 b1 29 22  8b a9 ad 3c 22 0b 3a 8d   KiS)V.)" ...<".:.
0040  e2 53 17 15 81 49 46                               .S...IF

The signature |10 a6| at byte 47 is the indication of an encrypted eDonkey 
session (typically used by Storm along with UDP.

So, would this be the correct syntax?  alert udp blah(msg:"blah"; 
dsize:2<>25; 
content:"|10 a6|"; offset:47; blah.  Or am I missing something?

  
Two bytes sounds like an invitation for FPs. In the 25 byte ones, are 
there one or two more data segments where the chars are fixed? How about 
the port numbers?

i.e. I'd say ignore the 2 byte packets and focus on the 25. I'm assuming 
of course that the infected host generates both packets as part of its 
normal traffic. I can't imagine exclusively using 2byte packets for all 
communication would be very useful to it! :-)

(although if it did, that would be something you could write a 
'threshold' rule for...)


-- 
--------------------------------------------
Matthew Jonkman
Emerging Threats
Phone 765-429-0398
Fax 312-264-0205
http://www.emergingthreats.net
--------------------------------------------

PGP: http://www.jonkmans.com/mattjonkman.asc



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Snort-sigs mailing list
Snort-sigs@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-sigs

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