[Snort-users] Setting up a Windowz Interface to monitor with no IP Address

Scot Scot scotw at ...125...
Fri Jun 28 09:25:19 EDT 2002


As noted, there are several methods for yanking packets off the wire in 
Windows without assigning a layer three address. As Cliff notes below, not 
all devices and services will function properly if the native TCP/IP suite 
provider stack is disabled. For both stability and reliability I would 
recommend leaving the native IP stack in place and removing associated 
values the stack may choose to "slap" on the wire.

My 2.12534 Cents Worth (Tax Included)

Scot

>From: CJATeck at ...661...

>I found in early testing that WinPCap did NOT always work correctly (I
>understand WinPCap is supposed to work at layer 2 directly with the NIC
>interface driver and as such a full IP stack should not be needed) when the
>MS TCP/IP stack was disabled, this may not be others experience as I have
>noted several different proceedures that appear to work addressed on these
>mailing lists. I can only tell you what works for me. If you have find a
>better way to make a wheel, more power to ya.
>The END result is what is important, a secure sensor that can not be 
>detected
>or intruded upon.
>
>Cliff (smile)
>
>In a message dated 6/28/2002 11:40:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>Keith.McCammon at ...3497... writes:
> > Am I missing something!?!  Why steps two through four?  There's no 
>reason to
> > have TCP/IP enabled at all on that interface.  Winpcap is doing the 
>work,
> > not the (shady) Windows IP stack.
> >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: CJATeck at ...661... [mailto:CJATeck at ...661...]
> >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 11:25 AM
> >> To: McCammon, Keith; tslighter at ...5174...;
> >> michaels at ...155...; scotw at ...125...
> >> Cc: snort-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> >> Subject: Re: [Snort-users] Setting up a Windowz Interface to monitor 
>with
> >> no IP Address
> >>
> >>
> >> I do NOT use the registry hack although I am aware of it, for my 
>"External
> >> Interface" I do the following.
> >>
> >> 1) I use a copper tap (Finisar) as the physical device to intercept
> >> traffic between my boundary router and the outside firewall interface, 
>as
> >> this is a "recieve only" device, it provides protection at the OSI 
>phyical
> >> layer.
> >> 2) On a WIN32 box I disable ALL but the TCP/IP stack. (NO file& print, 
>NO
> >> MS client, ect)
> >> 3) I leave the interface set for "DHCP", no hard IP info (NO unicast
> >> address, NO subnet, NO DNS, ect)
> >> 4) I disable the DHCP service.
> >>
> >> RESULT- provides a promiscuous interface that is protected from 
>detection
> >> and intrusion at both layer 1 and layer 3 of the OSI model.
> >>
> >> Hope this clarify things.
> >>
> >> Cliff
> >>
> >> In a message dated 6/28/2002 11:07:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> >> Keith.McCammon at ...3497... writes:
> >> >>> How about just disabling TCP/IP on that interface by un-checking 
>the
> >>> component?  Why muck around with the registry?
> >>>
> >>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> To: tslighter at ...5174...; michaels at ...155...;
> >>>> scotw at ...125...
monitor
> >>>> with no IP Address
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >




-----------------------------------------------------------
"It's all about the Pentium"
                              -Weird AL
-----------------------------------------------------------


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx





More information about the Snort-users mailing list