[Snort-users] Trying to use snort with TALOS-2016-0219
yuri at ...17684...
Mon Nov 28 20:51:32 EST 2016
Thank you very much for your help. After I included the correct filter, it
still didn't work. I then noticed that all the outgoing packets in the new
capture file had bad checksums; I disabled NIC-level checksumming ("ethtool
-K eth0 tx-checksum-ip-generic off") and did another capture, which worked
fine without disabling snort-level checksumming.
Is there a way to tell snort, while capturing, to properly calculate
checksums for packets that are outgoing from the machine? "-k all" didn't
seem to do it.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Patrick Mullen <pmullen at ...1935...>
> By "asymmetric," Joel means your pcap is broken. :) Your "works" config
> modified snort such that it ignores the fact that it can only see half of
> the traffic. Please note that while this configuration means you did alert
> in this situation, in the long run it opens you up to evasions and other
> issues so it's not an ideal solution.
> I suspect that when you created your pcap, you probably did a filter like
> "dst host 22.214.171.124 and port 11211", which filtered out return traffic
> from that host. If you instead used the filter "host 126.96.36.199 and
> port 11211", the host filter would be bidirectional (the ip could be the
> dst or src) so you should see the entire set of traffic and snort should
> alert for you without needing to change the configuration.
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Joel Esler (jesler) <jesler at ...589...>
>> Your traffic is “asymmetric”. This is why turning off stream makes it
>> Snort needs both sides of the traffic flow in order to process the
>> traffic correctly.
>> *Joel Esler *| *Talos:* Manager | jesler at ...589...
>> On Nov 25, 2016, at 10:41 PM, Yuri Niyazov <yuri at ...17684...> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> Snort newbie here. I am trying to detect the latest memcache
>> vulnerabilities, http://www.talosintelligence.c
>> Output of snort -V, as requested in the instructions for posting reports
>> to this list:
>> ,,_ -*> Snort! <*-
>> o" )~ Version 188.8.131.52 GRE (Build 383)
>> '''' By Martin Roesch & The Snort Team:
>> Copyright (C) 2014-2015 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All
>> rights reserved.
>> Copyright (C) 1998-2013 Sourcefire, Inc., et al.
>> Using libpcap version 1.5.3
>> Using PCRE version: 8.31 2012-07-06
>> Using ZLIB version: 1.2.8
>> So, I have a packet capture that is the proof-of-concept exploit (code
>> copy-pasted from the vulnerability announcement). That packet capture is
>> attached. It is detected when I run "snort -c etc/works.conf -r
>> /var/log/snort/memcachedump.1480128874", I get the text below in
>> [**] [3:40474:2] SERVER-OTHER TRUFFLEHUNTER TALOS-CAN-0219 attack attempt
>> [Classification: Attempted Administrator Privilege Gain] [Priority: 1]
>> 11/26-02:54:44.674785 184.108.40.206:57162 -> 220.127.116.11:11211
>> TCP TTL:63 TOS:0x0 ID:47627 IpLen:20 DgmLen:1100 DF
>> ***AP*** Seq: 0xF7EF58B0 Ack: 0x1E0819C9 Win: 0x1C9 TcpLen: 32
>> TCP Options (3) => NOP NOP TS: 3334822 5964160
>> [Xref => http://www.talosintelligence.com/reports/TALOS-2016-0219]
>> However, when I run "snort -c etc/broken.conf -r
>> /var/log/snort/memcachedump.1480128874" the alert doesn't happen
>> The difference between works.conf and broken.conf is that broken.conf
>> includes the stream5_global, stream5_tcp and stream5_udp preprocessors as
>> they are configured in the latest downloadable ruleset (these aren't the
>> files I will end up using, these are just the smallest difference I was
>> able to isolate between "working" and "not working").
>> Now, if I understand things correctly, the streaming preprocessor
>> provides important functionality that shouldn't just be turned off blindly,
>> so, the question is: what in that preprocessor configuration could be
>> masking the memcached exploit?
> Patrick Mullen
> Response Research Manager
> Cisco TALOS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Snort-users