alert tcp $HOME_NET any -> $EXTERNAL_NET any (msg:"COMMUNITY BOT IRC Traffic Detected By Nick Change"; flow: to_server,established; content:"NICK "; nocase; offset: 0; depth: 5; flowbits:set,community_is_proto_irc; flowbits: noalert; classtype:misc-activity; sid:100000240; rev:3;)
alert tcp $EXTERNAL_NET any -> $HOME_NET any (msg:"COMMUNITY BOT Internal IRC server detected"; flow: to_server,established; flowbits:isset,community_is_proto_irc; classtype: policy-violation; sid:100000241; rev:2;)
alert tcp $HOME_NET any -> $EXTERNAL_NET any (msg:"CHAT IRC message from internal bot"; flow: established; flowbits:isset,community_is_proto_irc; content:"PRIVMSG "; nocase; classtype:policy-violation; sid:1463;)
The above rules have been written by David Bianco to track IRC bot/server activity on any IRC port. However, the above rules works fine but I have a problem with them. My problem is happening when multiple IRC servers (some of them work on 7000 and the other work on 6667) run on the network some of them will achieve the conditions of the rules and Snort will generate the alerts and some of them (or even one of them) will not achieve these condition and as a result Snort wont generate any alert related to the defined set. I think there's a kind of inconsistency. Any suggestions on that issue? I am working on Snort 2.8.
These IRC rules are quite old and won't (as you've seen) capture all IRC traffic. It's almost impossible to say why they're not matching with a network capture or trace.
The first rule is set a flowbit based on the rule matching the traffic (based on an insenstitive match of the word 'NICK' from offset 0 for a depth of 5), if the first rule doesn't match the traffic then it won't set the flowbit to "community_is_proto_irc". Here's an old explanation on flowbits - http://forums.snort.org/forums/rules/topics/flowbits.
The second rule simply alerts on the presence of the flowbit (for traffic from external to home) whilst the third rule is more granular with a content match (and the traffic flow reversed).
I'd recommend getting a pcap for the non-matching IRC traffic and firing it through Snort locally to see what's being missed and then tailoring your rules accordingly (snort -r test.pcap -c /etc/snort_test.conf) - http://manual.snort.org/node8.html.
HTH!
Thanks God, the issue is resolved now.... The reason of the problem was a conflict between many rules which trying to trig at the same time for the same activity (PRIVMSG), so when I removed these rules, every think was just fine for the above rules.
Related
We're using DPDK (version 20.08 on ubuntu 20.04, c++ application) to receive UDP packets with a high throughput (>2 Mpps). We use a Mellanox ConnectX-5 NIC (and a Mellanox ConnectX-3 in an older system, would be great if the solution worked there aswell).
Contrary, since we only need to send a few configuration messages, we send messages through the default network stack. This way, we can use lots of readily available tools to send configuration messages; however, since all the received data is consumed by DPDK, these tools do not get back any messages.
The most prominent issue arises with ARP negotiation: the host tries to resolve addresses, the clients also do respond properly, however, these responses are all consumed by DPDK such that the host cannot resolve the addresses and refuses to send the actual UDP packets.
Our idea would be to filter out the high throughput packets on our application and somehow "forward" everything else (e.g. ARP responses) to the default network stack. Does DPDK have a built-in solution for that? I unfortunatelly coulnd't find anything in the examples.
I've recently heard about the packet function which allows to inject packets into SOCK_DGRAM sockets which may be a possible solution. I also couldn't find a sample implementation for our use-case, though. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Theoretically, if the NIC in question supports the embedded switch feature, it should be possible to intercept the packets of interest in the hardware and redirect them to a virtual function (VF) associated with the physical function (PF), with the PF itself receiving everything else.
The user configures SR-IOV feature on the NIC / host as well as virtualisation support;
For a given NIC PF, the user adds a VF and binds it to the corresponding Linux driver;
The DPDK application is run with the PF ethdev and a representor ethdev for the VF;
To handle the packets in question, the application adds the corresponding flow rules.
The PF (ethdev 0) and the VF representor (ethdev 1) have to be explicitly specified by the corresponding EAL argument in the application: -a [pci:dbdf],representor=vf0.
As for the flow rules, there should be a pair of such.
The first rule's components are as follows:
Attribute transfer (demands that matching packets be handled in the embedded switch);
Pattern item REPRESENTED_PORT with port_id = 0 (instructs the NIC to intercept packets coming to the embedded switch from the network port represented by the PF ethdev);
Pattern items matching on network headers (these provide narrower match criteria);
Action REPRESENTED_PORT with port_id = 1 (redirects packets to the VF).
In the second rule, item REPRESENTED_PORT has port_id = 1, and action REPRESENTED_PORT has port_id = 0 (that is, this rule is inverse). Everything else should remain the same.
It is important to note that some drivers do not support item REPRESENTED_PORT at the moment. Instead, they expect that the rules be added via the corresponding ethdevs. This way, for the provided example: the first rule goes to ethdev 0, the second one goes to ethdev 1.
As per the OP update, the adapter in question might indeed support the embedded switch feature. However, as noted above, item REPRESENTED_PORT might not be supported. The rules should be inserted via specific ethdevs. Also, one more attribute, ingress, might need to be specified.
In order to check whether this scheme works, one should be able to deploy a VF (as described above) and run testpmd with the aforementioned EAL argument. In the command line of the application, the two flow rules can be tested as follows:
flow create 0 ingress transfer pattern eth type is 0x0806 / end actions represented_port ethdev_port_id 1 / end
flow create 1 ingress transfer pattern eth type is 0x0806 / end actions represented_port ethdev_port_id 0 / end
Once done, that should pass ARP packets to the VF (thus, to the network interface) in question. The rest of packets should be seen by testpmd in active forwarding mode (start command).
NOTE: it is recommended to switch to the most recent DPDK release.
For the current use case, the best option is to make use of DPDK TAP PMD (which is part of LINUX DPDK). You can use Software or Hardware to filter the specific packets then sent it desired TAP interface.
A simple example to demonstrate the same would be making use DPDK skeleton example.
build the DPDK example via cd [root folder]/example/skeleton; make static
pass the desired Physical DPDK PMD NIC using DPDK eal options ./build/basicfwd -l 1 -w [pcie id of DPDK NIC] --vdev=net_tap0;iface=dpdkTap
In second terminal execute ifconfig dpdkTap 0.0.0.0 promisc up
Use tpcudmp to capture Ingress and Egress packets using tcpdump -eni dpdkTap -Q in and tcpdump -enu dpdkTap -Q out respectively.
Note: you can configure ip address, setup TC on dpdkTap. Also you can run your custom socket programs too. You do not need to invest time on TLDP, ANS, VPP as per your requirement you just need an mechanism to inject and receive packet from Kernel network stack.
Could any one give me some rules to test Snort (ARP,ICMP,TCP,UDP) and ensure that my system work properly against attacks like DOS or MITM.
alert tcp any any -> any any (flags: S; msg:" Possible TCP dos detection"; flow: stateless; detection_filter: track by_dst, count 1000, seconds 1; sid: 10004;rev:1;)
I am new to snort, and I have run snort through a .cap file and got the logs that i should interpret. If a take for instance a block of log like the one below:
[**] [1:2463:7] EXPLOIT IGMP IGAP message overflow attempt [**]
[Classification: Attempted Administrator Privilege Gain] [Priority: 1]
05/29-19:44:02.238185 249.94.153.251 -> 249.94.153.77
IGMP TTL:255 TOS:0x0 ID:9744 IpLen:20 DgmLen:502 MF
Frag Offset: 0x1FFF Frag Size: 0x01E2
[Xref => http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=2004-0367][Xref => http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=2004-0176][Xref => http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/9952]
I can say that it's an Denial of Service attempt alert, but what do the other information mean ? Could you help me please.
Well, lets see first is the message that is displayed when snort rule matches the packet. Then classification is also part of that rule and its just for better description. Priority 1 is high 2 is medium and 3 is low. Then you have packet description time, source ip, destination ip, protocol, ttl and so on. Last xref is reference on the attack from mitre database which contains known vulnerabilities. All of these parameters can be part of snort rules. Check snort manual for writing rules for better understanding.
I am trying to verify the contents of the http response to find a content "abbb" in it.So my rule was
alert tcp MY_SERVER HTTP_PORTS -> any any(msg:"The page accessed has content abbb";to_client; established; content:"abb";sid:XXXXX; rev:x;)
unfortunately this rule seems not to work. Can anyone please tell if there is some issue with my rule.
For starters you need to fix the to_client part of the rule as this is not valid syntax. You will need to change this to be:
flow:to_client,established;
You can find more on flow here.
If you are just looking for the content "abbb" sent from your server to the client then you just need a simple content match like you have. I recommend using the fast pattern matcher here to improve the efficiency of the rule. So your content match would look something like:
content:"abbb"; fast_pattern:only;
Putting this together, your rule might look something like:
alert tcp MY_SERVER HTTP_PORTS -> any any(msg:"The page accessed has content abbb";
flow:to_client,established; content:"abbb"; fast_pattern:only; sid:XXXXX; rev:x;)
If this still isn't triggering then there is probably something else going on. Since you are just looking for this in the content you need to check your inspection depth in the http preprocessor. There is a server_flow_depth and a client_flow_depth. Try setting these to 0 (unlimited) and see if your rule is triggering after. For example if you had a client_flow_depth of 300 and the content "abbb" didn't come until after 500 bytes then the rule is never going to trigger because snort isn't configured to inspect that far into the payload.
If you have adaptive profiling enabled then you need to add the metadata service for http otherwise the rule won't match http traffic. This would look something like:
metadata:service http;
If you don't use adaptive profiling then it will use the ports in the rule header.
I am writing a UDP test client/server and i want to get it through firewall. Supposedly all i need to do is have both sides send to the correct IP and server. Getting an IP is not a problem but how do i have the client pick a random free port and report it to the user? I eventually would want it to connect to a matchmaker server but right now i need a simple working prototype and i would like to cout the port number so my friend/tester can send me the # via IM so we can test.
How do i get the port number?
sorry for the long desc. I notice people tell me not to do what i am asking when i dont give a desc :(
To use the highly technical term, this is actually a pretty icky problem or even a pair of icky problems. Depending on the configuration of the firewall, it will usually allow responses from another endpoint on the IP endpoint as the request came from. So... if you friend receives the UDP datagram using something like the recvfrom() system call, the address parameter will receive the IP endpoint information to respond to. So the other end should be able to respond with a sendto() using the same addressing information. Something like:
/* initiator */
struct sockaddr_in hisaddr;
memset(&hisaddr, 0, sizeof(hisaddr));
hisaddr.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(target_ip);
hisaddr.sin_port = htons(target_port);
sendto(sd, msg_ptr, msg_sz, 0, (struct sockaddr*)&hisaddr, sizeof(hisaddr));
/* receiver */
struct sockaddr_in peeraddr;
socklen_t peer_sz = sizeof(peeraddr);
recvfrom(sd, buf_ptr, buf_sz, 0, (struct sockaddr*)&peeraddr, &peer_sz);
/* build response */
sendto(sd, msg_ptr, msg_sz, 0, (struct sockaddr*)&peeraddr, peer_sz);
The peeraddr on the other side will be your external address or, more correctly, the IP address of your firewall and the port number that it chose to use. The port number that you specify in your code may be completely different than the port that your friend would have to send data to. Ultimately, it might not matter what port you choose to use since the firewall might be sending and receiving on an entirely different port - this is what Network Address Translation is all about. I would recommend reading RFC3235 for some tips on how to overcome that hurdle.
The best approach IMHO is to:
Let the OS choose a port by either calling bind() with a zero port number or skipping the bind altogether
Having the client receive the address information from the socket layer (e.g., the fifth and sixth arguments to recvfrom())
The client sends response to the endpoint retrieved in the previous step
Tweak the firewall configurations until the previous steps work
Of course, all of the magic is in the last step. If you can disable NAT or ensure that the firewall is never going to switch ports, then nailing down a port number and bind-ing to it will work as well. You might want to take a look at %WINDIR%\system32\drivers\etc\services (or /etc/services depending on your OS inclination) to get an idea of what port numbers are reserved or generally in use.
bind() the socket before you send your data. Specify port 0 to bind(), and the OS will pick an unused port for you. You can then use getsockname() to find out what port wsa chosen.
Generally speaking - you - as the developer - choose the port. You can set your application to read the port from a config file or user input - but no magic firewall is going to tell you what port to use...
If I'm understanding your question correctly, I'm not sure there's a way to do what you want programatically (and even if there is, I don't think it's the right approach). I think you need to find a port that isn't in use on the server machine (and perhaps a different or the same port on the client machine, if communication is bi-directional) AND that port must be able to pass through your firewall. I assume since you say "getting an IP is not a problem", you've already configured your firewall to forward some or all ports to a specific computer inside the firewall? If so, the port you seek is one of the ones you forwarded. You can just pick an arbitrary one, as long as no other service is running on that port. Ports below 1024 are reserved, so you probably want to pick a higher number than that. You can use a simple portscanning tool such as nmap to see which services are running on your computer on which ports and pick a different one. Note that nmap can be fooled by firewalls and various bind rules when sockets are created.
I think you're better off picking a fixed port rather than relying on the random port number chosen by the O/S.
If you use a random port you'd have to change your firewall settings each and every time you run the program.
If you're using WINSOCK check this link:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa280717(VS.60).aspx
Basically you have 2 choices set the port to 0 and let the system assign you one or chose a random one try to open the socket if it doesn't work try another (be sure to steer clear of reserved ports)