I am testing a thick client which is connected to a database, need to sniff traffic b/w tcp port on same machine
WireShark (formerly Ethereal) will work perfectly, if you're not familiar with it, it can be a little tricky on OSX, Windows it's no problem and Linux can be a headache. You can download it here http://www.wireshark.org/, and read a short-primer here - http://www.ipprimer.com/packets.cfm
Essentially there's a capture phase, and then you can work with the data – for your purposes you can live-capture and filter the output to the packets on the port/destination you care about, I've used it many-a-time to debug dodgy home networking, or problems at the office.
Beware if using MySQL and localhost for example, this is a key-word for MySQL and it will infact use the socket instead.. which makes things a matter more complicated, you can circumvent this problem by always making sure to use 127.0.0.1 if working with MySQL. (Perhaps other software uses this convention?)
You can try some tools like WireShark.
Assuming you're on Windows:
I'd split the client and server across two machines, either two real ones, or a VM with something VMWare. Then I'd use Wireshark.
Related
Summary:
I am guessing that the issue here is something to do with how Windows and Linux handle TCP connections, or sockets, but I have no idea what it is. I'm initiating a TCP connection to a piece of custom hardware that someone else has developed and I am trying to understand its behaviour. In doing so, I've created a .Net core 2.2 application; run on a Windows system, I can initiate the connection successfully, but on Linux (latest Raspbian), I cannot.
It appears that it may be because Linux systems do not try to retry/retransmit a SYN after a RST, whereas Windows ones do - and this behaviour seems key to how this peculiar piece of hardware works..
Background:
We have a black box piece of hardware that can be controlled and queried over a network, by using a manufacturer-supplied Windows application. Data is unencrypted and requires no authentication to connect to it and the application has some other issues. Ultimately, we want to be able to relay data from it to another system, so we decided to make our own application.
I've spent quite a long time trying to understand the packet format and have created a library, which targets .net core 2.2, that can be used to successfully communicate with this kit. In doing so, I discovered that the device seems to require a kind of "request to connect" command to be sent, via UDP. Straight afterwards, I am able to initiate a TCP connection on port 16000, although the first TCP attempt always results in a RST,ACK being returned - so a second attempt needs to be made.
What I've developed works absolutely fine on both Windows (x86) and Linux (Raspberry Pi/ARM) systems and I can send and receive data. However, when run on the Raspbian system, there seems to be problems when initiating the TCP connection. I could have sworn that we had it working absolutely fine on a previous build, but none of the previous commits seem to work - so it may well be a system/kernel update that has changed something.
The issue:
When initiating a TCP connection to this device, it will - straight away - reset the connection. It does this even with the manufacturer-supplied software, which itself then immediately re-attempts the connection again and it succeeds; so this kind of reset-once-then-it-works-the-second-time behaviour in itself isn't a "problem" that I have any control over.
What I am trying to understand is why a Windows system immediately re-attempts the connection through a retransmission...
..but the Linux system just gives up after one attempt (this is the end of the packet capture..)
To prove it is not an application-specific issue, I've tried using ncat/netcat on both the Windows system and the Raspbian system, as well as a Kali system on a separate laptop to prove it isn't an ARM/Raspberry issue. Since the UDP "request" hasn't been sent, the connection will never succeed anyway, but this simply demonstrates different behaviour between the OSes.
Linux versions look pretty much the same as above, whereby they send a single packet that gets reset - whereas the Windows attempt demonstrates the multiple retransmissions..
So, does anyone have any answer for this behaviour difference? I am guessing it isn't a .net core specific issue, but is there any way I can set socket options to attempt a retransmission? Or can it be set at the OS level with systemctl commands or something? I did try and see if there are any SocketOptionNames, in .net, that look like they'd control attempts/retries, as this answer had me wonder, but no luck so far.
If anyone has any suggestions as to how to better align this behaviour across platforms, or can explain the reason for this difference is at all, I would very much appreciate it!
Nice find! According to this, Windows´ TCP will retry a connection if it receives a RST/ACK from the remote host after sending a SYN:
... Upon receiving the ACK/RST client from the target host, the client determines that there is indeed no service listening there. In the Microsoft Winsock implementation of TCP, a pending connection will keep attempting to issue SYN packets until a maximum retry value is reached (set in the registry, this value defaults to 3 extra times)...
The value used to limit those retries is set in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\TcpMaxConnectRetransmissions according to the same article. At least in Win10 Pro it doesn´t seem to be present by default.
Although this is a conveniece for Windows machines, an application still should determine its own criteria for handling a failed connect attempt IMO (i. e number of attempts, timeouts etc).
Anyhow, as I said, surprising fact! Living and learning I guess ...
Cristian.
I have a requirement to transfer/multicast a large file about >40g of file from a server to multiple clients at the same time and this will be done for only once. Is there any good protocol to do that in Linux? I tried using UFTP, but it didn't work.
UFTP should be a good tool for this situation. If the server and clients are on the same LAN, there shouldn't be any issue with them communicating. If there are one or more routers separating them, then you would either have to configure routers to allow multicast traffic to pass or you could use UFTP's proxy servers to create a bridge between different network segments.
You could use the excellent bittorrent protocol and make it private by using Bittorent Sync.
Go to Bittorrent Sync Web Site for details.
The main advantages I see are :
It's design to transport large files (if you have a network disruption it's not a problem)
It's free
It's cross plateform : Windows, Linux (i386, x64, ARM, PowerPC), FreeBSD, Mac, Android, IOS, and more ...
It's secure (you provide the encryption keys)
It's quite simple to configure
Setup:
I have client C connecting to server S
Both C and S are on the same machine
In C the server address is hardcoded to 127.0.0.1. Likewise, in S the client address is hardcoded to 127.0.0.1
Problem:
I want to be able to sniff the traffic between the client and the server.
Due to the configuration, I cannot move the client nor the server to different locations (the address are hardcoded)
Installing the loopback interface and using tools like Wireshark+WinPcap doesn't lead anywhere (was actually already known but was worth a try)
RawCap, suggested in another topic, doesn't work. IP 127.0.0.1 is listed, but does not record any traffic.
Using rinetd to route the traffic elsewhere, as suggested here doesn't work (cannot bind on 127.0.0.1)
Not interested in using a HTTP local proxy, such as Fiddler, because I'd like to capture also other protocols
Two commercial tools work, specifically CommView and Local Network Monitor, which means it must be possible to do that ;)
How can I do to capture the traffic?
Any pointer on functions I should use or documentation I should read?
Thanks!
Basically you need to write a TDI filter driver to achieve that... for some pointers see:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff565685%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff563317%28v=VS.85%29.aspx
Another option is to write a WinSock LSP.
BEWARE
Since Windows 8 it is strongly encouraged to use WFP (Windows Filtering Platform) for this sort of thing...
Although it might be more cost-effective to just use/buy an existing solution - esp. if you are not a very experienced driver developer...
Use RawCap, which can solve your concerns, see this
I have written a small client server socket application. It is a proof of concept for some socket programming that I want to apply to a much bigger project.
For the moment I want to user wireshark to analyse the traffic that goes between them. They are both running on my local machine.
I have installed a loopback interface, and have tried to use wireshark with it.
No joy. Any ideas?
I have successfully analysed traffic between my machine and other machines no problems.
I have had a look here,
http://wiki.wireshark.org/CaptureSetup/Loopback
And I am not using the address 127.0.0.1 which they mention saying you can't capture traffic on 127.0.0.1
Thanks.
You might try creating a virtual machine to run your application and using wireshark on it.
Save yourself some grief and download Microsoft Network Monitor.
As good as Wireshark is on Unixen, Windows is a "special" case :)
I have an iPhone app which relies on connecting via the local network to a server running on a user's mac/pc.
The server is running an http service on port 8080
I already add exceptions to the default windows firewall, or the default mac firewall to ensure traffic is allowed to reach my app.
However the most common customer issue is that the iPhone can't communicate with the server.
Normally this is the network router blocking traffic - though sometimes the user is running their own firewall which blocks the traffic.
Is there a protocol which will let me say something to the effect of
'will all the firewalls on this network, please allow communication to <an ip> on <a port> if the traffic originates within this network?'
I have looked into upnp - but that seems to concentrate on opening a port to the outside world which I don't want to do.
suggestions?
thanks in advance.
No, there is no such way or protocol aside from UPnP. And I wouldn't recommend it anyway because in company networks it would cause all sorts of problems and security issues if this were possible.
I'd suggest that you set up a FAQ entry or installation section for your software where you describe this common issue and give details to the customers how they can detect and solve this problem.
In general, higher ports (above 8000 or 16000) are not blocked or firewalled. I would seriously consider allocating a random port in that range.
Also, consider to advertise your service with Bonjour. Using Bonjour has the nice side-effect that your iPhone app does not have to know the port number. It can simply browse the network for available servers. If there is just one then connect to that, otherwise present the user with a list to choose.
Is there any way to run the server on port 80? You're likely to encounter fewer issues on a standard port.