|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
From: Rob Shein (shoten_at_starpower.net)
Date: Fri Feb 07 2003 - 14:48:44 CST
More to the point, if you manage to send such a thing as a UDP packet with
the RST flag set, without making the system at the other end go "Say
WHAT???" let me know :)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fr0ck9 [mailto:fr0ck9
yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 5:42 PM
> To: focus-ids
securityfocus.com
> Subject: Re: Active response... some thoughts.
>
>
> Being that UDP is connectionless, a rst will not have
> an effect. If the IDS has the ability to do an ICMP
> Unreachable, then you might be able to affect the attacking device.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ali Saifullah Khan
> [mailto:ali_saifullah
hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 2:18 PM
> To: focus-ids
securityfocus.com
> Subject: Re: Active response... some thoughts.
>
> Todd's question still remains. I'm sure you tried to
> clear it out, but does
> a "TCP" RST have any effect on "UDP"-oriented
> connections ?
> We're dealing with 2 different protocols here. The
> protocol behind the RST
> packet being TCP raises the previous question, and
> that's what we're trying
> to figure out here.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mb_lima <mb_lima
uol.com.br>
> To: <b_paul_palmer
yahoo.com>
> Cc: <focus-ids
securityfocus.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 9:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Active response... some thoughts.
>
>
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > It is perfect your explanation, but an attacker
> can create
> > ways to keep a sensor busy enough so that "if the
> sensor is
> > fast enough" is not true. But I agree with you. TCP
> RST works
> > fine for me. Best Regards,
> >
> > Marcelo
> >
> > > Actually, TCP RST is more than just a marketing
> > > solution. In practice, if the sensor is fast
> enough, a
> > > TCP RST can and often will prevent even single
> packet
> > > attacks. Here is why...
> > >
> > > A TCP RST does not cause orderly connection
> > > termination. It causes immediate connection
> > > termination. That is, the protocol stack is not
> > > required to deliver pending data and typically
> does
> > > not. If you also take into consideration that on
> most
> > > operating systems, applications are not dispatched
> immediately upon
> > > arrival of new data, there is a window of opportunity for the
> > > protocol stack to receive and process the RST even before the
> > > application can read the previously received data
> from
> > > the single packet attack!
> > >
> > > On most operating systems, when a process is moved
> > > from a wait queue to the run queue, it is not
> given
> > > immediate control of the CPU unless it has a
> > > "realtime" priority or the run queue is completely
> > > empty. Therefore, it will on average have to wait
> half
> > > a time slice before it can read its data. A
> typical
> > > time slice is 10ms. If the IDS can get the RST
> sent in
> > > under 5ms, it can often stop a single packet
> attack.
> > > The odds go up if the IDS is faster or the server
> is
> > > busy.
> > >
> > > >On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 08:31 AM,
> Garbrecht,
> > > Frederick wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> ummmm, just a technical quibble, but a TCP
> reset
> > > wouldn't work with the
> > > >> Sapphire worm because it propagates using UDP
> as
> > > transport, not
> > > >> TCP.....
> > >
> > > >It is just a minor quibble because the point is
> that
> > > the attack was
> > > >completely contained in a single packet. The same
> > > would have held true
> > > >if it was over a TCP/IP connection. Once the
> attack
> > > has been
> > > >completed, a TCP RST would provide no value. It
> is
> > > the proverbial
> > > >closing the barn doors after the horse is already
> > > out.
> > > >
> > > >RST is largely a marketing solution, not a
> technical
> > > solution.
> > > >
> > > >Todd
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > UOL, o melhor da Internet
> > http://www.uol.com.br/
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]