I never use honeypot before. But, I have a task from my lecture, that I should use a honeypot for detecting hackers attacks.
I searched in journals, tutorials and articles. I tried using honeydrive3 and used the honeypot Kippo. When I tried that, and I attack by myself, it works, the detailed of attack is served. But, when I told that to my lecturer, he said it was not what he wanted.
The workflow he want is, we use the honeypot and then we try that to some websites. But, when the attacker scanning or do something to that web IP address, it must deflect to the honeypot, it means that the attacker really attacks the real website.. and I really don't know what to do.
You either misunderstood what the lecturer wanted, or what he wants does not make sense.
You can only analyze traffic sent to your IP (or an IP you control), it is not possible for you to "deflect the traffic" from a generic IP address.
What you did is correct: putting in place the honeypot, and then sending some traffic to it.
The next step would be to expose it to Internet to get malicious traffic (directed to your IP) but you must be very careful as the whole machine is likely going to get successfully attacked. It must not have any connection to your (home|uni|private) network, because (I am being frank reading your question), you stand no chance to secure it for the time being.
I would go for a cloud hosted machine which I would then kill.
I am doing some penetration testing, and im trying to find out, if i can get the IP address of an router if i got the bssid, or any i can get with the AIR tools?
I use Linux Kali with the Air tools atm.
I would say this is pretty damn bad if its possible. Basicly most people´s rounters can be reached through their outside IP. Even companies. :O
So far i tried:
- Passive TCPDUMP
- Active scanning
So basicly, is there a way, if so please give me a hint or the answer :-)
I am 100% refering to some sort of scanning. All kind of cracking, bruteforce, password guessing, access stealing is not what im asking about :-)
You can't do that if target access point is protected with WPA/WPA2.
This is why. Getting WiFi to work involves following steps:
Associate with target access point. If access point is using WPA/WPA2 and you don't know the password, then you cannot proceed to further steps, and certainly cannot know anything about IP address of target access point.
After association, your client (which is typically configured to use DHCP) has no IP address assigned (its IP address is 0.0.0.0). Technically, you can use sniffer at this stage to scan the network and find out IP addressed used, but most sniffers don't like to work with 0.0.0.0 address. To proceed further, your client sends DHCP request, which is served by access point. After getting successful DHCP ack with new IP address, client can proceed to next step.
After getting IP address, client can talk to access point and finally knows its IP address (it was served as default router in DHCP ack) - and that would be the answer to your question (yes, that late in the game!). However, even at that point, full network connectivity cannot be assumed. If access point implements captive portal, then your network access may be restricted until you open up web browser and (depending on wireless provider) either accept usage terms, provide some credentials or pay with credit card.
After passing captive portal, it is possible (but not common) that access point automatically re-associates and gives you completely different IP address (and access point also has different IP address now, from completely different subnet). This would mean that IP address you learned in previous steps was completely useless to you in terms of knowing actual network infrastructure.
You would need a Firewalking tool to get past the 0.0.0.0 you would essentially also need a password cracker that attempts different brute forcing to get the matching wep password for example, if there are not max tries it could work.
my software-house is developing a component for advertisement in some of ours portals. The advertisement is click based, thus the source portal that more originates click's is the winner. My preucupation is about "fake clicks", malicious HTTP clients raising requests. It's possible for a attacker to falsify the IP source address of a HTTP request? How i can prevent this? We are observing so much random requests in a little interval of time
It is possible to go via some proxy, there is a plenty of free proxies around the net and you can pretend to have a bunch of different IPs even when you are physically sitting in front of one computer. This is probably very hard to detect although it can be considered "malicious".
As far as I know there is no simple way to change the IP without physically going via a machine with this IP, but I am not an expert here so probably somebody else will give you more confidence.
I think your best bet is going to be some sort of cookie & IP technology together. Realistically though the other poster is right. You can clear cookies and use TOR to come out of any number of unique IP addresses.
I'm planning to deploy an internal app that has sensitive data. I suggested that we put it on a machine that isn't exposed to the general internet, just our internal network. The I.T. department rejected this suggestion, saying it's not worth it to set aside a whole machine for one application. (The app has its own domain in case that's relevant, but I was told they can't block requests based on the URL.)
Inside the app I programmed it to only respect requests if they come from an internal I.P. address, otherwise it just shows a page saying "you can't look at this." Our internal addresses all have a distinct pattern, so I'm checking the request I.P. against a regex.
But I'm nervous about this strategy. It feels kind of janky to me. Is this reasonably secure?
IP filtering is better than nothing, but it's got two problems:
IP addresses can be spoofed.
If an internal machine is compromised (that includes a client workstation, e.g. via installation of a Trojan), then the attacker can use that as a jump host or proxy to attack your system.
If this is really sensitive data, it doesn't necessarily need a dedicated machine (though that is best practice), but you should at least authenticate your users somehow, and don't run less sensitive (and more easily attacked) apps on the same machine.
And if it is truly sensitive, get a security professional in to review what you're doing.
edit: incidentally, if you can, ditch the regex and use something like tcpwrappers or the firewalling features within the OS if it has any. Or, if you can have a different IP address for your app, use the firewall to block external access. (And if you have no firewall then you may as well give up and email your data to the attackers :-)
I would rather go with SSL and some certificates, or a simple username / password protection instead of IP filtering.
It depends exactly HOW secure you really need it to be.
I am assuming your server is externally hosted and not connected via a VPN. Therefore, you are checking that the requesting addresses for your HTTPS (you are using HTTPS, aren't you??) site are within your own organisation's networks.
Using a regex to match IP addresses sounds iffy, can't you just use a network/netmask like everyone else?
How secure does it really need to be? IP address spoofing is not easy, spoofed packets cannot be used to establish a HTTPS connection, unless they also manipulate upstream routers to enable the return packets to be redirected to the attacker.
If you need it to be really secure, just get your IT department to install a VPN and route over private IP address space. Set up your IP address restrictions for those private addresses. IP address restrictions where the routing is via a host-based VPN are still secure even if someone compromises an upstream default gateway.
If your application is checking the IP Address, then it is extremely vulnerable. At that point you don't have any protection at the router which is where IP filtering really needs to be. Your application is probably checking HTTP header information for the sending IP address and this is extremely easy to spoof. If you lock the IP address down at the router, that is a different story and will buy you some real security about who can access the site from where.
If are you are doing is accessing the application internally, then SSL won't buy you much unless you are trying to secure the information from parties internal to the organization, or you require client certificates. This is assuming you won't ever access the site from an external connection (VPNs don't count, because you are tunneling into the internal network and are technically part of it at that point). It won't hurt either and isn't that hard to setup, just don't think that it is going to be the solution to all your problems.
IP Whitelisting is, as others have mentioned, vulnerable to IP spoofing and Man-in-the-Middle attacks. On an MITM, consider that some switch or router has been compromised and will see the "replies". It can either monitor or even alter them.
Consider also vulnerabilities with SSL encryption. Depending on the effort, this can be foiled in a MITM as well, as well as the well-known gaffs with the reuse of the primes, etc.
Depending on the sensitivity of your data, I would not settle for SSL, but would go with StrongSWAN or OpenVPN for more security. If handled properly, these will be a lot less vulnerable to a MITM.
Reliance on whitelisting alone (even with SSL) I would consider "low grade", but may be sufficient for your needs. Just be keenly aware of the implications and do not fall into the trap of a "false sense of security".
If it's limited by IP address, then although they can spoof the IP address, they won't be able to get the reply. Of course, if it's exposed to the internet, it can still get hit by attacks other than against the app.
Just because all your internal IPs match a given regex, that doesn't mean that all IPs that match a given regex are internal. So, your regex is a point of possible security failure.
I don't know what technology you used to build your site, but if it's Windows/ASP.net, you can check the permissions of the requesting machine based on its Windows credentials when the request is made.
Like all security, it's useless on it's own. If you do have to put it on a public-facing webserver, use IP whitelisting, with basic username/password auth, with SSL, with a decent monitoring setup, with an up-to-date server application.
That said, what is the point in having the server be publicly accessible, then restrict it to only internal IP addresses? It seems like it's basically reinventing what NAT gives you for free, and with an internal-only server, plus you have to worry about web-server exploits and the likes.
You don't seem to gain anything by having it externally accessible, and there are many benefits to having having it be internal-only..
My first thought on the ressource issue would be to ask if it wouldn't be possible to work some magic with a virtual machine?
Other than that - if the IP addresses you check up against are either IPs you KNOW belongs to computers that are supposed to access the application or in the local IP range, then I cannot see how it could not be secure enough (I am actually using a similiar approach atm on a project, although it is not incredibly important that the site is kept "hidden").
A proper firewall can protect against IP spoofing, and it's not as easy as say spoofing your caller ID, so the argument /not/ to use IP filtering because of the spoofing danger is a bit antiquated. Security is best applied in layers, so you're not relying on only one mechanism. That's why we have WAF systems, username+password, layer 3 firewalls, layer 7 firewalls, encryption, MFA, SIEM and a host of other security measures, each which adds protection (with increasing cost).
If this is a web application you're talking about (which was not clear from your question), the solution is fairly simple without the cost of advanced security systems. Whether using IIS, Apache, etc. you have the ability to restrict connections to your app to a specific target URL as well as source IP address - no changes to your app necessary - on a per-application basis. Preventing IP-based web browsing of your app, coupled with IP source restrictions, should give you significant protection against casual browsing/attacks. If this is not a web app, you'll have to be more specific so people know whether OS-based security (as has been proposed by others) is your only option or not.
Your security is only as strong as your weakest link. In the grand scheme of things, spoofing an IP is child's play. Use SSL and require client certs.
It became useful first to distinguish among different kinds of IP vpn based on the administrative relationships, not the technology, interconnecting the nodes. Once the relationships were defined, different technologies could be used, depending on requirements such as security and quality of service.
Maybe this will help ? I've been looking for the same answer, and found this stackoverflow as well as this idea from Red Hat Linux Ent. I'll try it soon. I hope it helps.
iptables -A FORWARD -s 192.168.1.0/24 -i eth0 -j DROP
Where 0/24 is the LAN range you want to protect. The idea is to block "internet" facing (Forward) devices from being able to spoof the local IP network.
Ref: http://www.centos.org/docs/4/html/rhel-sg-en-4/s1-firewall-ipt-rule.html
I need to put together a small brief about the weaknesses behind limiting content to specific countries based on IP address.
Besides using proxy server located in another country, can you think of another way to circumvent such a system?
Basically, any solution that uses an intermediary is a proxy. Period.
All the "surf anonymously" sites are proxies, even if they use their own software.
You can use SSH and tunneling, but that is, in effect, a proxy as well, just a tunneled one. Same with VPN.
The only thing that doesn't require a proxy is source address spoofing, and that only works with one-way attacks, because no return data will be able to get to you.
Also, consider that Geo-Locating is not 100% accurate. I have IP addresses in Canada that show up as US addresses, and I've had US addresses that show up as Canada. I'm sure this is more common in other parts of the world.
You could buy that software that prevents you from broadcasting your IP address. I'm sure it works, I see it advertised in banner ads all over the place :)
On a more serious note, one way of bypassing this would be by using a caching server (google cache, wayback machine).
I don't think you can. The machine you're talking to has to know where to send it's reply to; that's your IP address. The only way to hide that is to have it reply to someone that's not you who passes it on to you - ie. a proxy.
Tor is a good way of achieving anonymity in general, although it's not appropriate for circumventing the type of system you're talking about.
Since your IP address is in each IP packet that goes over the network, and it is required for you to get the response back, you cannot prevent your real IP address from being detected at the server (other than by putting a proxy in between).
Some links that may be of interest to you:
Conflict between Sweden and Norway about surveillance (Sweden cannot reliably identify Norway IP traffic and exclude it from surveillance)
Herdict.com (which we built, I am happy to report)
It depends on what level of the IP stack you are checking the IP, but on higher levels, you wouldn't need to even have a proxy server to have a different IP address show up. For example, modifying the TCP header would do it if that is what you are checking against.
Here's a link discussing spoofing: http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1674
If the service is using a web based Geo IP lookup, then a successful MITM attack could trick the service into thinking that the IP address is valid. Of course this is much more involved, but definitely doable.
Don't forget VPNs (and, admittedly, NAT). I guess that could be classed as a proxy, too. It also requires having access to a suitable machine in another country.