|
|
BugTraq
NetSky.q Virus. Looking for more detailed information on how the DOS will be performed. Mar 30 2004 06:18PM Paul (paul edonkey2000 com) (1 replies) Re: NetSky.q Virus. Looking for more detailed information on how the DOS will be performed. Mar 30 2004 10:03PM Joe Stewart (jstewart lurhq com) (1 replies) IPv4 fragmentation --> The Rose Attack Mar 31 2004 04:18AM gandalf digital net (2 replies) Re: IPv4 fragmentation --> The Rose Attack Mar 31 2004 08:07PM stanislav shalunov (shalunov internet2 edu) (1 replies) Re: IPv4 fragmentation --> The Rose Attack Mar 31 2004 11:42PM Crist J. Clark (cristjc comcast net) (1 replies) Re: IPv4 fragmentation --> The Rose Attack Apr 01 2004 02:21AM stanislav shalunov (shalunov internet2 edu) |
|
Privacy Statement |
>
> Since cell phones, IPSec & satellite use fragmented packets this
> attack is pertinent to the Internet of today.
I'm willing to guess that many sites are seeing a lot more fragmented
traffic then they realize. A quick test would be:
tcpdump -nn -v 'ip[6]&32!=0'
under Linux/UNIX or
windump -nn -v "ip[6]&32!=0"
under Windows. If you see normal fragmentation to an internal server
(say a VPN gateway), then this device could be affected.
> Also note the source and destination ports do not matter as the
> packet is never validated at the layer four level, it never gets past layer
> three. The devices accept the packets no matter what port is used.
This should be in big red letters. Any accessible host is potentially
vulnerable to this attack, regardless of whether any listening ports are
open. Also note that most hosts _will not_ log that this attack took
place. You can get hit and the only clue is interrupted connectivity.
HTH,
Chris
[ reply ]