Home page logo
/

Nmap Announce mailing list archives

RE: NMAP Identity obscuring
From: Oliver Friedrichs <of () securityfocus com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:47:52 -0800

It also probably won't fool CyberCop Scanner, since it does all of it's OS
detection with an ICMP packet and also heavily uses IP options.

- Oliver

-----Original Message-----
From: Ofir Arkin [mailto:ofir () itcon-ltd com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 4:48 AM
To: cameron_douglas () email msn com; of () securityfocus com; 
lance () spitzner net
Cc: nmap-hackers () insecure org
Subject: RE: NMAP Identity obscuring 


Cameron,

I have read the Article in the sysAdmin magazine, 
unfortunately it is not
enough to fool me :)

The article, for those who do not subscribed to SysAdmin, deals with
changing parameters with
Solaris so NMAP will not detect it. The article suggests 
changing the PMTU
policy, and harden the sequence
numbers sequencing.

But, there are a lot of other wild ideas we can use that will 
reveal the
Solaris box.
Changing the most common identification parameters will not 
hide the other
:)
Sure, it will make the job harder, but not impossible.


Ofir Arkin  [ofir () itcon-ltd com]
Senior Security Analyst
Chief of Grey Hats
ITcon, Israel.
http://www.itcon-ltd.com

Founder
http://www.sys-security.com

"Opinions expressed do not necessarily
represent the views of my employer."


-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Palmer [mailto:cameron_palmer () hotmail com]
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 2:50 AM
To: of () securityfocus com; ofir () itcon-ltd com; lance () spitzner net
Cc: nmap-hackers () insecure org
Subject: NMAP Identity obscuring


I know we have seen the argument before, but the recent 
SysAdmin magazine
has an article on Solaris security.  They recommend changing some NDD
parameters to obscure the identity of Solaris from nmap.  
They have some
interesting points, which is essentially they aren't looking 
for that as the
sole form of protection of the machine but merely make 
Solaris conform to
the RFCs instead of having its own quirks that give away too much
information.  I would normally be dissuaded from security by obscurity
arguments, but by taking out the things that make the OS 
unique and conform
to RFCs you do raise the ante as it were.  Additionally I've 
seeen some
other good OS tuning parameters with NDD that help 
performance that are a
good idea, like fixing your Quad card to having multiple MAC addresses
instead of the single hostid.  Apparently you can gain a 40% 
speed boost on
a Checkpoint firewall. This came from the Checkpoint web 
site.  They have a
number of recommendations for security related changes.

Any thoughts?

cameron.


From: Oliver Friedrichs <of () securityfocus com>
To: Ofir Arkin <ofir () itcon-ltd com>, Lance Spitzner 
<lance () spitzner net>
CC: nmap-hackers () insecure org
Subject: RE: firewalk meets nmap - TTL (tested)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 15:36:23 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (mta1-pr) by 
sims1.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun
Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id
<0G3I00609XSQ25 () sims1 snfc21 pbi net> for 
palmer74 () sims-ms-daemon; Sat, 4
Nov 2000 15:41:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from amy.insecure.org ([208.184.74.98]) by 
mta1.snfc21.pbi.net
(Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id
<0G3I000N7XQ0PL () mta1 snfc21 pbi net> for 
palmer74 () sims1 snfc21 pbi net; Sat,
04 Nov 2000 15:39:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 20825 invoked by uid 508); Sat, 04 Nov 2000 
23:46:19 +0000
Received: (qmail 20725 invoked from network); Sat, 04 Nov 
2000 23:41:28
+0000
Return-path: 
<nmap-hackers-return-887-palmer74=pacbell.net () insecure org>
Message-id: <10786F3AE30CD4118FAC00A0CC58F9F1015929 () MAIL>
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Precedence: bulk
Delivered-to: mailing list nmap-hackers () insecure org
Delivered-to: moderator for nmap-hackers () insecure org
Mailing-List: contact nmap-hackers-help () insecure org; run by ezmlm

 >Lance, we should automate this somehow. This is a cool thing.
 >But again correct configuration will prevent this from happening.

This is a really neat idea.  It should be easy to automate, if you
add in some traceroute functionality to nmap to determine the hop
where packets are being dropped (this would be the firewall), then
you only need to specify an address on the internal network.  I think
nmap could use UDP/TCP ACK/ICMP traceroute functionality anyways.
And while your at it, make it parallel, send out 32 packets with
incrementing ttl's at the very start.. none of this 1 hop at a time
slowness.

- Oliver

--------------------------------------------------
For help using this (nmap-hackers) mailing list, send a blank email to
nmap-hackers-help () insecure org . List run by ezmlm-idx 
(www.ezmlm.org).


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.



--------------------------------------------------
For help using this (nmap-hackers) mailing list, send a blank email to 
nmap-hackers-help () insecure org . List run by ezmlm-idx (www.ezmlm.org).

--------------------------------------------------
For help using this (nmap-hackers) mailing list, send a blank email to 
nmap-hackers-help () insecure org . List run by ezmlm-idx (www.ezmlm.org).


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault