Home page logo
/

nmap-dev logo Nmap Development mailing list archives

Re: backorifice-brute
From: Ron <ron () skullsecurity net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:52:51 -0500

I wasn't part of the original discussions, so sorry if I'm repeating something that's already been discussed, but I'm 
not convinced. ;)

The magic of UDP is the fire-and-forget style. You can send 30,000 packets to a host in a couple seconds, and it'll 
process them and respond when it gets one it can handle (unless you blow up a queue or cause a traffic jam or 
something). It seems to me that you could guess the top 1000 or 10000 passwords in under a second, then wait 5 or 10 or 
30 seconds for a response. If you get a response, then you can go back and do the check properly (unless the response 
contains the password or whatever, then the problem is solved). 

Does that make sense for this protocol? Or is something odd going on?

(Like I said, sorry if this is rehashing stuff you already talked about and decided against)

Ron

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:28:06 +0200 Gorjan Petrovski <mogi57 () gmail com> wrote:
We discussed the initiation of the backorifice-brute script at great
length at the NSE meetings and we decided that it shouldn't run by
default because the backorifice service is far from widespread an it's
going to be even less used in the future. I'd like to point out that
this is the BackOrifice server not the BackOrifice2000, with which the
situation is a little bit different.

Thanks for your remark nevertheless. It is a valid one to say the
least.

Gorjan


On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Ron <ron () skullsecurity net> wrote:
Why did you decide not to run it by default against 31337? I
realize that it can be slow, and that 31337 will almost always be
open-filtered, but all brute scripts are nasty like that.

Ron

On Wed, 11 May 2011 23:53:31 +0200 Gorjan Petrovski
<mogi57 () gmail com> wrote:
Hi folks,

I've finally finished the backorifice-brute script, and decided on
the criteria on which the script should run.

The BackOrifice service is a very old service which now we presume
would be used only in a galaxy far far away. Because of the time
needed for the bruteforcing we've included a mandatory script
argument. This argument (backorifice-brute.ports) specifies the
ports on which the script should run and if omitted, the script
never runs. We've also included a debug message if the default
port on which the service is found, 31337/udp, is open|filtered
but not selected with the ports argument, thus notifying the user
of a chance for version detection using the backorifice-brute
script.

The host.times.timeout worked out perfectly with the service, I
guess I made a mistake in testing it out before. Sorry for the
confusion, David.

I've also skimmed through the BackOrifice2000 client source code.
The protocol is different, the encryption is different compared to
the BackOrifice client. BO2K looks like a piece of art compared to
BO :-)

Feel free to comment, as always.

I'm waiting for approval on committing this script. (But I have
plenty to work on, and it's a pretty non-popular service, so no
pressure)

Cheers,
Gorjan
_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/
_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/


  By Date           By Thread  

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