Slashdot Mirror
Can You Spoof IP Packets?
nweaver writes "Spoofed IP packets are still believed to be a significant problem for the Internet. But are they? The Spoofer Project is attempting to measure the problem. Apparently, 80% of the IP addresses measured no longer support spoofing! Their methodology is simple: have users download a client which attempts to spoof packets to the monitor. Using these packets, they can determine the filter rules. So everyone, download the client and help!"
Oh yes! Everyone download this executable from known IP Spoofers and run it. It won't root your system, we promise...
Even you can help the next generation of scammers find an ISP to call home!
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Oh wait. This isn't an "Ask Slashdot"?
Nevermind...
my pet machine
1. Write a piece of software claiming to help monitor spoofed IP packets but really it does something more sinister.
2. Post a story to Slashdot with a link to the software on an MIT server and ask people to run it on their internal networks and send the data back to the author.
3. ???
4. Profit and say to yourself, "suckers"
Maybe I'm too paranoid. But this is a good example of how social engineering can be used to get you into places you shouldn't be. I guess the source cod
e is provided. How many people will really read it?
"have users download a client which attempts to spoof packets to the monitor"
But my monitor does not have an ethernet port! Can I send packets into my DVI port?
...No.
Seriously, why would I want to participate in this?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
My packets have spoof all over them ! Anyone have a tissue?
This took out my wireless network on XP Home SP2 using Microsoft's wireless zero configuration tool for the software side of it. During the spoof portion of the test, all network connectivity halted and immediately reported that the wireless connection had disconnected.
Vehicle Stars used car search is my current project
It's a collaboration between Slashdot and MIT to finally get adware on Linux machines.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Getting too many connections from slashdotters...?
...you can use a network packet monitor, and there's two ways to get your hands on such a device - the cheap...and the expensive way, the expensive way being the safest one (A hardware network monitor = hardware device to look and monitor what's going in/out of your ethernet connection directly connected to your "whatever" device)
or
Do the same thing by rigging a second computer, also known as a network monitor. Set up a Linux box...and monitor & control all the ports & packets being delivered to your network, and if you do your homework - you will "know" if that application you just downloaded and executed...truly is honest...and "doesn't phone home...like E.T"... he he he..
Live and learn kids.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Nearly 5 years ago, the great and all knowing Steve Gibson predicted that the raw sockets in Windows XP would allow packet spoofing that would bring down the internet with unstoppable DOS attacks.
So it must be true.
...every self-respecting network operator has RPF (or some other antispoof-ingressfilter) enabled at the edge. Gone are the days of spoofing, just like respecting IP packet's loose/strict source routing options and other similar exploits :)
Spoofed packets were the idea behind an anonymous P2P network I envisaged, and designed a few years ago. udpp2p.sf.net, if you're interested. Man, that was ropey code. (I didn't write any of it, by the way!)
Get your own free personal location tracker
Get your own free personal location tracker
The win versionh is less than useless. Doesn't work on Win98. When I tried it under XP it ran, but in a command shell and then tried to start IE. Well, IE will never get past my firewalls, and I couldn't tell much from the giberish the stupid client printed out (the final html link it gave me was useless).
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
He's talking about the tenants of the Internet architecture in his introduction... should I assume he means the electrons, or the switches?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Create an selinux policy to ensure that this software doesn't do anything weird. Give it no access to your filesystem (it shouldn't need it) and ability to use libnet (or whatever it uses to generate the packets). Voilla, paranoia (mostly) gone.
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
80% of the IP addresses measured no longer support spoofing!
Given the move to broadband with home routers and NAT it seems obvious that spoofing capable networks are on the decline.
Are the spoofed packets' evil bits set to 1?
These additional demands are met:
1. a free lollipop.
2. a car ride deep in the forest
The questions is not can an IP be spoofed (yes, it can always be spoofed from somewhere), but rather from where can it be spoofed and to where can it be spoofed to. You can spoof any IP address to another box on your local ethernet segment -- there are no routers en route that can drop the packet. You probably cannot spoof an IP to someone on the other side of the world, but your ISP or your ISP's ISP can. In fact, you can spoof any IP to almost everywhere if you have a connection to one of the few core Internet routers.
The project basically is saying that home users cannot spoof IPs to their measurement server. That's well and good, but useless.
Home users no longer need to spoof IPs to hide the source of the attack (as in days past). Home users now are simply trojan/zombie boxes that are hiding the true source of the attack by using their own IP -- no spoofing required. Back when zombies were not a problem, attackers used spoofing to hide their true location; it is no longer required now that boxes can be 0wned with relative ease.
I don't see the point of this project.
...the other 20% of spoofable IP addresses are reported to be in the possession of Weird Al Yankovic, who, according to US Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, is capable of spoofing damn near anything.
A full-blown investigation is under way to put an end to Weird Al's wild spoofing. Rap legend Coolio has pledged his support in these investigations.
Weird Al was unavailable for comment, but his assistant did pass along his official response, which was, "Mecha lecha hi, Mecha hiny hiny ho."
More at 11.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Apparently, 80% of the IP addresses measured no longer support spoofing!
Yes, but how many of those are unique IPs?
What?
Seriously, they provide source. It's a small program, you can browse it and get the gist of what it's doing in fairly short order. You can change it any way you want, and recompile. beautiful, isn't it?
The program doesn't have a particular license attached though, I would assume that the intention is that it be licensed under the MIT license. Mighht want to check that before packaging it for Debian.
-Dom
So I can get my ISP pissed at me and watching what I do because attempting to spoof packets is something "hackers" do.
I like my broadband too much to participate in anything that even LOOKS bad to the security idiots watching my cable modem.
Why don't we do something less invasive, like snmpwalk every address on the Internet?
Yep, line 429 of spoofer.c in the source code, hardcoded. He should have used the rundll url call instead.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
There's one thing I seem to be missing in all of the comments here: what's the point of this exactly?
The massive DDoS attacks generally come from botnets that do not need to bother spoofing their source IP. Also, anyone who relies on IP address alone (especially with "connectionless" protocols like IP/ICMP/UDP) for their security needs is just begging for problems because they're trusting a network that is not trustworthy. Seems to me it would be far easier to discourage the practice of trusting an untrustworthy network -- the black hats seem useful for this purpose -- than it would be to check each and every individual subnet for whether they will pass spoofed packets.
Given this, what does it matter whether I can spoof UDP/ICMP packets? What service or what architecture that is widely used today is so brain-dead that it does not require a password or strong encryption or some other form of security and/or authentication that would ensure that spoofing the IP address does not constitute a successful attack?
All of this would have been great ten years ago but today, the DDoS kiddies and spam botnets are enabled by the unwillingness to value security on the part of too many Windows users with broadband connections, combined with Microsoft's inability or unwillingness to market a secure-by-default OS. I say "market" here because I am assuming that with the resources at their disposal, Microsoft could create an extremely secure OS, if they really wanted to. Just look at what the OpenBSD team has done with far fewer resources available to them.
And yes, I see that as a responsibility of Microsoft's since their fortunes are largely built by mass-marketing a technical product to the non-technical, "I just want it to work with zero effort" crowd (and apparently this type of can't-be-bothered-to-learn-anything user wants it to be the first thing in this life ever observed to do so, other than entropy). If Windows were marketed exclusively to computer security specialists then I would not blame Microsoft if extremely insecure configurations kept happening.
So anyway, somebody please explain to me how it will matter one way or the other whether 0% of all internet users can spoof or whether 100% of them can spoof.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Not long after Fyodor put out the freebie chapter for how to own a continent, I looked into the process of spoofing a full TCP connection.
I felt it prudent to follow the RFC's and set said evil bit. So now I have a DoS tool with the evil bit...
If spoofing is no longer valid, then someone has a hell of a lot of explaining to do as to why this tool works so well...
Me failed English...
FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
Hey, the point is that you're already giving it access to your network through root access on your machine so that you can generate special packets. Its not much of a step from that to sniffing your network for packets. And the big deal is that the program is sniffing or scanning your network from INSIDE your network, behind DMZ firewalls, etc. Using SELinux or virtual machines won't necessarily protect you and I wasn't refering to a local machine exploit in my original post.
Blockquoth the poster:
On *nix systems, you must run the spoofer as root (in order to create
the raw socket) with no arguments, e.g.
#
Ahahahahahahah! You're kidding, right?
You are checking your backups, aren't you?