Re: [fw-wiz] OT? New compromise.
- From: "Mike Barkett" <mbarkett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:21:26 -0400
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:09:58 -0500
From: Frank Knobbe <frank@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] OT? New compromise.
To: Firewall Wizards Security Mailing List
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 17:12 -0400, Mike Barkett wrote:
/c:\netstat -an |find /i "listening"/
There are tools like openports or the sysinternals set you may
Windows: netstat -aon
Linux: netstat -apn
Of course all these tools only work if the application uses the OS'es IP
stack. Any decent rootkitted malware, that puts it's on packets on the
wire and sniffs the responses promiscuously, won't show up in those
lists. You can see the packets with tcpdump/sniffers, but won't be able
to correlate them back to an application (unless you do some CPU
utilization sample and correlate that with the observed network traffic,
but you'd need to be able to see the app in the first place, so if it's
hidden by a rootkit, that won't help you either).
Just because nothing shows up in netstat doesn't mean that there isn't
an application promiscuously listening for data to that port.
True, a rootkit is one possible explanation. In this case the traffic has
already been spotted on the network and thus requires explanation at the
host. Therefore, a netstat showing nothing is just as informative as one
that shows something bogus, which is just as informative as one that shows
the actual running application. Every outcome requires further digging
anyway. It is just one more data point that is only as valuable as the
skill level of the security professional analyzing it.
firewall-wizards mailing list
- Prev by Date: [fw-wiz] TCP syncookies - firewall or host?
- Next by Date: Re: [fw-wiz] TCP syncookies - firewall or host?
- Previous by thread: [fw-wiz] TCP syncookies - firewall or host?
- Next by thread: [fw-wiz] Poll: Interested in feedback for layer 2 filtering requirement for Solaris