RE: [inbox] RE: Bogus DNS traffic

From: David Gillett (gillettdavid_at_fhda.edu)
Date: 10/30/03

  • Next message: John Sage: "Re: [inbox] RE: Bogus DNS traffic"
    To: "'John Sage'" <jsage@finchhaven.com>
    Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:45:29 -0800
    
    

      The handful of packets I captured all had ID "102" and
    clearly bogus counts of questions/answers. I'm pretty sure
    none of them looked like this.

    Dave Gillett

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: John Sage [mailto:jsage@finchhaven.com]
    > Sent: October 30, 2003 09:24
    > To: David Gillett
    > Cc: incidents@securityfocus.com
    > Subject: Re: [inbox] RE: Bogus DNS traffic
    >
    >
    > David:
    >
    > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 08:35:20AM -0700, David Gillett wrote:
    > > Just to clarify:
    >
    > /* snip */
    >
    > > And to reiterate:
    > >
    > > Several people have suggested I check
    > >
    > > http://people.ists.dartmouth.edu/~gbakos/bindsweep/
    > >
    > > I have, and it appears to describe exactly what I'm seeing.
    > > Thank you.
    >
    > Do you have any full packet captures?
    >
    > I've just been looking at some interesting UDP 53:53 traffic that
    > seems to contain sets of IP address:port 53 pairs, each terminated by
    > hex 0x00 viz:
    >
    > =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
    > =+=+=+=+=+=+
    > 10/29-07:22:27.796597 10.0.98.93:53 -> 67.119.168.10:53
    > UDP TTL:127 TOS:0x0 ID:8647 IpLen:20 DgmLen:95
    > Len: 75
    > 05
    > 43 77 A8 0A 35 00
    > 51 48 11 94 35 00
    > 18 46 5F .Cw..5.QH..5..F_
    > CB 35 00
    > 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .5..............
    > 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    > 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
    > 00 00 00 ...
    > =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
    > =+=+=+=+=+=+
    >
    > [jsage@sparky /storage/virii] $ 2 hd 43 77 A8 0A 35
    > 67
    > 119
    > 168
    > 10
    > 53
    >
    > 67.119.168.10:53
    >
    > [jsage@sparky /storage/virii] $ host 67.119.168.10
    > 10.168.119.67.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer
    > adsl-67-119-168-10.dsl.frsn01.pacbell.net.
    >
    >
    > [jsage@sparky /storage/virii] $ 2 hd 51 48 11 94 35
    > 81
    > 72
    > 17
    > 148
    > 53
    >
    > 81.72.17.148:53
    >
    > [jsage@sparky /storage/virii] $ host 81.72.17.148
    > 148.17.72.81.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer
    > host148-17.pool8172.interbusiness.it.
    >
    >
    > [jsage@sparky /storage/virii] $ 2 hd 18 46 5F CB 35
    > 24
    > 70
    > 95
    > 203
    > 53
    >
    > 24.70.95.203:53
    >
    > Request: 24.70.95.203
    > connected to whois.arin.net [192.149.252.43:43] ...
    >
    > OrgName: Shaw Communications Inc.
    > OrgID: SHAWC
    > Address: Suite 800
    > Address: 630 - 3rd Ave. SW
    > City: Calgary
    > StateProv: AB
    > PostalCode: T2P-4L4
    > Country: CA
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > - John
    > --
    > "Most people don't type their own logfiles; but, what do I care?"
    > -
    > John Sage: InfoSec Groupie
    > -
    > ABCD, EFGH, IJKL, EmEnOh, Pplus+, Mminus-
    > -
    > ATTENTION: this entire message is privileged communication, intended
    > for the sole use of its recipients only. If you read it even though
    > you know you aren't supposed to, you're a poopy-head.
    >

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Network with over 10,000 of the brightest minds in information security
    at the largest, most highly-anticipated industry event of the year.
    Don't miss RSA Conference 2004! Choose from over 200 class sessions and
    see demos from more than 250 industry vendors. If your job touches
    security, you need to be here. Learn more or register at
    http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/RSA_incidents_031023
    and use priority code SF4.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------


  • Next message: John Sage: "Re: [inbox] RE: Bogus DNS traffic"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: tcpslice: cannot accept captures with zero or one packet
      ... tcpslice fails on packet captures with zero or one packet in them. ... Given an arbitrary set of captures, it is entirely possible that some ... of them don't have packets or have small numbers of packets. ... By the way, Gutsy is Ubuntu 7.10. ...
      (Ubuntu)
    • Re: Packet Capture
      ... I am building an sniffer that captures all packets that go thorugh a NIC. ... > socket() con la opcion SOCK-RAW ...
      (microsoft.public.vc.language)
    • tcpslice: cannot accept captures with zero or one packet
      ... tcpslice fails on packet captures with zero or one packet in them. ... don't have packets or have small numbers of packets. ... Versions of packages tcpslice depends on: ...
      (Ubuntu)
    • Packets
      ... I am building an sniffer that captures all packets that go thorugh a NIC. ... socket() with the option SOCK-RAW ...
      (microsoft.public.vc.language)