| 1 |
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:58:49 -0800 |
| 2 |
Grant <emailgrant@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > > A good rootkit will install a "ps" that won't show the 'bot |
| 5 |
> > > processes. The one time a machine of mine got hacked, netstat |
| 6 |
> > > still worked, but I don't know why a hacked netstat couldn't be |
| 7 |
> > > installed as well. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > > Looking through /proc/≤pid> is probably still reliable. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Hello Grant, |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > I keep an old portable around, running wireshark and a flat hub. |
| 15 |
> > You can set your ethernet address to 0.0.0.0 and fire up wireshark. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > You can then sniff any (ethernet) segment of your network for |
| 18 |
> > nefarious traffic or male-configured network applictions. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > hth, |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > James |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I can see in an xfce4 panel plugin that there is constantly a small |
| 25 |
> amount of incoming/outgoing traffic to/from the affected system when |
| 26 |
> there is no reason I know of for it. netstat doesn't show anything |
| 27 |
> that jumps out at me although this is the first time I've really used |
| 28 |
> it. All of the current netstat connections appear to be UNIX as |
| 29 |
> opposed to Internet. Should I paste them in? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> - Grant |
| 32 |
> [Error decoding BASE64] |
| 33 |
nope, they're all local socket connections. What kind of traffic are |
| 34 |
you seeing, i mean how much? Ever heard of tcpdump? |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives