1 |
Grant, |
2 |
|
3 |
I figured I should add this note. I'm recommending AIDE as something if you |
4 |
get to the point where you feel like you've been hacked, you've done your |
5 |
post-mortem, and are ready to rebuild, upon your rebuild AIDE might prove to |
6 |
be handy in the future. It'd probably be useless on a system that has |
7 |
already been compromised. |
8 |
|
9 |
Later, |
10 |
|
11 |
Shawn |
12 |
|
13 |
On 2/12/07, Shawn Singh <callmeshawn@×××××.com> wrote: |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Grant, |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Maybe going forward (if you're not doing so already), one tool I've found |
18 |
> to be useful in the past was AIDE. While it certainly won't prevent a |
19 |
> break-in, it can certainly be useful when trying to find out what changed on |
20 |
> your system. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Later, |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Shawn |
25 |
> |
26 |
> On 2/12/07, Paul Sebastian Ziegler <psz@××××××××.de> wrote: |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> > Hi Grant, |
29 |
> > |
30 |
> > personally (but this is by far only ONE possible setup for your task) |
31 |
> > I'd advise you to connect eth0 to wan through a box set up as a bridge |
32 |
> > (try brctl). If that box has a good wireless card and good drivers (this |
33 |
> > |
34 |
> > mostly means "if that box isn't running Windows") you can also put that |
35 |
> > wireless-card into promiscuous mode lock it to your chanel and ssid and |
36 |
> > feed wireshark your WEP-Key or WPA-PSK for decryption. |
37 |
> > If not, then you'll have to use a second box for the wireless sniffing. |
38 |
> > |
39 |
> > BTW. current rootkits won't just replace ps or some other tools. Good |
40 |
> > rootkits do not run in userspace; they run in kernelspace. They directly |
41 |
> > |
42 |
> > intercept the function-calls. Just another thing to keep in mind while |
43 |
> > trying to scan for them. |
44 |
> > |
45 |
> > hth |
46 |
> > Paul |
47 |
> > |
48 |
> > Grant schrieb: |
49 |
> > >> > A good rootkit will install a "ps" that won't show the 'bot |
50 |
> > >> > processes. The one time a machine of mine got hacked, netstat |
51 |
> > >> > still worked, but I don't know why a hacked netstat couldn't be |
52 |
> > >> > installed as well. |
53 |
> > >> |
54 |
> > >> > Looking through /proc/≤pid> is probably still reliable. |
55 |
> > >> |
56 |
> > >> |
57 |
> > >> Hello Grant, |
58 |
> > >> |
59 |
> > >> I keep an old portable around, running wireshark and a flat hub. |
60 |
> > >> You can set your ethernet address to 0.0.0.0 and fire up wireshark. |
61 |
> > >> |
62 |
> > >> You can then sniff any (ethernet) segment of your network for |
63 |
> > >> nefarious traffic or male-configured network applictions. |
64 |
> > > |
65 |
> > > Ok, it sounds like the key to figuring this out is watching the |
66 |
> > > outgoing network traffic for weird stuff. eth0 is on the WAN and |
67 |
> > > wireless ath0 is on the local subnet. How would you monitor the |
68 |
> > > outgoing traffic considering my setup? |
69 |
> > > |
70 |
> > > - Grant |
71 |
> > > │ИМ╒▀╛z╦·з(╒╦&j)b· bst== |
72 |
> > |
73 |
> > -- |
74 |
> > gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
75 |
> > |
76 |
> > |
77 |
> |
78 |
> |
79 |
> -- |
80 |
> "Doing linear scans over an associative array is like trying to club |
81 |
> someone to death with a loaded Uzi." |
82 |
> Larry Wall |
83 |
|
84 |
|
85 |
|
86 |
|
87 |
-- |
88 |
"Doing linear scans over an associative array is like trying to club someone |
89 |
to death with a loaded Uzi." |
90 |
Larry Wall |