| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:19:15 +0000 (UTC) |
| 4 |
James <wireless@×××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Well, after much ado, it seems quite easy (trivial) to hide an ethernet |
| 7 |
> interface, while being able to collect reems of local ethernet traffic |
| 8 |
> based data, from both snort and ethereal. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
No, it's not that easy - depending on your requirements on the "hiding". |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Here's the normal ethernet interace on a portable: |
| 13 |
> /sbin/ifconfig -a |
| 14 |
> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:90:F5:0D:30:0E |
| 15 |
> inet addr:192.168.2.15 Bcast:192.168.2.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 |
| 16 |
> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> issued: |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> route delete default |
| 22 |
> ifconfig eth0 inet 0.0.0.0 |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> and voila: |
| 25 |
> /sbin/infconif -a |
| 26 |
> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:90:F5:0D:30:0E |
| 27 |
> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Yep, it's up and doesn't have an IP. If this is sufficient for you, |
| 30 |
fine then. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> On any system, 'ping 0.0.0.0' receives responses from the local |
| 33 |
> interface. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
No, if you specify an interface for those packets, it most probably |
| 36 |
won't receive anything. But that's nitpicking here... |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> What I need is for folks to test and verify that an ethernet |
| 39 |
> interface setup this way, is indeed invisible (undetectable) |
| 40 |
> by other systems. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
It surely isn't. It's up, listening at least to broadcasts and |
| 43 |
multicasts (well, it's written uppercase in the ipconfig output). |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> If you find this is not true, please tell me what you did and |
| 46 |
> what tool/syntax you used to discover/detect a system with an |
| 47 |
> ethernet interface set up this way.... |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
emerge hping2, emerge arping. And then play a little bit. Note that |
| 50 |
ethernet frames don't rely on IPs to get to their targets. In the above |
| 51 |
described situation, I would try to send a bunch of different ethernet |
| 52 |
frames to that machine and see what happenes. If I were you, I would |
| 53 |
dedicate another machine for the testing stage that sniffs if the |
| 54 |
machine answers anything. "ping" isn't really the tool of choice here. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
If you really don't want to chose a hardware based solution and go the |
| 57 |
software way, you should carefully inspect /proc/sys/net/... and have a |
| 58 |
read in linux docs how to chose sysctls for not letting linux itself |
| 59 |
spit out packages. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
But using this way, it is scientifically impossible (well, nearly) to |
| 62 |
100% negate the theory that a package might get through. I really |
| 63 |
recommend the already mentioned way, cutting the Tx wires. After all, |
| 64 |
this is simple and you can be sure that you didn't forget anything. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
-hwh |
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives