| 1 |
On 5/2/21 6:10 pm, Michael wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday, 5 February 2021 01:48:09 GMT Adam Carter wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 6:07 PM Adam Carter <adamcarter3@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Thursday, February 4, 2021, <thelma@×××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> I'm perplex with this entry in apache log. |
| 6 |
>>>> I'm sure it was done by same person as the timing is very sequential and |
| 7 |
>>>> same file-name request, but how they were able to lunch an attack from a |
| 8 |
>>>> different IP's different geographical locations. |
| 9 |
>>>> Can they spoof an IP? |
| 10 |
>>> Probably just different instances of the same bot scanning for |
| 11 |
>>> vulnerabilities. I imagine you will keep seeing that log from many |
| 12 |
>>> different ips |
| 13 |
>> FWIW i'm seeing the same traffic. Here's some numbers; |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> $ zgrep -ic wlwmanifest.xml access.log* |
| 16 |
>> access.log:16 |
| 17 |
>> access.log-20210110.gz:0 |
| 18 |
>> access.log-20210117.gz:0 |
| 19 |
>> access.log-20210124.gz:34 |
| 20 |
>> access.log-20210131.gz:0 |
| 21 |
> Bot herders have acquired many geographically dispersed IP addresses to run |
| 22 |
... |
| 23 |
> Depending on your server's IP address featuring on some target list, the |
| 24 |
> volume of calls can become quite high. Trying to manually block the bots is a |
| 25 |
> tedious and ineffective task, because the professionals will add yet one more |
| 26 |
> compromised IP address to their herd faster than you can block them. A |
| 27 |
> scripted honeypot to automatically block typical mass scans, e.g. for |
| 28 |
> wordpress installations, would be more effective. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Use fail2ban to target active abusers using your logs. (recommended) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Leverage the cloud with something like: |
| 33 |
http://iplists.firehol.org/?ipset=firehol_level1 (loaded to shorewall |
| 34 |
with ipset:hash) to preemptively ban via blacklists - recommended. |
| 35 |
There are many good blacklists out there - this one is a meta-list and |
| 36 |
has fast and responsive updates. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Snort (in IDS mode triggering a fail2ban rule) is a bit heavier |
| 39 |
resource-wise but quite useful. Snort in IPS mode is better, but it can |
| 40 |
impact throughput. (if you are commercial, consider a licence to get the |
| 41 |
latest rules as soon as they are created/needed.) |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
or use all of them at the same time :) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
BillK |
Archives