k-otik - Automated Script for W2K3 Malformed Packet Vuln

Yep. That didn't take long. This will prolly morph into a worm before long. If you are not aware of the issue, see this post:

http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=266661

Here is the link to the code used to automate the attack:

http://www.k-otik.com/exploits/20050307.windos.c.php


--TH13

Do you know if theres a snort signature or white hat breakdown of this exploit?

I guess now that Sourcefire is screwing all the snort users with there new licensing scheme I will start submiting more rules to here and other forums I goto.

Not sure if one exists for snort but you can certainly craft one up in no time.

The problem with a Snort sig for this is that you would need a sig for each vulnerable server. Since the source address has to be spoofed as the same as the attacked target you either need to define a variable for each asset, ($HTTP_SERVER__1, $HTTP_SERVER_2 etc.) and then write a rule for each variable or write rules with the addresses hard coded in. The only fixed thing is the SYN flag must be set. Thus rules would look like this:-

alert tcp $HTTP_1 any -> $HTTP_1 any (msg: "Land Attack on HTTP 1"; Flags: S; classtype: attempted-dos;)

or

alert tcp 192.168.1.1 any -> 192.168.1.1 any (msg: "Land Attack on HTTP 1"; Flags: S; classtype: attempted-dos;)

You couldn't use:-

alert tcp $HTTP_SERVERS any -> $HTTP_SERVERS any (msg: "Land Attack on HTTP 1"; Flags: S; classtype: attempted-dos;)

when you have multiple servers because if one server talks to the other it would FP, (false Positive), though it should work if you only have one web server.

Having said that I'm not sure that this would run in snort. It might throw an error when it parses the rules and kick out.

[Edit]

It doesn't blow out snort so it should work.... But it's all a bit of a waste really.... If snort picks it up then it's already done it's bit.

It's possible you could place a react clause in the rule to RST both ends of the connection, (oer a single end since they are both "the same"), which _might_ bring the attacked server out of the loop)

[/EDIT]