News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Port knocking by WrtCdEvrydy on Thursday May 14, 2020 @11:17PM (#23188488)
I wonder if it would be interesting to load a ssh honeypot that would feed from the logs so it would add the logins and then just dump the ip + input to a file.

Honeypot could basically run in a some sort of isolation layer (like Sandboxie or jails) and then self-destruct after the automated script is gone... and then you slam the door on that user/ip combo for good.

I can't help but think this would be interesting...

Re:Port knocking by acidictadpole on Friday May 15, 2020 @12:41AM (#23188963)
One of my university courses offered an opportunity for a project like this and I did it with some classmates.

We started by altering the ssh daemon to disallow all logins over this ssh daemon and to log all the usernames and passwords attempted. After a week we gathered thousands of attempts to brute force into the honeypot. Interestingly enough, the passwords used were a combination of the very commonly used ones but also ones that were clearly from other popped boxes.

After a week or so of this we altered the ssh daemon again. This time it would log all attempts but also grant access on the 3rd attempt no matter what the credentials were. The few bots that managed to get in all tried to install various rootkits on the machine, all of which where targeted at a different distro of Linux than we were using so it mostly just busted up our shells output.

It was a long time ago but a great experience.

Re:Port knocking by bcrack on Friday May 15, 2020 @03:41AM (#23189862)
Fail2ban [0] bans ip addresses based on failed login attempts (works for more than ssh), minus the isolation layer.

[0]: https://www.fail2ban.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Re:Port knocking by encom on Friday May 15, 2020 @05:04AM (#23190246)
fail2ban should be avoided. It does not support IPv6, so should be considered legacy software.

EDIT: Source: https://github.com/fail2ban/fail2ban/issues/1123

It appears they have moved forward a little in supporting IPv6, but it's still incomplete. It's unacceptable to not support it fully in 2020.

Re:Port knocking by bcrack on Friday May 15, 2020 @05:25AM (#23190352)
It looks like ipv6 matching is supported since late 2017 (version 10.0 [0]), although the changelog states that "not all ban actions are IPv6-capable now". As for IPv6 capabilities, I don't have any recent experience with the software.

[0]: https://github.com/fail2ban/fail2ban/blob/0.11.1/ChangeLog

Re:Port knocking by tinus_hn on Friday May 15, 2020 @07:20AM (#23190872)
With IPv6 every user gets an IPv4 internet worth of addresses for himself which makes fail2ban useless.
Re:Port knocking by Forbo on Friday May 15, 2020 @10:21AM (#23192500)
Couldn't you just ban the /64 and call it good? It's not like they get a random selection of addresses, they're all going to be the same CIDR. Or am I overlooking something here?
Re:Port knocking by jbverschoor on Friday May 15, 2020 @05:35AM (#23190394)
it does more than just scanning iptables logs..
Re:Port knocking by clarry on Friday May 15, 2020 @05:50AM (#23190470)
> then just dump the ip + input to a file.

There are people who do just that.. and then try connect back to that IP with the same credentials. Easy way to find some shells..

Re:Port knocking by EvanAnderson on Thursday May 14, 2020 @11:45PM (#23188682)
I think you're talking about something like Kippo: https://www.honeynet.org/projects/old/kippo/
Re:Port knocking by cycomanic on Friday May 15, 2020 @01:11AM (#23189097)
You don't even need a honeypot, simply ban ip addresses for some time after X failed login attempts.
Re:Port knocking by lloeki on Friday May 15, 2020 @05:10AM (#23190273)
The point of the honeypot is that there's no heuristic causing any delay or elusive attacker being missed (e.g botnet trying once per IP). You don't even need any processing time, nor even complete syn/synack/ack: any TCP connection attempt to that port triggers an instaban.