Linux - Security This forum is for all security related questions.
Questions, tips, system compromises, firewalls, etc. are all included here. |
| Notices |
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
 |
GNU/Linux Basic Guide
This 255-page guide will provide you with the keys to understand the philosophy of free software, teach you how to use and handle it, and give you the tools required to move easily in the world of GNU/Linux. Many users and administrators will be taking their first steps with this GNU/Linux Basic guide and it will show you how to approach and solve the problems you encounter.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free. |
|
 |
|
07-23-2004, 06:55 AM
|
#1
|
|
Member
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Jackson, TN
Distribution: Kubuntu Feisty
Posts: 606
Rep:
|
Total stealthing
Hey-
i'm using Suse Pro 9.1. I ran a "Shields Up" test yesterday on "all service ports", and all my ports are showing to be stealthed except one. This un-stealthed port is closed, however.
This is relatively good, i guess, but it also shows :
Quote:
Solicited TCP Packets: RECEIVED (FAILED) - As detailed in the port report below, one or more of your system's ports actively responded to our deliberate attempts to establish a connection.
and
Ping Reply: RECEIVED (FAILED) - Your system REPLIED to our Ping (ICMP Echo) requests, making it visible on the Internet. Most personal firewalls can be configured to block, drop, and ignore such ping requests in order to better hide systems from hackers. This is highly recommended since "Ping" is among the oldest and most common methods used to locate systems prior to further exploitation.
|
how do i fix these minor issues and go "Stealth Mode" (that sounds cool  )
-myk
|
|
|
|
07-23-2004, 12:00 PM
|
#2
|
|
Senior Member
Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,553
Rep:
|
i think
/usr/sbin/iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -j DROP
aught to shields you up
|
|
|
|
07-23-2004, 12:02 PM
|
#3
|
|
Member
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Jackson, TN
Distribution: Kubuntu Feisty
Posts: 606
Original Poster
Rep:
|
can you explain what all this means?
Thanks,
-myk
|
|
|
|
07-23-2004, 12:45 PM
|
#4
|
|
Senior Member
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Beautiful BC
Distribution: RedHat & clones, Slackware, SuSE, OpenBSD
Posts: 1,791
Rep:
|
ICMP - Internet Control Message Protocol.
It handles pings (echo request and replies) and several other additional functions like letting the system know that the remote system is unreachable, etc.
This link will help you understand better.
Quote:
|
/usr/sbin/iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -j DROP
|
The above rule blocks all icmp traffic that are directed to your system. Not a big deal unless your system is doing a routing function on the net.
Last edited by ppuru; 07-23-2004 at 12:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
07-23-2004, 01:01 PM
|
#5
|
|
Member
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Jackson, TN
Distribution: Kubuntu Feisty
Posts: 606
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Thanks,
i'll forward this info to another user with the same question at PCPitstop.
one more thing, is this a permanent change, or will i need to do this each time i reboot?
-myk
|
|
|
|
07-23-2004, 01:31 PM
|
#6
|
|
Senior Member
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Beautiful BC
Distribution: RedHat & clones, Slackware, SuSE, OpenBSD
Posts: 1,791
Rep:
|
You would need to save the iptables rules so it can be called during boot time...
iptables-save??? in SuSE?
|
|
|
|
07-23-2004, 04:34 PM
|
#7
|
|
Member
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Jackson, TN
Distribution: Kubuntu Feisty
Posts: 606
Original Poster
Rep:
|
hmmm. igot the same results in my shields up test. Anything else i can try?
-myk
|
|
|
|
07-24-2004, 04:38 AM
|
#8
|
|
Member
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: ITALY
Distribution: Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora
Posts: 137
Rep:
|
Quote:
|
ing Reply: RECEIVED (FAILED) - Your system REPLIED to our Ping (ICMP Echo) requests, making it visible on the Internet. Most personal firewalls can be configured to block, drop, and ignore such ping requests in order to better hide systems from hackers. This is highly recommended since "Ping" is among the oldest and most common methods used to locate systems prior to further exploitation.
|
Yes and no. I do not agree with this description. ICMP is an important infrastructure of networking and it is often used for load balancing. Dropping ICMP, especially if you're housing a server is technically wrong. If you do your work right, a ping is only a ping.
Limiting the number of ping for avoiding DoS is ok, avoiding network discoveries in ok but not dropping all icmps...
but it's only my opinion
|
|
|
|
07-24-2004, 10:40 AM
|
#9
|
|
Senior Member
Registered: Mar 2003
Distribution: Fedora
Posts: 3,658
Rep:
|
Try inserting ( I) it at the top of the ruleset:
/usr/sbin/iptables -I INPUT -p icmp -j DROP
FWIW TheIrish is correct, in that blocking all ICMP traffic is against RFC specs and can also cause Path MTU discovery failure, which can sometimes lead to connectivity issues. So, it's rather unfortunate that GRC doesn't explain the consequences of completely blocking ICMP on their site.
|
|
|
|
07-24-2004, 11:13 AM
|
#10
|
|
Senior Member
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Beautiful BC
Distribution: RedHat & clones, Slackware, SuSE, OpenBSD
Posts: 1,791
Rep:
|
you can also
iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -p icmp -j DROP
This will simply discard any icmp traffic at the gate.
|
|
|
|
07-24-2004, 03:37 PM
|
#11
|
|
Senior Member
Registered: Mar 2003
Distribution: Fedora
Posts: 3,658
Rep:
|
I'd really avoid doing packet filtering in the PREROUTING chain. The PREROUTING chain only checks the very first packet in a stream, but none of the subsequent packets are checked. In most circumstances (including this one), it's not an issue, but it can open your firewall up completely in some circumstances and therefore it's normally recommended to avoid doing so if at all possible.
|
|
|
|
07-24-2004, 09:50 PM
|
#12
|
|
Senior Member
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: hopefully not here
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 2,038
Rep:
|
its discouraged to use chains for things they are not meant for, can cause a few problems
and yes, disabling ICMP can lead to problems, as your computer also wont get info on the state of a network if you drop all of these packets, maybe something like
iptables -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -j DROP
this allows all related traffic, like a error sent back to you by icmp, this should prevent connectivity issues, if you want to use it only from icmp just use
iptables -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED -p icmp -j ACCEPT
instead...
to block pings other then with iptables you can disable it at the kernel level: browse thru the /proc system
let me go see if i can track the folder here down here ....
got it i think
/proc/sys/net/ipv4
I'm guessing you know what to do from here...
|
|
|
|
07-25-2004, 10:52 AM
|
#13
|
|
Member
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: ITALY
Distribution: Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora
Posts: 137
Rep:
|
Quote:
|
iptables -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED -p icmp -j ACCEPT
|
maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure it would work. Aren't ICMPs stateless?
|
|
|
|
07-27-2004, 12:01 AM
|
#14
|
|
Senior Member
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: hopefully not here
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 2,038
Rep:
|
i was under the impression (from what i hear around sites) that icmp traffic generated from established connections are then related traffic... tho i might be wrong, i have no way to 100% test it out on my system
|
|
|
|
07-27-2004, 11:46 AM
|
#15
|
|
Member
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 304
Rep:
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TheIrish
maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure it would work. Aren't ICMPs stateless?
|
Yeah but like UDP, there are still fields in the packets that stateful firewalls can use to determine if it is part of a connection. Source and destination addressess, type/codes or ports, and maybe the ID #.
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:26 AM.
|
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|