Linux - SecurityThis 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.
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.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
i think my web server might be compromised, but i'm not sure. chkrootkit says there's a packet sniffer on eth0:
eth0: PACKET SNIFFER(/sbin/dhclient[1963])
and when i just ran it again, i also get an infected message:
Checking `bindshell'... INFECTED (PORTS: 1524)
i don't want to panic just yet because the stuff i googled said the bindshell thing can be a false positive. the bad news is i'm not running portsentry or klaxon, so maybe it's a true positive. otoh, nothing seems to be affected: no weird log activity, nothing in the .bash_history files, no bandwidth issues.
i installed snort, and now that's showing up in the eth0 result as being packet sniffed too, so i think you're right about dhclient being an FP. and strangely, chkrootkit now doesn't return the warning for bindshell. so i think that must have also been an FP, but i'll keep my eye on it. thx
Both snort and dhclient show up as packet sniffers because, I believe, they force the interface into promiscuous mode. I do believe that recent versions of dhclient have this fixed, so upgrading that might at least reduce the false positives.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.