Linux - Software This forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum. |
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.
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.
|
 |
11-05-2004, 10:05 PM
|
#1
|
Member
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Illinois
Distribution: Fedora 11, Ubuntu 9.04
Posts: 80
Rep:
|
Apache logs - Hack attempt or not?
Fedora C2
Apache 2.0
Ok, I'm use to seeing those attempts to hit an IIS webserver in my apache logs, however, the last couple of days I have noticed these entries in the access_log:
64.114.199.1 - - [05/Nov/2004:16:42:24 -0600] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 683 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040803 Firefox/0.9.3"
64.114.199.1 - - [05/Nov/2004:16:42:25 -0600] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 683 "-" "-"
Normally, when someone hits my webpage and gets the "200", I see more entries like this [IP was removed to protect the innocent]:
[05/Nov/2004:15:39:12 -0600] "GET /icons/apache_pb2.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 2414 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"
[05/Nov/2004:15:39:12 -0600] "GET /icons/powered_by_fedora.png HTTP/1.1" 200 2243 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"
Any ideas what this person may be up to?
Jeff
|
|
|
11-05-2004, 10:34 PM
|
#2
|
Member
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Distribution: Mepis Linux 2004
Posts: 547
Rep:
|
Looks suspicious to me. Apache is pretty secure however, and I'd assume 97% of those hijack attempts are prone to fail. If, however, one does break in, depending on the exploit they will get varying degrees of access.
If apache runs under it's own account (say username httpd) in the worst case scenario someone could gain the privilages apache has. That would allow them to delete stuff such as /var/www, change the apache configuration, and other stuff. Oh, they'd have RWX permissions to any file set to 777 too.
Really not too much to worry about, no need to iptable the user, as theres millions more out there you'll encounter.
If you're really paranoid though, install apache 2, and keep everything up to date.
|
|
|
11-05-2004, 11:12 PM
|
#3
|
LQ Guru
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 8,507
Rep: 
|
I may be blind, but I see nothing at all suspicious about those lines. What exactly makes you think there is a problem?
|
|
|
11-05-2004, 11:16 PM
|
#4
|
Member
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Illinois
Distribution: Fedora 11, Ubuntu 9.04
Posts: 80
Original Poster
Rep:
|
I believe apache is running under it's own id (apache), and I'm assuming this is the default? As far as /var/www, root owns all files under that directory, and the permissions are rwx r-- r--
If this is not how it should be, can you let me know how I should have it setup?
Jeff
|
|
|
11-05-2004, 11:36 PM
|
#5
|
Member
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Illinois
Distribution: Fedora 11, Ubuntu 9.04
Posts: 80
Original Poster
Rep:
|
I find it suspicious, because my domain name isn't included in these calls. All the legitimate attempts list my domain name in the log. See below:
(questionable call)
64.114.199.1 - - [05/Nov/2004:16:42:24 -0600] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 683 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040803 Firefox/0.9.3"
64.114.199.1 - - [05/Nov/2004:16:42:25 -0600] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 683 "-" "-"
(legitimate call)
[05/Nov/2004:10:31:44 -0600] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 683 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 4.0)"
[05/Nov/2004:10:31:44 -0600] "GET /main.html HTTP/1.1" 200 1346 "http://mydomain.com/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 4.0)"
So they are bypassing my domain, and getting a "200". Just sounds fishy to me.
|
|
|
11-05-2004, 11:47 PM
|
#6
|
Senior Member
Registered: Jun 2003
Distribution: Mint 13/15, CentOS 6.4
Posts: 2,020
Rep:
|
the mydomain.com is the referrer. whoever visited your site probably just had that turned off somewhere (i think it can be done at the browser level somehow).
|
|
|
11-06-2004, 12:53 AM
|
#7
|
LQ Guru
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 8,507
Rep: 
|
This is, as far as I can tell, perfectly fine behavior unless they are, as pointed out above, redirected from a link or another page on your site.
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:31 PM.
|
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
|
|