Scott Bennett | 1 Sep 2007 05:01
Favicon

bizarre connection list to tor's DirPort

     Using netstat or lsof, there are sometimes over 50 ESTABLISHED connections
to my tor server's DirPort from a single IP source address, which resolves to

	ignfwdnoi-nat.asia.csc.com

Each such connection is usually displayed by netstat to have at least 32500
bytes in the send queue.
     I've checked the current cached-routers and cached-routers.new files and
have found no sign of either ignfwdnoi-nat.asia.csc.com or its IP address
(20.139.66.64) in either file, so it doesn't appear to be a valid exit server,
from which directory fetch requests might be appearing.
     Does anyone have an idea what might be going on?  I.e., is it something
legitimate?  Or should I treat it as an attack of some sort and respond by
blocking packets from that system at my router?

                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************

Kyle Williams | 1 Sep 2007 06:24
Picon

Re: bizarre connection list to tor's DirPort

sounds strange

If it was my connection, I would fire up a network sniffer and see what's in those requests.
If it continues and you don't feel comfortable with it, filter out that IP on your firewall.

If you do see something unusual in those request, could you be so kind to post a dump file (pcap format) of the traffic (filtered by that IP of course) so the rest of us can take a look? :)



On 8/31/07, Scott Bennett <bennett <at> cs.niu.edu> wrote:
     Using netstat or lsof, there are sometimes over 50 ESTABLISHED connections
to my tor server's DirPort from a single IP source address, which resolves to

         ignfwdnoi-nat.asia.csc.com

Each such connection is usually displayed by netstat to have at least 32500
bytes in the send queue.
     I've checked the current cached-routers and cached-routers.new files and
have found no sign of either ignfwdnoi-nat.asia.csc.com or its IP address
(20.139.66.64) in either file, so it doesn't appear to be a valid exit server,
from which directory fetch requests might be appearing.
     Does anyone have an idea what might be going on?  I.e., is it something
legitimate?  Or should I treat it as an attack of some sort and respond by
blocking packets from that system at my router?


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************

force44 | 1 Sep 2007 09:10

Warning about the TOR exit node "snailitper"

Hi!

I connect to safe-mail using secure POP (TLS on port 995), through
Tor.

I noticed today that my mail program warned me about an "unknown
certificate" on safe-mail. I checked and saw that the Tor exit node
"snailitper" (Thiensville, WI, US, IP Address: 66.191.122.19) tried to
change the certificate and send me another one.

The certificate used by snailitper was issued by a "Ciphire mail" on
Aug 4.

It seems to be a deliberate attempt to hack the connection as the
certificate shows:

Certificate S/N: B843DC85997AFD2CC6B92F5870096997A06024D230F624F4765892DF3C142DA1, algorithm:
RSA (1024 bits),
issued from 19 May 2007 to 19 May 2008, for 1 host(s): mango.Safe-mail.net.
Owner: mango.Safe-mail.net, Domain Control Validated, mango.Safe-mail.net.
Issuer: Ciphire, Ciphire, Ciphire Mail.

The "issued" and "owner" fields let no doubt that it is a deliberate
forgery.

snailitper is now in my nodes blacklist.

F44

Scott Bennett | 1 Sep 2007 09:12
Favicon

Re: bizarre connection list to tor's DirPort

     Tsk, tsk.  Another top-poster, I see. ;-)  Not only that, but he posted it
twice, once as plain, ASCII text (correct) and once as HTML (inappropriate
for a mailing list).  Nevertheless, I do appreciate the quick response.
     On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:24:43 -0700 "Kyle Williams"
<kyle.kwilliams <at> gmail.com> wrote:

>sounds strange

     Yes, indeed.
>
>If it was my connection, I would fire up a network sniffer and see what's in
>those requests.

     My guess is that they would appear to be perfectly normal requests for
directory updates/downloads coming in and the appropriate directory information
in response going out.  The individual connections appeared to be fairly
ephemeral.  My thoughts ran along the lines of a DoS attack by attempting to
tie up server bandwidth by downloading lots of the same information repeatedly.
If so, then the attempt never came close to the bandwidth capacity, but it used
enough of it to attract my attention.

>If it continues and you don't feel comfortable with it, filter out that IP
>on your firewall.

     A few minutes after I posted the query, I decided to block all packets
from that address, at least until I got some other opinions from this list.
>
>If you do see something unusual in those request, could you be so kind to
>post a dump file (pcap format) of the traffic (filtered by that IP of
>course) so the rest of us can take a look? :)
>
     Unfortunately, I can't.  Around 1 a.m. CDT, my ISP apparently swapped out
their backup server for their main PPPoE (CHAP?) server, which had been damaged
in the recent floods.  When they did that, they broke all existing TCP
connections, and I had to restart my local DSL modem/router, which resulted in
a different IP address being assigned.  Sigh.  TBC Net isn't very good about
continuity of IP address assignment, as compared to, say, Comcast, which does
occasionally assign different addresses.  They both do it after outages like
this situation, but TBC is apt to do it with any new link up session.  So I
changed the address in torrc to the new one and SIGHUPped the server, but it
will likely be 12 - 24 hours before the new address gets around widely.  The
offending site likely doesn't have it yet, and I'm thinking I should leave the
filter rule in place on the router for tonight, so I don't have to stay up all
night to watch for a recurrence.
>
>
>On 8/31/07, Scott Bennett <bennett <at> cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>      Using netstat or lsof, there are sometimes over 50 ESTABLISHED
>> connections
>> to my tor server's DirPort from a single IP source address, which resolves
>> to
>>
>>         ignfwdnoi-nat.asia.csc.com
>>
>> Each such connection is usually displayed by netstat to have at least
>> 32500
>> bytes in the send queue.
>>      I've checked the current cached-routers and cached-routers.new files
>> and
>> have found no sign of either ignfwdnoi-nat.asia.csc.com or its IP address
>> (20.139.66.64) in either file, so it doesn't appear to be a valid exit
>> server,
>> from which directory fetch requests might be appearing.
>>      Does anyone have an idea what might be going on?  I.e., is it
>> something
>> legitimate?  Or should I treat it as an attack of some sort and respond by
>> blocking packets from that system at my router?
>>
>>
>>                                   Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG

     [duplicate .signature and much HTML crap deleted  --SB]
>
     Thanks for the reply, Kyle.  Tomorrow I may remove the filter rule to
see what happens.  If the problem recurs, I can try tcpdump on that port to
see what's going on, but it's probably all according to the accepted directory
service protocol.

                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************

M | 1 Sep 2007 10:13

Re: Warning about the TOR exit node "snailitper"


> Hi!
> 
> I connect to safe-mail using secure POP (TLS on port 995), through
> Tor.
> 
> I noticed today that my mail program warned me about an "unknown
> certificate" on safe-mail. I checked and saw that the Tor exit node
> "snailitper" (Thiensville, WI, US, IP Address: 66.191.122.19) tried to
> change the certificate and send me another one.
> 
> The certificate used by snailitper was issued by a "Ciphire mail" on
> Aug 4.
> 
> It seems to be a deliberate attempt to hack the connection as the
> certificate shows:
> 
> Certificate S/N: B843DC85997AFD2CC6B92F5870096997A06024D230F624F4765892DF3C142DA1,
algorithm: RSA (1024 bits),
> issued from 19 May 2007 to 19 May 2008, for 1 host(s): mango.Safe-mail.net.
> Owner: mango.Safe-mail.net, Domain Control Validated, mango.Safe-mail.net.
> Issuer: Ciphire, Ciphire, Ciphire Mail.
> 
> The "issued" and "owner" fields let no doubt that it is a deliberate
> forgery.
> 
> snailitper is now in my nodes blacklist.
> 
> F44

I've learned not to use Tor when connecting to my netbank or doing any
transactions with credit card. Just in case.

Many times I got false certificates when connecting
https://www.nordea.fi and https://www.sampo.fi (Finnish banks). Man in
the middle attack, am I right?

Once I saw that my girlfriend approved a false certificate when logging
to her netbank, I'm glad I was there and told her to log out and
explained the situation. She was using my computer account. I have
created own account for her (of course) that does not use Tor.

Btw, IE7 has a new way of warning users for false / self-signed /
expired certificates. I think that this new way is better for end users
than the old pop-up. Many end users just click yes without reading the
question first. Maybe this new way is a little bit harsh for self-signed
certificates?

And yes, I know better than to use IE but many users still use it cause
they don't know better.

M
coderman | 1 Sep 2007 10:45
Picon

Re: Warning about the TOR exit node "snailitper"

On 9/1/07, M <maillist <at> piirakka.com> wrote:
> ...
> Many times I got false certificates when connecting
> https://www.nordea.fi and https://www.sampo.fi (Finnish banks). Man in
> the middle attack, am I right?

very probably.  (this happens from time to time, and is one of the
reasons Snakes on a Tor and other such tools/scanners exist :)

> Once I saw that my girlfriend approved a false certificate when logging
> to her netbank, I'm glad I was there and told her to log out and
> explained the situation.

oops!  usable security is still nearly non existent these days, hard
to fault her too much...

> Btw, IE7 has a new way of warning users for false / self-signed /
> expired certificates. I think that this new way is better for end users
> than the old pop-up. Many end users just click yes without reading the
> question first. Maybe this new way is a little bit harsh for self-signed
> certificates?

it's also hard on certificate revocation lists.  but i digress...

> And yes, I know better than to use IE but many users still use it cause
> they don't know better.

IE should only be used with Tor in a transparent proxy configuration
(like JanusVM).  otherwise, the integration of various non-proxied
services with browser / document handlers in win32 API leaves you
vulnerable to side channels.

this may be elaborated on further in the future...

best regards,

Mike Perry | 1 Sep 2007 15:50

Want a faster Tor? Upgrade, inform others

For those of you who are not subscribed to or-announce and/or have
friends who use Tor, the latest Tor stable should provide significant
performance/capacity increase once most clients upgrade. According to
my measurements with TorFlow, there should be roughly four times as
much capacity once the network rebalances. 

In addition, many users should experience noticable improvement in
performance just based on the fact that we are choosing guards 
in proportion to their bandwidth and expiring guards that were
selected with the buggy uniform algorithm.

Also, once the network is balanced, we can begin to investigate both
reliability scanning options and Johannes Renner can finish his
Master's Thesis on performance enhanced path selection. :)

http://archives.seul.org/or/announce/Aug-2007/msg00001.html

--

-- 
Mike Perry
Mad Computer Scientist
fscked.org evil labs
torrot | 2 Sep 2007 17:25

Service: Bacula-dir Port: 9101 ?

Is my box hacked, or is everything in order?
It looks very very weird to me, anyway, that "wsip-70-169-134-190.hr.hr.cox.net" is connecting to Bacula-dir.

Source: 10.137.186.251
Destination: wsip-70-169-134-190.hr.hr.cox.net
Port: 9101
Service: Bacula-dir
Program: tor

Installed Version
0.1.2.17-1~dapper

#ControlPort 9051 (commented/disabled)

m | 2 Sep 2007 17:34

Re: Service: Bacula-dir Port: 9101 ?

> Is my box hacked, or is everything in order?
> It looks very very weird to me, anyway, that "wsip-70-169-134-190.hr.hr.cox.net" is connecting to Bacula-dir.
> 
> Source: 10.137.186.251
> Destination: wsip-70-169-134-190.hr.hr.cox.net
> Port: 9101
> Service: Bacula-dir
> Program: tor
> 
> Installed Version
> 0.1.2.17-1~dapper
> 
> #ControlPort 9051 (commented/disabled)

Are you running anything at that port? Try "netstat -ln |grep 9101".

You could also try running "grep -R 9101 /etc/*" to see if 9101 is 
mentioned in any config under the /etc.

M

torrot | 2 Sep 2007 17:46

Re: Service: Bacula-dir Port: 9101 ?

"Are you running anything at that port? Try "netstat -ln |grep 9101".

You could also try running "grep -R 9101 /etc/*" to see if 9101 is mentioned in any config under the /etc.

M"

I blocked the port at the time and did'nt think about netstat, but it was an active connection.

torrot


Gmane