Thanks,I'll look into mod_security.I use CentOS 7.x also CSF/LFD installed.Till now they did not get into the server.On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Anthony Biacco <abiacco@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Spork Schivago <sporkschivago@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Are you sure they haven't successfully found away in? There are some free programs that I use to help prevent this stuff. ConfigServer Firewall / LFD is a good one. Rkhunter and chkrootkit scan for rootkits. The big one that helps the most, I feel, is Mod Security. That's the one that monitors the traffic looking for known scanning software, exploits, etc and blocks it. I run in a *nix environment and don't have a lot of experience with Windows servers though. Not sure what you're running. I'm always really paranoid and would definitely be worried about by system being compromised if I saw traffic like you're seeing though. But again, I'm not really that intelligent when it comes to stuff like this.
KenI was going to suggest mod_security as well. I'm not running it, but it's on my TODO list. I have to determine the performance implications, if any.-TonyOn Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Spork Schivago <sporkschivago@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Thanks Tony! Much appreciated.
Erik,
Did I ever try to run what on my server? The string query that Berkeley sends looking for the malware to respond? If so, no, I have never tried to send that carefully crafted packet to my Apache server. From the previous user who had what appears to be the same issue as Mitchell though, I would imagine it'd probably just deliver my default web page (index.html). That's my guess though.
If anyone cares, I can copy the other e-mails they sent to me that explain how it all works and why the full string isn't in the Apache logs (I think that has something to do with the way Apache responds to the string).
They're not actually trying to exploit the server, they're just trying to find servers that have been infected. If the malware sees a special string, it responds with a special string. At that point in time, the college contacts the local law enforcement for that area to inform them and hope that they contact the owner of the server to inform them that they're infected. Not the best way I guess to inform people, but better than nothing I guess.
Here, in my city, I doubt the local law enforcement would ever contact me with anything computer related. I contacted them before because of a crime that happened in my house but because the internet and a computer was involved, they said they couldn't help and my best bet would be trying to contact the FBI or some other government organization. I doubt anyone at my police station really knows much about PCs. There doesn't seem to be a cyber crimes division or anything like that.On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Anthony Biacco <abiacco@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Spork Schivago <sporkschivago@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There's away to do a reverse IP lookup on the IP address and see if there's a DNS entry for it. That's how I was able to successfully figure out who the senders were (Berkeley) originally. I used dig I believe. I don't have access to my Linux box right now, otherwise I'd check to see if the IP addresses are actually from Berkeley. There's always a chance that they're using more than one server / IP now to conduct the scanning. I believe they were originally trying to scan the whole internet.based on the IP of 169.229.3.91 given by Mitchell:University of California - Office of the President UCSD-NET-169-228 (NET-169-229-0-0-1) 169.229.0.0 - 169.233.255.255University of California at Berkeley ISTDATA (NET-169-229-0-0-2) 169.229.0.0 - 169.229.255.255-TonyThey had said it's a very specific type of malware that only affects IIS to their knowledge. If you're not running a Windows server running IIS, you should be good to go.On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Rainer Canavan <rainer.canavan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Joe Muller <jmuller@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From the looks of it I would say it is targeting servers running SSL. Are
> you serving up HTTP or HTTPS ?
I don't think that that is valid SSL, unless your httpd discards the
first few bytes.
There was a SANS handler diary entry just yesterday about this:
https://isc.sans.edu/forums/diary/SSL+Requests+to+nonSSL+HTT P+Servers/21551/
if I try `openssl s_client -connect localhost:14020`, I get the below
entry in my access.log,
which matches the description in the diary:
127.0.0.1 localhost:14020 - - [06/Oct/2016:14:24:53 +0200] -
"\x16\x03\x01\x01,\x01" 400 226 "-" "-"
this, however, is something completely different. I'd also guess it's some kind
of vulnerability scan:
> IP
> 0.0.0.0 - - [02/Oct/2016:11:29:08 +0300]
> "n\x1d\xb6\x18\x9ad\xec[\x1d\b\xe6k\xbb\xe5L" 200 48605 Rainer
> 0.0.0.0 - - [02/Oct/2016:16:04:20 +0300]
> "\x95\xa3\xb1\xce\xc8\xeb:\x86\x87\xb4\x03g\xfa~\x9f{\x07\xd a\xef6O\xa1~\x91[\xf2\x05E\xac \xad\x8d\x9d\xbe\xf5\xfc\xc5\" \xed\xa3u"
> 200 48605
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|