Correlation theory: distributed SSH brute force attempts
"G Ramon Gomez" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.security.ids.prelude.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <622FD37285F1584386F5F83D9D233C9C03037FFC@SMF-ENTXM-001.sac.ragingwire.net> |
Hey folks, I'm currently mulling over something mentioned in this article: http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=5047 Specifically: We continue to see ssh brute force password guessing attempts. Occasionally we see large increases. We have seen the attacks switch from one host attempting lots of passwords to lots of hosts that appear to share a dictionary attempting a few password username combinations (coordinated and distributed). That was the direct result of limiting the number of times an ip could attempt to login (fail2ban, bruteforceblocker, denyhosts, sshdfilter, pam_abi, ...). So the cyberwar arm's race continues with the bad guys developing tools and methods to get around common mitigation methods. I suspect that this can be detected via a variation of a scan. Currently, we have: * Eventscan: One host playing multiple events against another host (common source, target) * Eventsweep: One host playing the same type of event against multiple hosts (common source, event type) * Eventstorm: One host playing a large amount of events (common source) All of these work well when a single host is generating all of the traffic, but based on the above we know that the bad guys are taking measures to frustrate things like this. So, a straight-forward solution to this particular issue: * Distributed Eventscan: Multiple hosts playing the same type of event against a single host (common event type, target) This works great for things like brute force attempts and DDOS (where all of the traffic looks alike), and has a low chance of showing false positives, but not as well for things like distributed vulnerability scans (which are a possibility, and representative of a class of events that we may not have seen yet). So, another possibility: * Distributed Eventstorm: Multiple events against a single host (common target) This would detect a wider range of these types of distributed events, but be *far* more prone to false positives. Ideas? - Ramon _______________________________________________ Prelude-user site list [email protected] http://lists.prelude-ids.org/mailman/listinfo/prelude-user