OSTG|SourceForge -ThinkGeek -IT Manager's Journal -Linux.com -NewsForge -freshmeat -Newsletters -TechJobs -SlashdotBroadbandX
Welcome to Slashdot
Login
Why Login?
Why Subscribe?

Sections
Main
Apache
Apple
1 more
AskSlashdot
5 more
Books
BSD
1 more
Developers
2 more
Games
1 more
Interviews
IT
3 more
Linux
2 more
Science
5 more
YRO
Help
FAQ
Bugs

Stories
Old Stories
Old Polls
Topics
Hall of Fame
Submit Story

About
Supporters
Code
Awards

Services
Broadband
Online Books
PriceGrabber
Product News
Tech Jobs
IT Research

The Dark Side Of DefCon's Wireless Network
Wireless Networking
It's funny.  Laugh.
Security
Index
IT
Posted by michael on Sat Aug 07, '04 03:01 AM
from the the-goggles,-they-do-nothing dept.
An anonymous reader writes "While there's been a few postings on events happening at DefCon 12, one event seems to have been overlooked. A new wireless packet injection tool was quietly released (unleashed?) during DefCon: AirPwn. Here's a write-up of the tool as deployed by its author and crew at DefCon 12."

Click Here

Slashdot Log In
Nickname:

Password:

Public Terminal

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
AirPwn
as deployed by its author and crew at DefCon 12
More stories
Also by michael
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Dark Side Of DefCon's Wireless Network | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 185 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
awesome . . . (Score:5, Informative)
by randyest (589159) <randyest&gmail,com> on Saturday August 07, @03:03AM (#9907262)
(http://randyrandy.net/)
. . . but you need two wifi cards one on machine to use it.

Ethereal dump? (Score:5, Interesting)
by scubacuda (411898) <scubacuda@i n a m e.com> on Saturday August 07, @03:09AM (#9907278)
(http://www.greplaw.org/)
Anyone have an ethereal dump of what all of this looks like?

    Re:Ethereal dump? (Score:5, Interesting)
    by thinkfat (789883) on Saturday August 07, @03:56AM (#9907428)
    figure you'd see a regular HTTP response packet that fits your TCP sequence numbers quite nicely, and a RST afterwards because the numbers got messed up as the faked response didn't have the same length as the real server response. Perhaps they hold down the server by injecting RST packets, too, like juggernauts TCP stream capturing mode did...
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Ethereal dump? by ConsumedByTV (Score:2) Saturday August 07, @03:05PM
      Early ./? (Score:2, Funny)
      by Chibo (762245) on Saturday August 07, @03:10AM (#9907285)
      At Defcon 12 this year my cow-orkers and I brought along a little piece of code called "airpwn." Airpwn is a platform for injection of application layer data on an 802.11b network. Although the potential for evil is very high with this tool, we decided to demonstrate it (and give it its first real field trial) on something nasty, but harmless (compared to say, wiping your hard-drive) Over the course of defcon, we fielded 7 different airpwn configurations to see how well it worked, and of course to watch as 31337 h4x0rz got goatse up in their mug. The configurations were: * HTTP goatse, 100% of the screen * HTTP goatse replacing all images * HTTP goatse as the page background via CSS * HTTP tubgirl replacing all images * HTTP "owned" graphic, replacing all images (eventually I felt bad about all the ass pictures) * HTTP javascript alert boxes, letting people know just how pwned they were * FTP banners (while this worked, nobody pays attention to FTP banners so we abandoned this quickly) How does it work? airpwn requires two 802.11b interfaces, one for listening, and another for injecting. It uses a config file with multiple config sections to respond to specific data packets with arbitrary content. For example, in the HTML goatse example, we look for any TCP data packets starting with "GET" or "POST" and respond with a valid server response including a reference to the canonical goatse image. Here's the configuration file used for this mode: begin goatse_html match ^(GET|POST) ignore ^GET [^ ?]+\.(jpg|jpeg|gif|png|tif|tiff) response content/goatse_html and here is the content that we return when the match is triggered: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Connection: close Content-Type: text/html pwnedOPEN YOUR MIND -- TO THE ANUS!! Each of the 7 modes mentioned previously varied in the configuration and content returned. In each case the poor user of the web browser was left feeling disgusted, afraid and/or confused. While I was busy operating airpwn at the laptop, my accomplices wandered the show-floor taking pictures and the occasional video of our victims. Links to our victims are at the top of the page. In all honesty, the reaction to airpwn wasn't exactly what I had expected. When I was writing the code, I imagined that the second I turned airpwn on we'd hear immediate groans of disgust radiating out at the speed of light. In practice, airpwn's effect was simultaneously more private, and more full of personal drama. First off, the full-screen goatse seemed to be too powerful. The second it flashed on the screen, the savvy user would have the browser closed already. This made it incredibly difficult to actually catch the victims on film. Based on the logs generated by airpwn we would be hitting multiple people per second, but finding someone with goatse up on their screen was still a bit of a challenege.. Once we did find a victim, the results were pretty hillarious.. I had tears rolling down my cheeks on multiple occasions. The typical goatse reaction went something like this: * Open browser, see goatse, jump backwards a little * quickly close browser, take a breath * open browser, see goatse, close browser (faster this time) * scratch head, quit browser process, re-launch browser * see page indicating that goatse will load soon (page header, etc.) immediately close browser. * open up browser preferences, click all the tabs, look for the "no goatse" checkbox * clear the browser cache * open browser, see goatse, close browser * open network preferences, click on all the tabs, look for the "no goatse" checkbox. * disconnect from network, re-associate * open browser, see goatse, close browser At this point, the less l33t people would generally give up and either 1) do something else or 2) look deep into goatse's anus with a 10-yard stare.. The more l33t victims would launch ethereal and try to figure out what was going on.. Eventually they would mumble something about "rogue APs" (WRONG!) or ARP poisoning (WRONG!) or D

      Read the rest of this comment...

      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      wireless protection (Score:5, Funny)
      by scubacuda (411898) <scubacuda@i n a m e.com> on Saturday August 07, @03:13AM (#9907295)
      (http://www.greplaw.org/)
      You gotta love the condom over the little antenna [evilscheme.org].

      i was owned (Score:4, Interesting)
      by daevux (626542) on Saturday August 07, @03:15AM (#9907299)
      I was a victim of this at defcon, but since I was using lynx, I really didn't see any of the images mentioned. Actually, most of the surfing I did at defcon was using links or w3m over ssh (on a home box).
      Server dead, here's the text: (Score:4, Informative)
      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 07, @03:16AM (#9907303)
      airpwn - bringing goatse (and friends) to Defcon 12!

      Images from Dave's camera
      Movies from Dave's camera
      Images from my phone
      At Defcon 12 this year my cow-orkers and I brought along a little piece of code called "airpwn." Airpwn is a platform for injection of application layer data on an 802.11b network. Although the potential for evil is very high with this tool, we decided to demonstrate it (and give it its first real field trial) on something nasty, but harmless (compared to say, wiping your hard-drive)

      Over the course of defcon, we fielded 7 different airpwn configurations to see how well it worked, and of course to watch as 31337 h4x0rz got goatse up in their mug. The configurations were:

      HTTP goatse, 100% of the screen
      HTTP goatse replacing all images
      HTTP goatse as the page background via CSS
      HTTP tubgirl replacing all images
      HTTP "owned" graphic, replacing all images (eventually I felt bad about all the ass pictures)
      HTTP javascript alert boxes, letting people know just how pwned they were
      FTP banners (while this worked, nobody pays attention to FTP banners so we abandoned this quickly)

      How does it work?

      airpwn requires two 802.11b interfaces, one for listening, and another for injecting. It uses a config file with multiple config sections to respond to specific data packets with arbitrary content. For example, in the HTML goatse example, we look for any TCP data packets starting with "GET" or "POST" and respond with a valid server response including a reference to the canonical goatse image. Here's the configuration file used for this mode:

      begin goatse_html
      match ^(GET|POST)
      ignore ^GET [^ ?]+\.(jpg|jpeg|gif|png|tif|tiff)
      response content/goatse_html

      and here is the content that we return when the match is triggered:
      HTTP/1.1 200 OK
      Connection: close
      Content-Type: text/html

      pwnedOPEN YOUR MIND -- TO
      THE ANUS!!

      Each of the 7 modes mentioned previously varied in the configuration and content returned. In each case the poor user of the web browser was left feeling disgusted, afraid and/or confused. While I was busy operating airpwn at the laptop, my accomplices wandered the show-floor taking pictures and the occasional video of our victims. Links to our victims are at the top of the page.
      In all honesty, the reaction to airpwn wasn't exactly what I had expected. When I was writing the code, I imagined that the second I turned airpwn on we'd hear immediate groans of disgust radiating out at the speed of light. In practice, airpwn's effect was simultaneously more private, and more full of personal drama. First off, the full-screen goatse seemed to be too powerful . The second it flashed on the screen, the savvy user would have the browser closed already. This made it incredibly difficult to actually catch the victims on film. Based on the logs generated by airpwn we would be hitting multiple people per second, but finding someone with goatse up on their screen was still a bit of a challenege.. Once we did find a victim, the results were pretty hillarious.. I had tears rolling down my cheeks on multiple occasions. The typical goatse reaction went something like this:

      Open browser, see goatse, jump backwards a little
      quickly close browser, take a breath
      open browser, see goatse, close browser (faster this time)
      scratch head, quit browser process, re-launch browser
      see page indicating that goatse will load soon (page header, etc.) immediately close browser.
      open up browser preferences, click all the tabs, look for the "no goatse" checkbox
      clear the browser cache
      open browser, see goatse, close browser
      open network preferences, click on all the tabs, look for the "no goatse" checkbox.
      disconnect from network, re-assoc

      Read the rest of this comment...

      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      Hardly bad (Score:5, Insightful)
      by shfted! (600189) <shiftedMPAA@RIAAshifted.ca minus evil> on Saturday August 07, @03:17AM (#9907305)
      (Last Journal: Thursday March 11, @01:40AM)
      It's a hacker conference. There is probably no more tolerant place to release such a piece of code, where your talents will be respected instead of persecuted. There were also no doubt many members of the computer security community present who would want to be aware of any new vulnerabilities immediately. I think it's a great thing it was tried and released at DefCon first.
      • Re:Hardly bad by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday August 07, @06:58AM
        • Re:Hardly bad by ConsumedByTV (Score:2) Saturday August 07, @07:05AM
          • Re:Hardly bad by lachlan76 (Score:2) Monday August 09, @08:30AM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          flipping the bird (Score:3, Funny)
          by scubacuda (411898) <scubacuda@i n a m e.com> on Saturday August 07, @03:20AM (#9907316)
          (http://www.greplaw.org/)
          What kind of middle finger [evilscheme.org] is that?

          why.. (Score:4, Insightful)
          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 07, @03:22AM (#9907323)
          Do people still do this? Packet injections of various and sundry sorts are old news.

          There's a worrisome pattern, in the IT security biz, of repetition. Hacks discovered a few years ago re-appear in new clothes as "new," technologies for protecting against them resurface every few years in the same way. Computing as a whole tends to re-invent things on something like a 15 year cycle, but security seems to be on a truly frenetic clock, cycling every 2 years or so (very very approximately ;)

          Is there some connection between this and that vulnerabilties re-surface in new clothes constantly as well?
            Re:why.. (Score:5, Funny)
            by thinkfat (789883) on Saturday August 07, @03:45AM (#9907402)
            Is there some connection between this and that vulnerabilties re-surface in new clothes constantly as well?

            Yes. Human Stupidity

            [ Parent ]
            • Headless chickens by AndroidCat (Score:2) Saturday August 07, @10:21AM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
              Fuck. (Score:5, Funny)
              by sekzscripting (687192) on Saturday August 07, @03:22AM (#9907326)
              (http://www.sekz.org/)
              Well, it looks like all you hax0rz got them back by slashdotting their site.

              Mirror mirror on the wall?
                Starbucks! (Score:5, Funny)
                by eingram (633624) on Saturday August 07, @03:24AM (#9907334)
                (http://ibook.strangecharm.net/)
                Someone get to a local Starbucks with this, fast! Oh, and bring your camera!
                • Re:Starbucks! by jrockway (Score:3) Saturday August 07, @04:06AM
                  • Re:Starbucks! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday August 07, @06:19AM
                    • Re:Starbucks! by Master of Transhuman (Score:2) Saturday August 07, @05:17PM
                      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
                    • Re:Starbucks! by lachlan76 (Score:2) Saturday August 07, @07:15AM
                      • Re:Starbucks! by jrockway (Score:2) Saturday August 07, @07:51AM
                        • Re:Starbucks! by lachlan76 (Score:2) Saturday August 07, @08:02AM
                          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
                      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
                  • Goatse! by randyest (Score:1) Saturday August 07, @04:08AM
                    Working on a mirror of the video/images (Score:3, Informative)
                    by Moonwick (6444) on Saturday August 07, @03:24AM (#9907336)
                    (http://www.lasthome.net/~moonwick/)
                    Go easy on it.

                    http://leela.lasthome.net/airpwn/
                    Multiple Wifi Cards!?? (Score:1)
                    by Piranhaa (672441) on Saturday August 07, @03:25AM (#9907338)
                    (http://www.piranhaa.net/)
                    Ohhh how I wish I had an x86 laptop instead of my iBook!! :(
                    There could be uses (Score:5, Interesting)
                    by Rob_Warwick (789939) <{moc.rettirfelppa} {ta} {kciwraw}> on Saturday August 07, @03:25AM (#9907339)
                    This could actually be a fairly annoying tool in the hands of advertisers. It also has some pretty good uses I can think of.

                    Three scenarios to point this out.

                    You're at Joes Internet Cafe, munching on your slightly overpriced muffin and glad for the free Wi-Fi access since you're out of town, and don't get to check your email much on the road. You hit the link to a message you want to read on webmail, when all of a sudden, an ad comes up. Nothing too bad, but it seems that Joe has decided that instead of charging people directly for 'net access, he'll rig up an old desktop with wireless to transmit the ad source for every 100th HTTP request that comes through his system.

                    This is a potentially annoying way of using the technology, but it also sounds like it could be a good way for Joe to help recoup his costs on the internet. Not a place I'd mind going.

                    Scenario Two

                    You're at Joes Internet Cafe, munching on your slightly overpriced bagel, glad for the...well, you know. This time the 'net access isn't free, but Joe's giving it out for $1 an hour, more than reasonable. 58 minutes in, you make an HTTP request, and a small javascript window pops up informing you that you've just got a couple minutes left, more time can be bought at the counter. After 60 minutes, instead of locking you out, all your requests simply get a screen advising you that if you want to keep going, Joe's going to need a dollar at the counter.

                    Seems useful to me.

                    Scenario Three

                    You're in Joes Internet Cafe, sipping some slightly overpriced coffee and you try to get online. After you've payed your dollar to the friendly man at the counter.

                    You keep gettings ads. You click out, thinking that it's a popup window, and no, you really don't need to enlarge that, it's fine how it is.

                    All browser windows closed. You try again.

                    No, I don't really need those drugs...

                    Or those pieces of software

                    Or...

                    You get the idea. Turns out, that guy in the corner is making some quick cash by spamming everyone in the place. The only sites that are coming through are from those ads. He leaves after about 15 minutes, because it can't be long until someone figures it out, but you've just lost 15 minutes of your time.

                    I realize it's an extreme example, but you think someone won't try it?

                    Joe, if you're out there, we need to talk. I've got some ideas for you.

                      Re:There could be uses (Score:5, Interesting)
                      by SKorvus (685199) on Saturday August 07, @03:42AM (#9907391)
                      (http://www.korvus.com/)
                      If you're at Joe's cafe, there's there's no need for Joe to use AirPwn. He already pwns the net connection you're connecting through (wirelessly). He can intercept & replace any packet he wants to anyway.

                      The point of AirPwn is intercepting wifi traffic on someone else's network; the uses of which are overwhelmingly malicious than benign, to my thinking. Exactly like Scenario 3. Or worse, detecting passwords, requests for secure connections to eBay, banks, etc.

                      My question to the crowd is, how effective would existing wireless encryption standards be at disabling AirPwn?

                      [ Parent ]
                      • Re:There could be uses by Rob_Warwick (Score:1) Saturday August 07, @03:50AM
                        • Re:There could be uses (Score:4, Informative)
                          by Homology (639438) on Saturday August 07, @03:53AM (#9907421)
                          My question to the crowd is, how effective would existing wireless encryption standards be at disabling AirPwn?

                          Use IPSec instead of WEP for the wireless network, and AirPwn would not amount to much more than DoS. OpenBSD has IPSec in the base install, and is fairly easy to setup.

                          ssh with protocoll 2 is also safe. If you connect to someone impersonating the ssh server, and you try to connect, ssh will give a warning that the keys on the ssh server has changed.

                          [ Parent ]
                          It could be worse... (Score:4, Insightful)
                          by Photo_Nut (676334) on Saturday August 07, @07:49AM (#9907877)
                          You're at Joe's internet cafe, or in an airport, etc. Suddenly, your internet explorer gets a web page redirect to some random porno movie of 3 guys raping a rather unattractive asian girl, complete with audio... in full screen mode. Since your laptop's audio is on, everyone in the area, including your girlfriend hear, "No don't put it in my pussy. [scream]"... And you're joe blow who doesn't know how to use the keyboard to close the window to save your life.

                          Yes, it could happen, particularly, if the geek in the corner is sniffing your WiFi traffic, and singles you out.

                          More serious would be something which noted when you wanted a secure site, such as a bank, and proxied to a full-screen web page image complete with security icons that tricked the user into sending you their password in the clear.

                          There are malicious 14 year olds with laptops out there that would find this awfully amusing.
                          [ Parent ]
                        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
                      • Joe doesn't need AirPwn by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday August 07, @03:51AM
                        • Re:There could be uses by Geoffreyerffoeg (Score:2) Saturday August 07, @03:06PM
                          • Re:There could be uses by aftk2 (Score:2) Saturday August 07, @03:23PM
                            • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
                            response of a victim (Score:5, Informative)
                            by menscher (597856) <menscher+slashdot@uiuc . e du> on Saturday August 07, @03:27AM (#9907344)
                            (http://www.uiuc.edu/~menscher/ | Last Journal: Wednesday February 25, @11:31PM)
                            Ok, so I got hit by this, when attempting to check slashdot during one of the talks. First reaction was to hit the Back button as fast as I could, to get the image off my screen.

                            Once the shock wore off, I pointed out the issue to my friends sitting next to me. They spent some time analyzing ethereal output, while I downloaded and ran arpwatch. It's pretty sad to hear that some kiddies were checking browser settings....

                            The article claims there was no arp poisoning going on, but actually there was. I saw plenty of that. Which kinda confused us, since there doesn't seem to be much need for that in a wireless environment. You can sniff w/o arping, and you can inject traffic (as they were). But yes, it was definitely happening, though apparently by a different group. (Actually, I detected three different MAC addresses competing for the AP's IP.)

                            In hindsight I should have saved some of my packet captures. Might have been fun to look over later.

                            Moral of the story is.... (Score:1, Insightful)
                            by screwedcork (801471) on Saturday August 07, @03:27AM (#9907345)
                            don't use wi-fi for anything that might be even close to important :D
                              Suprised? Not really. (Score:2, Insightful)
                              by westyvw (653833) on Saturday August 07, @03:29AM (#9907349)
                              Wireless was pushed along by a need to get it out. READ COMPANY PROFITS. I have attended lectures where this is described on and on. Little to no attention was paid to security. WEP? Yeah good luck. It is fairly easy to exploit any wireless connection. It just wasnt done right.
                              But this is the best part. Become the middle man.
                              ahh, how clever (Score:1, Interesting)
                              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 07, @03:33AM (#9907363)
                              reminds me of when I was a kid and I'd fuck with people using an incredibly overpowered and possibly illegal FM transmitter

                              But I'm a little surprised that this is "new", I thought stuff like this would've been written already a long time ago.
                              Bad News... (Score:2, Interesting)
                              by Piranhaa (672441) on Saturday August 07, @03:41AM (#9907387)
                              (http://www.piranhaa.net/)
                              I wonder what this will be for people at home browsing the internet on their wireless computers. There's nothing parents can do to stop their children from seeing images that are being injected like this with Frank next door beaming modified HTTP requests through the neighbourhood. The only way to do that would be a) Disabling *ALL* images displayed on their web browser b) Running wires through the house. I'll be this will be another push for WEP and other forms of wireless encryptions. I wouldn't want my 4 year old nephew opening up internet explorer to find a Playboy bunny sitting on the top of their MSN.ca startup page! Anyways... back to sleep...
                                Re:Bad News... (Score:5, Interesting)
                                by Homology (639438) on Saturday August 07, @04:12AM (#9907461)
                                You can setup IPSec for your wireless network. Or if that becomes to troublesome to setup, you can use OpenVPN [sourceforge.net] that is easy to configure and has a client for Windows as well.

                                After reading a few posts on this thread, I find it peculiar that so many slashdotters don't know that IPSec or related vpn products can be used to secure wireless.

                                [ Parent ]
                                • Re:Bad News... by asdfghjklqwertyuiop (Score:2) Saturday August 07, @11:08AM
                                  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
                                • Re:Bad News... by Dracoirs (Score:1) Saturday August 07, @04:15AM
                                  A few questions (Score:4, Interesting)
                                  by mcrbids (148650) on Saturday August 07, @03:48AM (#9907408)
                                  (http://www.charterworks.net/)
                                  1) does SSL prevent this attack from working?

                                  2) What about the data stream that ocmes thru the wire legimately?

                                  3) What effect does WEP encryption have on the new "sploit"?

                                  4) What about SSL? Do HTTPS websites remain at all vulnerable to this attack? Nearest I can tell, the answer is "no".

                                  So, what we have herei is a lame way to spoof packets for unsecuredd onnections. So.... secure your IP already!

                                  • Re:A few questions by Piranhaa (Score:1) Saturday August 07, @03:54AM
                                    • Re:A few questions by thinkfat (Score:2) Saturday August 07, @04:02AM
                                      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
                                    • Re:A few questions by westyvw (Score:3) Saturday August 07, @04:10AM
                                    • Re:A few questions by Vellmont (Score:3) Saturday August 07, @04:12AM
                                    • Re:A few questions by TheLink (Score:2) Saturday August 07, @04:58AM
                                    • Re:A few questions (Score:5, Informative)
                                      by JSmooth (325583) on Saturday August 07, @07:03AM (#9907782)
                                      To Actually answer your questions.

                                      1. SSL would effectively block this attack IF the user pays attention to invalid certs. Your browser contains certain CAs it trusts and, unless they had control of your PC which is certainly possible but was not done in this case, the CA they would use would be invalid and generate that pop-up box telling you so. If you ignore that box and click yes you do so at your own peril.

                                      2. What about it? Once the data is on wifi than it is fair game for any type of manipulation. That is why they have 2 nics. The first nic "hears" your request for content "GET" and then responded much more quickly than the remote web server can with the corrupted "POST". When the correct information finally gets to your PC it is simply ignored as invalid TCP traffic and a RST packet is generated.

                                      3. WEP would have stopped it in this instant. WEP is breakable but requires a good amount of data to be sent over the wire. Since your average user is not going to send GBs of data over HTTP and the processing power needed to break 100s of connection would be more than a couple of laptops could handle this attack would have been alot less fun. Still possible but would need to be much more dedicated. I run WEP at home, I know it will not stop the determined hacker but the casual war-drive will ignore me in favor of my many neighbors with open APs.

                                      4. You are correct AS LONG AS you pay attention to the cert's trail. SSL really is two seperate pieces in my mind. 1 - encryption - End - To - End data encryption and 2 - Trust - I know the data I am receiving comes from the correct website. This is done with certificates. Since there is no God of the internet and we have to trust someone initially companies like verisign, etc have working with Microsoft, Mozilla, etc to get their root certs pre-installed in your browser. Anybody can generate a certificate but only companies that have passed the "Idenitifcation Test" with Verisgin or whoever can issue certs that will have the proper path back to a valid root cert. Please note Verisign has been duped before and even given out valid MS certs to non-microsoft organizations.

                                      You may think it is lame but it is actually a harmless example of things to come. Why is wardriving so popular? Because 90% of the APs do NOT use WEP. If everyone used WEP that would stop casual attacks. Consider two fences. One a 3-ft high fence. This fence is only going to stop people who don't want to go in. The 2nd fence is 10' high with barbed wire. This can still be overcome but will require some dedication. That is the difference between open and WEP. The problem is nobody uses WEP so this attack will work most of the time with ease.

                                      Regards
                                      [ Parent ]
                                    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
                                    Is the use of AirPwn anonymous? (Score:1)
                                    by phantasma6 (799340) on Saturday August 07, @05:02AM (#9907535)
                                    say, um... somebody, was to use AirPwn, would it be possible to track down who is using it?

                                    let's just say I go to a school which has wireless internet access : D
                                    I wrote the man page for airpwn (Score:5, Interesting)
                                    by ConsumedByTV (243497) on Saturday August 07, @06:55AM (#9907769)
                                    (http://www.lostinthenoise.net/)
                                    Hi.

                                    I wrote the manual page for airpwn.

                                    All I see in this discussion is either people joking, bitching or having no idea how airpwn works.

                                    Let's just set things straight.
                                    First of all, there is no arp posioning.
                                    Do you disagree? Well it's a GPL app, go read the source, show me the arp posion part of the code. What's that you can't find it? Oh, well jesus, it's because it doesn't do that.

                                    You can hijack any tcp connection with this, it cannot be blocked without blocking the legit traffic.

                                    This is accomplished by using raw frame injection.
                                    One network card listens on a given channel (or in the case of a cisco card, all channels) and the other card simply injects custom frames with perfect replies. If your reply (it's up to you how big it is) is the right size, it's injected so perfectly that the connection not only still works, all of your webpage stuff still works, images just load as whatever the attacker wants.

                                    It works with ftp, http, aim or whatever.
                                    You can just have a ball.

                                    It would be entirely possible to write regex that replied over aim or icq or any of that crap with a raw frame telling the other people in the conversation that they were coming out, it's up to you.

                                    The software uses a very customizable framework to allow for use of regular expressions for matching. It's really useful for things other than goatse, but at defcon, they deserve the best.

                                    Anyway, the totally clueless people here that claim to know how it works haven't even compiled it, so don't listen to them.

                                    If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
                                    I'm new to wireless (Score:3, Interesting)
                                    by Anonymous Writer (746272) on Saturday August 07, @07:27AM (#9907833)

                                    I just got an Airport Express recently and during the setup process it gave me the option of using WEP or WPA, which it said was more secure, so I chose the latter. Why hasn't anyone mentioned WPA in this discussion? I don't really know anything about it other than it is supposed to be a more secure alternative to WEP, yet I've never heard anyone mention it even from the store I bought the Airport Express from.

                                    Also, is there IPSEC for OS X? It's not mentioned anywhere in the Airport Admin Utility. Is it built-in? I Googled [google.com] for it, and some of the first few links mention vulnerabilities in Mac OS X IPSEC. What's this all about?

                                    SSH port forward is your friend (Score:4, Interesting)
                                    by freelunch (258011) on Saturday August 07, @10:12AM (#9908286)
                                    When using WIFI, I generally always use an SSH port forward to encrypt and tunnel my traffic back to a 'safe' host.

                                    At home, my AP is connected to a dedicated interface that only allows SSH. You could add port knocking for additional security.

                                    Sure, SSH port forwards can still be disrupted or messed with. But not like plain HTTP.

                                    BTW, nice hack!

                                      the continued deterioration of the net. film at 11 (Score:2)
                                      by millia (35740) on Saturday August 07, @12:07PM (#9908713)
                                      (http://slashdot.org/)
                                      *while i do admire the desire to prove the inadequacies of wireless...
                                      *while i do recognize that this is a hacker's conference...
                                      *while i do realize that it's a good thing to do this, to prove that we should use encryption...

                                      it's just sad. i'm old enough to remember open mail relays, not being abused, so maybe i'm just tired of the continual need to upgrade, secure, and encrypt.

                                      wireless is cool, no two words about it. i'm sitting on my front porch, enjoying the cool air, waving to the neighbors who are out walking.

                                      i don't use encryption on the wireless, simply because i'm not worried about somebody sniffing these unsecured packets (since i use ssh sessions for things that matter.) and because my old plaster walls don't let it go far.

                                      but the main reason i didn't use it was because dammit, i am tired of being suspicious of everybody and everything. use secure channels, sure, but why should we have to encrypt the transport itself? i don't know why i thought wireless was going to be different than anything else.

                                      (i'm also kinda embarrassed that i didn't think of this first. it's TERRIBLY obvious in hindsight. do also note, i'm not blaming the messengers in any way- good on you, dudes.)

                                      end-result: time to start educating people about why it's necessary now to really worry about encrypting the transport, rather than just the communication. and one more thing that makes the net a less cool place, because some idiot out there will use it for bad purposes.
                                        Mirror in case anyone cares. (Score:2)
                                        by EvilStein (414640) <{jnichols} {at} {pbp.net}> on Saturday August 07, @12:15PM (#9908751)
                                        (http://www.pbp.net/)
                                        Earlier evilscheme.org wouldn't load. Now it comes up just fine. Go figure.

                                        Here's a mirror [pbp.net] in case it goes *splat* again.

                                        Have fun!
                                          Subject (Score:2)
                                          by man_ls (248470) <jkoebel@be l l south.net> on Saturday August 07, @12:57PM (#9908956)
                                          (http://www.jkoebel.net/)
                                          While we're on the subject of wireless attacks and such,

                                          does anyone know of a WEPcracker dealy that will run on Windows XP or Cygwin?

                                          I don't have a laptop running *nix, unfortunately, I could always boot to Phlack for this sort of thing but that's not quite what I want to do.

                                          Help appreciated.
                                          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
                                          FTP banners (Score:1)
                                          by torpor (458) <jayv@WELTYsynth.net minus author> on Sunday August 08, @05:45AM (#9912454)
                                          (http://virus.info/ | Last Journal: Saturday March 29, @02:33PM)

                                          The configurations were: ...
                                          FTP banners (while this worked, nobody pays attention to FTP banners so we abandoned this quickly)


                                          don't agree! you leave those there for the real 'leet'rs, the ones who do read ftp banners. bum score!
                                            Re:I don't get it. (Score:1)
                                            by SlasherX (104566) on Saturday August 07, @05:10AM (#9907549)
                                            >>Unless he's hosting a 150 MB mpeg, why would it be slashdotted... NOW?

                                            I was on the site much earlier today looking at con pics and he has 4(?) videos.

                                            >OMFG
                                            >WTF?

                                            For those you get no accMORONess tonight.. You can see the 15MORON0MB mpeMORONg in 2 days.. go to beMORONd.
                                            [ Parent ]
                                              Re:I don't get it. (Score:2)
                                              by really? (199452) on Saturday August 07, @07:41AM (#9907854)
                                              (http://www.ebij.com/)
                                              No it's not. It's 8:38 Saturday evening. Someday you too will discover the joy of NTP. ;-)

                                              (Oh yeah, I am in Tokyo, and you are in ...???)
                                              [ Parent ]
                                                Re:Master Card moments ? (Score:1)
                                                by Revek (133289) on Saturday August 07, @11:47AM (#9908650)
                                                'The picture with the CSS is farking priceless. Although they could have chosen a nicer picture lick a chic sucking of horse or something like that'
                                                Only goatse makes this a better picture.
                                                [ Parent ]
                                                  Re:WiFi at Defcon? (Score:1)
                                                  by Revek (133289) on Saturday August 07, @12:11PM (#9908729)
                                                  Yes but so is clearing your cache to try to fix a obvious hack. I have never attended any convention thinking that I would just be a fifth wheel. Having seen this though I am inclined to believe I would be far from the worse. I am curious if this would work if you had your browser pointed to a proxy such as squid? Also couldn't you look at a packet dump of this to find the mac address the anus in question is coming from?
                                                  [ Parent ]
                                                • 20 replies beneath your current threshold.
                                                • HAIR TONICS, please!!
                                                   All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest 1997-2004 OSTG.
                                                  [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSTG | advertise | about | terms of service | privacy | faq | rss ]