[ News ] [ Paper Feed ] [ Issues ] [ Authors ] [ Archives ] [ Contact ]


..[ Phrack Magazine ]..
.:: The art of exploitation: Autopsy of cvsxpl ::.

Issues: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ] [ 13 ] [ 14 ] [ 15 ] [ 16 ] [ 17 ] [ 18 ] [ 19 ] [ 20 ] [ 21 ] [ 22 ] [ 23 ] [ 24 ] [ 25 ] [ 26 ] [ 27 ] [ 28 ] [ 29 ] [ 30 ] [ 31 ] [ 32 ] [ 33 ] [ 34 ] [ 35 ] [ 36 ] [ 37 ] [ 38 ] [ 39 ] [ 40 ] [ 41 ] [ 42 ] [ 43 ] [ 44 ] [ 45 ] [ 46 ] [ 47 ] [ 48 ] [ 49 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] [ 52 ] [ 53 ] [ 54 ] [ 55 ] [ 56 ] [ 57 ] [ 58 ] [ 59 ] [ 60 ] [ 61 ] [ 62 ] [ 63 ] [ 64 ] [ 65 ] [ 66 ] [ 67 ] [ 68 ]
Current issue : #64 | Release date : 2007-05-27 | Editor : The Circle of Lost Hackers
IntroductionThe Circle of Lost Hackers
Phrack Prophile of the new editorsThe Circle of Lost Hackers
Phrack World NewsThe Circle of Lost Hackers
A brief history of the Underground sceneDuvel
Hijacking RDS TMC traffic information signallcars & danbia
Attacking the Core: Kernel Exploitation Notestwiz & sgrakkyu
The revolution will be on YouTubegladio
Automated vulnerability auditing in machine codeTyler Durden
The use of set_head to defeat the wildernessg463
Cryptanalysis of DPA-128sysk
Mac OS X Wars - A XNU Hopenemo
Hacking deeper in the systemscythale
The art of exploitation: Autopsy of cvsxplAc1dB1tch3z
Know your enemy: Facing the copsLance
Remote blind TCP/IP spoofingklm
Hacking your brain: The projection of consciousnesskeptune
International scenesVarious
Title : The art of exploitation: Autopsy of cvsxpl
Author : Ac1dB1tch3z
           _                                                  _
          _/B\_                                              _/W\_
          (* *)              Phrack #64 file 13              (* *)
          | - |                                              | - |
          |   |      Blind TCP/IP hijacking is still alive   |   |
          |   |                                              |   |
          |   |            By lkm <lkm@phrack.org>           |   |
          |   |                                              |   |
          |   |                                              |   |
          (______________________________________________________)



--[ Contents

        1 - Introduction
        2 - Prerequisites
          2.1 - A brief reminder on TCP
          2.2 - The interest of IP ID
          2.3 - List of informations to gather

        3 - Attack description
          3.1 - Finding the client-port
          3.2 - Finding the server's SND.NEXT
          3.3 - Finding the client's SND.NEXT

        4 - Discussion
          4.1 - Vulnerable systems
          4.2 - Limitations

        5 - Conclusion

        6 - References


--[ 1 - Introduction

Fun with TCP (blind spoofing/hijacking, etc...) was very popular several
years ago when the initials TCP sequence numbers (ISN) were guessable (64K rule, 
etc...). Now that the ISNs are fairly well randomized, this stuff seems to be
impossible. 

In this paper we will show that it is still possible to perform blind TCP
hijacking nowadays (without attacking the PRNG responsible for generating 
the ISNs, like in [1]). We will present a method which works against a number 
of systems (Windows 2K, windows XP, and FreeBSD 4). This method is not really 
straightforward to implement, but is nonetheless entirely feasible, as we've
coded a tool which was successfully used to perform this attack against all
the vulnerable systems.


--[ 2 - Prerequisites

In this section we will give some informations that are necessary to
understand this paper.

----[ 2.1 - A brief reminder on TCP 

A TCP connection between two hosts (which will be called respectively
"client" and "server" in the rest of the paper) can be identified by a tuple
[client-IP, server-IP, client-port, server-port]. While the server port is
well known, the client port is usually in the range 1024-5000, and
automatically assigned by the operating system. (Exemple: the connection
from some guy to freenode may be represented by [ppp289.someISP.com,
irc.freenode.net, 1207, 6667]). 

When communication occurs on a TCP connexion, the exchanged TCP packet
headers are containing these informations (actually, the IP header contains
the source/destination IP, and the TCP header contains the
source/destination port). Each TCP packet header also contains fields for a
sequence number (SEQ), and an acknowledgement number (ACK). 

Each of the two hosts involved in the connection computes a 32bits SEQ
number randomly at the establishment of the connection. This initial SEQ
number is called the ISN. Then, each time an host sends some packet with 
N bytes of data, it adds N to the SEQ number.
The sender put his current SEQ in the SEQ field of each outgoing TCP packet.
The ACK field is filled with the next *expected* SEQ number from the other
host. Each host will maintain his own next sequence number (called
SND.NEXT), and next expected SEQ number from the other host (called
RCV.NEXT).

Let's clarify with an exemple (for the sake of simplicity, we consider that
the connection is already established, and the ports are not shown.) 


[===============================================================================]
Client						Server

[SND.NEXT=1000]					[SND.NEXT=2000]
	  --[SEQ=1000, ACK=2000, size=20]->
[SND.NEXT=1020]					[SND.NEXT=2000]
	  <-[SEQ=2000, ACK=1020, size=50]--
[SND.NEXT=1020]					[SND.NEXT=2050]	
	  --[SEQ=1020, ACK=2050, size=0]->
[===============================================================================]

In the above example, first the client sends 20 bytes of data. Then, the
server acknowledges this data (ACK=1020), and send its own 50 bytes of data
in the same packet. The last packet sent by the client is what we will call
a "simple ACK". It acknowledges the 50-bytes data sent by the server, but
carry no data payload. The "simple ACK" is used, among other cases, where a
host acknowledge received data, but has no data to transmit yet. Obviously,
any well-formed "simple ACK" packet will not be acknowledged, as this would
lead to an infinite loop. Conceptually, each byte has a sequence number,
it's just that the SEQ contained in the TCP header field represents the
sequence number of the first byte. For example, the 20 bytes of the first
packet have sequence numbers  1000..1019.

TCP implements a flow control mechanism by defining the concept of "window".
Each host has a TCP window size (which is dynamic, specific to each TCP
connection, and announced in TCP packets), that we will call RCV.WND.

At any given time, a host will accept bytes with sequence number
between RCV.NXT and (RCV.NXT+RCV.WND-1). This mechanism ensures that at any
tyme, there can be no more than RCV.WND bytes "in transit" to the host.

The establishment and teardown of the connection is managed by flags in the
TCP header. The only useful flags in this paper are SYN, ACK, and RST (for
more information, see RFC793 [2]). The SYN and ACK flags are used in the
connection establishment, as follows: 

[===============================================================================]
Client						Server

[client picks an ISN]				
[SND.NEXT=5000]
	--[flags=SYN, SEQ=5000]-->		[server picks an ISN]
[SND.NEXT=5001]					[SND.NEXT=9000]
	<-[flags=SYN+ACK, SEQ=9000, ACK=5001]--
[SND.NEXT=5001]					[SND.NEXT=9001]
	--[flags=ACK, SEQ=5001, ACK=9001]-->
...connection established... 
[===============================================================================]

You'll remark that during the establishment, the SND.NEXT of each hosts is
incremented by 1. That's because the SYN flag counts as one (virtual) byte,
as far as the sequence number is concerned.  Thus, any packet with the SYN
flag set will increment the SND.NEXT by 1+packet_data_size (here, the data size
is 0). You'll also note that the ACK field is optional. The ACK field is not
to be confused with the ACK flag, even if they are related: The ACK flag is
set if the ACK field exists. The ACK flag is always set on packets beloning
to an established connection.

The RST flag is used to close a connection abnormally (due to an error, for
example a connection attempt to a closed port). 


---- [ 2.2 - The interest of the IP ID

The IP header contains a flag named IP_ID, which is a 16-bits integer used by
the IP fragmentation/reassembly mechanism. This number needs to be unique
for each IP packet sent by an host, but will be unchanged by fragmentation
(thus, fragments of the same packet will have the same IP ID). 

Now, you must be wondering why the IP_ID is so interesting? Well, there's a
nifty "feature" in some TCP/IP stacks (including Windows 98, 2K, and XP) :
these stacks store the IP_ID in a global counter, which is simply incremeted
with each IP packet sent. This enables an attacker to probe the IP_ID
counter of an host (with a ping, for exemple), and so, know when the host is
sending packets.  

Exemple:

[===============================================================================]
attacker					Host
	 	--[PING]->
	<-[PING REPLY, IP_ID=1000]--

... wait a little ...

	 	--[PING]->
	<-[PING REPLY, IP_ID=1010]--

<attacker> Uh oh, the Host sent 9 IP packets between my pings. 
[===============================================================================]

This technique is well known, and has already been exploited to perform
really stealth portscans ([3] and [5]).


----[ 2.3 - List of informations to gather

Well, now, what we need to hijack an existing TCP connection? 

First, we need to know the client IP, server IP, client port, and server
port. 
In this paper we'll assume that the client IP, server IP, and server port
are known. The difficulty resides in detecting the client port, since it is
randomly assigned by the client's OS. We will see in the following section
how to do that, with the IP_ID. 

The next thing we need if we want to be able to hijack both ways (send data
to client from the server, and send data from server to client) is to know
the sequence number of the server, and the client. 

Obviously, the most interesting is the client sequence number, because it
enables us to send data to the server that appears to have been sent by the
client. But, as the rest of the paper will show, we'll need to detect the
server's sequence number first, because we will need it to detect the
client's sequence number. 



--[ 3 - Attack description


In this section, we will show how to determine the client's port, then the
server's sequence number, and finally the client's sequence number. We will
consider that the client's OS is a vulnerable OS. The server can run on any
OS. 


----[ 3.1 - Finding the client-port

Assuming we already know the client/server IP, and the server port, there's
a well known method to test if a given port is the correct client port. 
In order to do this, we can send a TCP packet with the SYN flag set to
server-IP:server-port, from client-IP:guessed-client-port (we need to be
able to send spoofed IP packets for this technique to work). 


 	Here's what will happen when we send our packet if the guessed-client-port
is NOT the correct client port: 

[===============================================================================]
Attacker (masquerading as client)			Server

			--[flags=SYN, SEQ=1000]->

Real client						

		<-[flags=SYN+ACK, SEQ=2000, ACK=1001]--

... the real client didn't start this connection, so it aborts with RST ... 

		--[flags=RST]->
[===============================================================================]


Here's what will happen when we send our packet if the guessed-client-port
IS the correct client port: 

[===============================================================================]
Attacker (masquerading as client)			Server

			--[flags=SYN, SEQ=1000]->

Real client						

... upon reception of our SYN, the server replies by a simple ACK ...

		<-[flags=ACK, SEQ=xxxx, ACK=yyyy]--

... the client sends nothing in reply of a simple ACK ... 
[===============================================================================]


Now, what's important in all this, is that in the first case the client
sends a packet, and in the second case it doesn't. If you have carefully
read the section 2.2, you know this particular thing can be detected by
probing the IP ID counter of the client.

So, all we have to do to test if a guessed client-port is the correct one
is: 

- Send a PING to the client, note the IP ID 
- Send our spoofed SYN packet
- Resend a PING to the client, note the new IP ID
- Compare the two IP IDs to determine if the guessed port was correct.

Obviously, if one want to make an efficient scanner, there's many
difficulties, notably the fact that the client may transmit packets on his
own between our two PINGs, and the latency between the client and the server
(which affects the delay after which the client will send his RST packet in
case of an incorrect guess). Coding an efficient client-port scanner is left as 
an exercise to the reader :). With our tool - which measures the latency
before the attack and tries to adapt itself to the client's traffic in 
real-time - the client-port is usually found in less than 3 minutes. 


----[ 3.2 - Finding the server's SND.NEXT

Now that we (hopefully :)) have the client port, we need to know the
server's SND.NEXT (in other words, his current sequence number).


Whenever a host receive a TCP packet with the good source/destination ports,
but an incorrect seq and/or ack, it sends back a simple ACK with the correct
SEQ/ACK numbers. Before we investigate this matter, let's define exactly what 
is a correct seq/ack combination, as defined by the RFC793 [2]:

A correct SEQ is a SEQ which is between the RCV.NEXT and (RCV.NEXT+RCV.WND-1)
of the host receiving the packet. Typically, the RCV.WND is a fairly large 
number (several dozens of kilobytes at last). 

A correct ACK is an ACK which corresponds to a sequence number of something
the host receiving the ACK has already sent. That is, the ACK field of the
packet received by an host must be lower or equal than the host's own
current SND.SEQ, otherwise the ACK is invalid (you can't acknowledge data that
were never sent!). 

It is important to node that the sequence number space is "circular". 
For exemple, the condition used by the receiving host to check the ACK validity
is not simply the unsigned comparison "ACK <= receiver's SND.NEXT",
but the signed comparison "(ACK - receiver's SND.NEXT) <= 0".

Now, let's return to our original problem: we want to guess server's
SND.NEXT. We know that if we send a wrong SEQ or ACK to the client from the
server, the client will send back an ACK, while if we guess right, the
client will send nothing. As for the client-port detection, this may be
tested with the IP ID. 

If we look at the ACK checking formula, we note that if we pick
randomly two ACK values, let's call them ack1 and ack2, such as 
|ack1-ack2| = 2^31, then exactly one of them will be valid. For example, let
ack1=0 and ack2=2^31. If the real ACK is between 1 and 2^31 then the ack2
will be an acceptable ack. If the real ACK is 0, or is between (2^32 - 1) 
and (2^31 + 1), then, the ack1 will be acceptable. 

Taking this into consideration, we can more easily scan the sequence number
space to find the server's SND.NEXT. Each guess will involve the sending of
two packets, each with its SEQ field set to the guessed server's SND.NEXT. The
first packet (resp. second packet) will have his ACK field set to ack1
(resp. ack2), so that we are sure that if the guessed's SND.NEXT is correct, at
least one of the two packet will be accepted.

The sequence number space is way bigger than the client-port space, but two
facts make this scan easier:

First, when the client receive our packet, it replies immediately. There's
not a problem with latency between client and server like in the client-port
scan. Thus, the time between the two IP ID probes can be very small,
speeding up our scanning and  reducing greatly the odds that the client will 
have IP traffic between our probes and mess with our detection.

Secondly, it's not necessary to test all the possible sequence numbers,
because of the receiver's window. In fact, we need only to do approx.
(2^32 / client's RCV.WND) guesses at worst (this fact has already been
mentionned in [6]). Of course, we don't know the client's RCV.WND. 
We can take a wild guess of RCV.WND=64K, perform the
scan (trying each SEQ multiple of 64K). Then, if we didn't find anything,
wen can try all SEQs such as seq = 32K + i*64K for all i. Then, all SEQ such
as seq=16k + i*32k, and so on... narrowing the window, while avoiding to
re-test already tried SEQs. On a typical "modern" connection, this scan
usually takes less than 15 minutes with our tool. 

With the server's SND.NEXT known, and a method to work around our ignorance
of the ACK, we may hijack the connection in the way "server -> client". This
is not bad, but not terribly useful, we'd prefer to be able to send data
from the client to the server, to make the client execute a command, etc...
In order to do this, we need to find the client's SND.NEXT.

----[ 3.3 - Finding the client's SND.NEXT

What we can do to find the client's SND.NEXT ? Obviously we can't use the
same method as for the server's SND.NEXT, because the server's OS is
probably not vunerable to this attack, and besides, the heavy network
traffic on the server would render the IP ID analysis infeasible. 

However, we know the server's SND.NEXT. We also know that the client's
SND.NEXT is used for checking the ACK fields of client's incoming packets.
So we can send packets from the server to the client with SEQ field set to 
server's SND.NEXT, pick an ACK, and determine (again with IP ID) if our ACK 
was acceptable.

If we detect that our ACK was acceptable, that means that 
(guessed_ACK - SND.NEXT) <= 0. Otherwise, it means.. well, you guessed it,
that (guessed_ACK - SND_NEXT) > 0. 

Using this knowledge, we can find the exact SND_NEXT in at most 32 tries
by doing a binary search (a slightly modified one, because the sequence
space is circular).

Now, at last we have all the required informations and we can perform the
session hijacking from either client or server.

--[ 4 - Discussion

In this section we'll attempt to identify the affected systems, discuss
limitations of this attacks, present similar attacks against older systems.   

----[ 4.1 - Vulnerable systems

This attack has been tested on Windows 2K, Windows XP <= SP2, and FreeBSD 4.
It should be noted that FreeBSD has a kernel option to randomize the IP ID,
which makes this attack impossible. As far as we know, there's no fix for
Windows 2K and XP. 

The only "bug" which makes this attack possible on the vulnerable systems is
the non-randomized IP ID. The other behaviors (ACK checking that enables us
to do a binary search, etc...) are expected by the RFC793 [2] (however, there's
been work to improve these problems in [4]).

It's interesting to see that, as far as we could test, only Windows 2K,
Windows XP, and FreeBSD 4 were vulnerable. There's other OS which use the
same IP ID incrementation system, but they don't use the same ACK checking
mechanism. Hmm.. this similarity between Windows's and FreeBSD's TCP/IP
stack behavior is troubling... :) MacOS X is based on FreeBSD but is not 
vulnerable because it uses a different IP ID numbering scheme. Windows Vista
wasn't tested. 


----[ 4.2 - Limitations

The described attack has various limitations:

First, the attack doesn't work "as is" on Windows 98. That's not really a
limitation, because the initial SEQ of Windows 98 is equal to the uptime of
the machine in milliseconds, modulo 2^32. We won't discuss how to do
hijacking with Windows 98 because it's a trivial joke :) 

Secondly, the attack will be difficult if the client has a slow connection,
or has a lot of traffic (messing with the IP ID analysis). Also, there's the
problem of the latency between the client and the server. These problems can
be mitigated by writing an intelligent tool which measures the latency,
detects when the host has traffic, etc... 

Furthermore, we need access to the client host. We need to be able to send
packets and receive replies to get the IP ID. Any type of packet will do, ICMP
or TCP or whatever. The attack will not be possible if the host is behind a
firewall/NAT/... which blocks absolutely all type of packets, but 1
unfiltered port (even closed on the client) suffices to make the attack
possible. This problem is present against Windows XP SP2 and later, which
comes with an integrated firewall. Windows XP SP2 is vulnerable, but the
firewall may prevent the attack in some situations. 


--[ 5 - Conclusion

In this paper we have presented a method of blind TCP hijacking which works
on Windows 2K/XP, and FreeBSD 4. While this method has a number of
limitations, it's perfectly feasible and works against a large number of
hosts. Furthermore, a large number of protocols over TCP still use
unencrypted communication, so the impact on security of the blind TCP
hijacking is not negligible. 


--[ 6 - References

[1] http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/newtcp/

[2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc793.txt

[3] http://insecure.org/nmap/idlescan.html

[4] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-07.txt

[5] http://seclists.org/bugtraq/1998/Dec/0079.html

[6] http://osvdb.org/reference/SlippingInTheWindow_v1.0.doc

[ News ] [ Paper Feed ] [ Issues ] [ Authors ] [ Archives ] [ Contact ]
© Copyleft 1985-2014, Phrack Magazine.