| ---[ Phrack Magazine Volume 8, Issue 54 Dec 25th, 1998, article 09 of 12 |
|
|
|
|
| -------------------------[ Remote OS detection via TCP/IP Stack FingerPrinting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| --------[ Fyodor <fyodor@dhp.com> (www.insecure.org) October 18, 1998 |
|
|
|
|
| ----[ ABSTRACT |
|
|
| This paper discusses how to glean precious information about a host by querying |
| its TCP/IP stack. I first present some of the "classical" methods of |
| determining host OS which do not involve stack fingerprinting. Then I |
| describe the current "state of the art" in stack fingerprinting tools. Next |
| comes a description of many techniques for causing the remote host to leak |
| information about itself. Finally I detail my (nmap) implementation of this, |
| followed by a snapshot gained from nmap which discloses what OS is running on |
| many popular Internet sites. |
|
|
|
|
| ----[ REASONS |
|
|
| I think the usefulness of determining what OS a system is running is pretty |
| obvious, so I'll make this section short. One of the strongest examples of |
| this usefulness is that many security holes are dependent on OS version. Let's |
| say you are doing a penetration test and you find port 53 open. If this is a |
| vulnerable version of Bind, you only get one chance to exploit it since a |
| failed attempt will crash the daemon. With a good TCP/IP fingerprinter, you |
| will quickly find that this machine is running 'Solaris 2.51' or 'Linux 2.0.35' |
| and you can adjust your shellcode accordingly. |
|
|
| A worse possibility is someone scanning 500,000 hosts in advance to see what |
| OS is running and what ports are open. Then when someone posts (say) a root |
| hole in Sun's comsat daemon, our little cracker could grep his list for |
| 'UDP/512' and 'Solaris 2.6' and he immediately has pages and pages of rootable |
| boxes. It should be noted that this is SCRIPT KIDDIE behavior. You have |
| demonstrated no skill and nobody is even remotely impressed that you were able |
| to find some vulnerable .edu that had not patched the hole in time. Also, |
| people will be even _less_ impressed if you use your newfound access to deface |
| the department's web site with a self-aggrandizing rant about how damn good |
| you are and how stupid the sysadmins must be. |
|
|
| Another possible use is for social engineering. Lets say that you are scanning |
| your target company and nmap reports a 'Datavoice TxPORT PRISM 3000 T1 |
| CSU/DSU 6.22/2.06'. The hacker might now call up as 'Datavoice support' and |
| discuss some issues about their PRISM 3000. "We are going to announce a |
| security hole soon, but first we want all our current customers to install the |
| patch -- I just mailed it to you..." Some naive administrators might assume |
| that only an authorized engineer from Datavoice would know so much about their |
| CSU/DSU. |
|
|
| Another potential use of this capability is evaluation of companies you may |
| want to do business with. Before you choose a new ISP, scan them and see what |
| equipment is in use. Those "$99/year" deals don't sound nearly so good when |
| you find out they have crappy routers and offer PPP services off a bunch of |
| Windows boxes. |
|
|
|
|
| ----[ CLASSICAL TECHNIQUES |
|
|
| Stack fingerprinting solves the problem of OS identification in a unique way. |
| I think this technique holds the most promise, but there are currently many |
| other solutions. Sadly, this is still one the most effective of those |
| techniques: |
|
|
| playground~> telnet hpux.u-aizu.ac.jp |
| Trying 163.143.103.12... |
| Connected to hpux.u-aizu.ac.jp. |
| Escape character is '^]'. |
|
|
| HP-UX hpux B.10.01 A 9000/715 (ttyp2) |
|
|
| login: |
|
|
| There is no point going to all this trouble of fingerprinting if the machine |
| will blatantly announce to the world exactly what it is running! Sadly, many |
| vendors ship _current_ systems with these kind of banners and many admins do |
| not turn them off. Just because there are other ways to figure out what OS is |
| running (such as fingerprinting), does not mean we should just announce our OS |
| and architecture to every schmuck who tries to connect. |
|
|
| The problems with relying on this technique are that an increasing number of |
| people are turning banners off, many systems don't give much information, and |
| it is trivial for someone to "lie" in their banners. Nevertheless, banner |
| reading is all you get for OS and OS Version checking if you spend thousands of |
| dollars on the commercial ISS scanner. Download nmap or queso instead and |
| save your money :). |
|
|
| Even if you turn off the banners, many applications will happily give away |
| this kind of information when asked. For example lets look at an FTP server: |
|
|
| payfonez> telnet ftp.netscape.com 21 |
| Trying 207.200.74.26... |
| Connected to ftp.netscape.com. |
| Escape character is '^]'. |
| 220 ftp29 FTP server (UNIX(r) System V Release 4.0) ready. |
| SYST |
| 215 UNIX Type: L8 Version: SUNOS |
|
|
| First of all, it gives us system details in its default banner. Then if we |
| give the 'SYST' command it happily feeds back even more information. |
|
|
| If anon FTP is supported, we can often download /bin/ls or other binaries and |
| determine what architecture it was built for. |
|
|
| Many other applications are too free with information. Take web servers for |
| example: |
|
|
| playground> echo 'GET / HTTP/1.0\n' | nc hotbot.com 80 | egrep '^Server:' |
| Server: Microsoft-IIS/4.0 |
| playground> |
|
|
| Hmmm ... I wonder what OS those lamers are running. |
|
|
| Other classic techniques include DNS host info records (rarely effective) and |
| social engineering. If the machine is listening on 161/udp (snmp), you are |
| almost guaranteed a bunch of detailed info using 'snmpwalk' from the CMU SNMP |
| tools distribution and the 'public' community name. |
|
|
|
|
| ----[ CURRENT FINGERPRINTING PROGRAMS |
|
|
| Nmap is not the first OS recognition program to use TCP/IP fingerprinting. |
| The common IRC spoofer sirc by Johan has included very rudimentary |
| fingerprinting techniques since version 3 (or earlier). It attempts to place |
| a host in the classes "Linux", "4.4BSD", "Win95", or "Unknown" using a few |
| simple TCP flag tests. |
|
|
| Another such program is checkos, released publicly in January of this year by |
| Shok of Team CodeZero in Confidence Remains High Issue #7. The fingerprinting |
| techniques are exactly the same as SIRC, and even the _code_ is identical in |
| many places. Checkos was privately available for a long time prior to the |
| public release, so I have no idea who swiped code from whom. But neither |
| seems to credit the other. One thing checkos does add is telnet banner |
| checking, which is useful but has the problems described earlier. |
|
|
| Su1d also wrote an OS checking program. His is called SS and as of Version |
| 3.11 it can identify 12 different OS types. I am somewhat partial to this one |
| since he credits my nmap program for some of the networking code :). |
|
|
| Then there is queso. This program is the newest and it is a huge leap forward |
| from the other programs. Not only do they introduce a couple new tests, but |
| they were the first (that I have seen) to move the OS fingerprints _out_ of |
| the code. The other scanners included code like: |
|
|
| /* from ss */ |
| if ((flagsfour & TH_RST) && (flagsfour & TH_ACK) && (winfour == 0) && |
| (flagsthree & TH_ACK)) |
| reportos(argv[2],argv[3],"Livingston Portmaster ComOS"); |
|
|
| Instead, queso moves this into a configuration file which obviously scales |
| much better and makes adding an OS as easy as appending a few lines to a |
| fingerprint file. |
|
|
| Queso was written by Savage, one of the fine folks at Apostols.org. |
|
|
| One problem with all the programs describe above is that they are very limited |
| in the number of fingerprinting tests which limits the granularity of answers. |
| I want to know more than just 'this machine is OpenBSD, FreeBSD, or NetBSD', I |
| wish to know exactly which of those it is as well as some idea of the release |
| version number. In the same way, I would rather see 'Solaris 2.6' than simply |
| 'Solaris'. To achieve this response granularity, I worked on a number of |
| fingerprinting techniques which are described in the next section. |
|
|
|
|
| ----[ FINGERPRINTING METHODOLOGY |
|
|
| There are many, many techniques which can be used to fingerprint networking |
| stacks. Basically, you just look for things that differ among operating |
| systems and write a probe for the difference. If you combine enough of these, |
| you can narrow down the OS very tightly. For example nmap can reliably |
| distinguish Solaris 2.4 vs. Solaris 2.5-2.51 vs Solaris 2.6. It can also tell |
| Linux kernel 2.0.30 from 2.0.31-34 or 2.0.35. Here are some techniques: |
|
|
| The FIN probe -- Here we send a FIN packet (or any packet without an |
| ACK or SYN flag) to an open port and wait for a response. The |
| correct RFC793 behavior is to NOT respond, but many broken |
| implementations such as MS Windows, BSDI, CISCO, HP/UX, MVS, and |
| IRIX send a RESET back. Most current tools utilize this |
| technique. |
|
|
| The BOGUS flag probe -- Queso is the first scanner I have seen to use |
| this clever test. The idea is to set an undefined TCP "flag" ( 64 |
| or 128) in the TCP header of a SYN packet. Linux boxes prior to |
| 2.0.35 keep the flag set in their response. I have not found any |
| other OS to have this bug. However, some operating systems seem |
| to reset the connection when they get a SYN+BOGUS packet. This |
| behavior could be useful in identifying them. |
| |
| TCP ISN Sampling -- The idea here is to find patterns in the initial |
| sequence numbers chosen by TCP implementations when responding to |
| a connection request. These can be categorized in to many groups |
| such as the traditional 64K (many old UNIX boxes), Random |
| increments (newer versions of Solaris, IRIX, FreeBSD, Digital |
| UNIX, Cray, and many others), True "random" (Linux 2.0.*, OpenVMS, |
| newer AIX, etc). Windows boxes (and a few others) use a "time |
| dependent" model where the ISN is incremented by a small fixed |
| amount each time period. Needless to say, this is almost as |
| easily defeated as the old 64K behavior. Of course my favorite |
| technique is "constant". The machines ALWAYS use the exact same |
| ISN :). I've seen this on some 3Com hubs (uses 0x803) and Apple |
| LaserWriter printers (uses 0xC7001). |
|
|
| You can also subclass groups such as random incremental by |
| computing variances, greatest common divisors, and other functions |
| on the set of sequence numbers and the differences between the |
| numbers. |
|
|
| It should be noted that ISN generation has important security |
| implications. For more information on this, contact "security |
| expert" Tsutomu "Shimmy" Shimomura at SDSC and ask him how he was |
| owned. Nmap is the first program I have seen to use this for OS |
| identification. |
|
|
| Don't Fragment bit -- Many operating systems are starting to set the |
| IP "Don't Fragment" bit on some of the packets they send. This |
| gives various performance benefits (though it can also be annoying |
| -- this is why nmap fragmentation scans do not work from Solaris |
| boxes). In any case, not all OS's do this and some do it in |
| different cases, so by paying attention to this bit we can glean |
| even more information about the target OS. I haven't seen this |
| one before either. |
|
|
| TCP Initial Window -- This simply involves checking the window size on |
| returned packets. Older scanners simply used a non-zero window on |
| a RST packet to mean "BSD 4.4 derived". Newer scanners such as |
| queso and nmap keep track of the exact window since it is actually |
| pretty constant by OS type. This test actually gives us a lot of |
| information, since some operating systems can be uniquely |
| identified by the window alone (for example, AIX is the only OS I |
| have seen which uses 0x3F25). In their "completely rewritten" |
| TCP stack for NT5, Microsoft uses 0x402E. Interestingly, that is |
| exactly the number used by OpenBSD and FreeBSD. |
|
|
| ACK Value -- Although you would think this would be completely |
| standard, implementations differ in what value they use for the |
| ACK field in some cases. For example, lets say you send a |
| FIN|PSH|URG to a closed TCP port. Most implementations will set |
| the ACK to be the same as your initial sequence number, though |
| Windows and some stupid printers will send your seq + 1. If you |
| send a SYN|FIN|URG|PSH to an open port, Windows is very |
| inconsistent. Sometimes it sends back your seq, other times it |
| sends S++, and still other times is sends back a seemingly random |
| value. One has to wonder what kind of code MS is writing that |
| changes its mind like this. |
|
|
| ICMP Error Message Quenching -- Some (smart) operating systems follow |
| the RFC 1812 suggestion to limit the rate at which various error |
| messages are sent. For example, the Linux kernel (in |
| net/ipv4/icmp.h) limits destination unreachable message generation |
| to 80 per 4 seconds, with a 1/4 second penalty if that is |
| exceeded. One way to test this is to send a bunch of packets to |
| some random high UDP port and count the number of unreachables |
| received. I have not seen this used before, and in fact I have |
| not added this to nmap (except for use in UDP port scanning). |
| This test would make the OS detection take a bit longer since you |
| need to send a bunch of packets and wait for them to return. Also |
| dealing with the possibility of packets dropped on the network |
| would be a pain. |
|
|
| ICMP Message Quoting -- The RFCs specify that ICMP error messages |
| quote some small amount of an ICMP message that causes various |
| errors. For a port unreachable message, almost all |
| implementations send only the required IP header + 8 bytes back. |
| However, Solaris sends back a bit more and Linux sends back even |
| more than that. The beauty with this is it allows nmap to |
| recognize Linux and Solaris hosts even if they don't have any |
| ports listening. |
|
|
| ICMP Error message echoing integrity -- I got this idea from something |
| Theo De Raadt (lead OpenBSD developer) posted to |
| comp.security.unix. As mentioned before, machines have to send |
| back part of your original message along with a port unreachable |
| error. Yet some machines tend to use your headers as 'scratch |
| space' during initial processing and so they are a bit warped by |
| the time you get them back. For example, AIX and BSDI send back an |
| IP 'total length' field that is 20 bytes too high. Some BSDI, |
| FreeBSD, OpenBSD, ULTRIX, and VAXen fuck up the IP ID that you sent |
| them. While the checksum is going to change due to the changed |
| TTL anyway, there are some machines (AIX, FreeBSD, etc.) which send |
| back an inconsistent or 0 checksum. Same thing goes with the UDP |
| checksum. All in all, nmap does nine different tests on the ICMP |
| errors to sniff out subtle differences like these. |
|
|
| Type of Service -- For the ICMP port unreachable messages I look at |
| the type of service (TOS) value of the packet sent back. Almost |
| all implementations use 0 for this ICMP error although Linux uses |
| 0xC0. This does not indicate one of the standard TOS values, but instead is |
| part of the unused (AFAIK) precedence field. I do not know why |
| this is set, but if they change to 0 we will be able to keep |
| identifying the old versions _and_ we will be able to identify |
| between old and new. |
|
|
| Fragmentation Handling -- This is a favorite technique of Thomas |
| H. Ptacek of Secure Networks, Inc (now owned by a bunch of Windows |
| users at NAI). This takes advantage of the fact that different |
| implementations often handle overlapping IP fragments differently. |
| Some will overwrite the old portions with the new, and in other |
| cases the old stuff has precedence. There are many different |
| probes you can use to determine how the packet was reassembled. I |
| did not add this capability since I know of no portable way to send |
| IP fragments (in particular, it is a bitch on Solaris). For more |
| information on overlapping fragments, you can read their IDS paper |
| (www.secnet.com). |
|
|
| TCP Options -- These are truly a gold mine in terms of leaking |
| information. The beauty of these options is that: |
| 1) They are generally optional (duh!) :) so not all hosts implement |
| them. |
| 2) You know if a host implements them by sending a query with an |
| option set. The target generally show support of the option by |
| setting it on the reply. |
| 3) You can stuff a whole bunch of options on one packet to test |
| everything at once. |
| |
| Nmap sends these options along with almost every probe packet: |
|
|
| Window Scale=10; NOP; Max Segment Size = 265; Timestamp; End of Ops; |
|
|
| When you get your response, you take a look at which options were |
| returned and thus are supported. Some operating systems such as |
| recent FreeBSD boxes support all of the above, while others, such |
| as Linux 2.0.X support very few. The latest Linux 2.1.x kernels |
| do support all of the above. On the other hand, they are more |
| vulnerable to TCP sequence prediction. Go figure. |
|
|
| Even if several operating systems support the same set of options, |
| you can sometimes distinguish them by the _values_ of the options. |
| For example, if you send a small MSS value to a Linux box, it will |
| generally echo that MSS back to you. Other hosts will give you |
| different values. |
|
|
| And even if you get the same set of supported options AND the same |
| values, you can still differentiate via the _order_ that the |
| options are given, and where padding is applied. For example |
| Solaris returns 'NNTNWME' which means: |
| <no op><no op><timestamp><no op><window scale><echoed MSS> |
|
|
| While Linux 2.1.122 returns MENNTNW. Same options, same values, |
| but different order! |
|
|
| I have not seen any other OS detection tools utilizes TCP options, |
| but it is very useful. |
|
|
| There are a few other useful options I might probe for at some |
| point, such as those that support T/TCP and selective |
| acknowledgements. |
|
|
|
|
| Exploit Chronology -- Even with all the tests above, nmap is unable to |
| distinguish between the TCP stacks of Win95, WinNT, or Win98. |
| This is rather surprising, especially since Win98 came out about 4 |
| years after Win95. You would think they would have bothered to |
| improve the stack in some way (like supporting more TCP options) |
| and so we would be able to detect the change and distinguish the |
| operating systems. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The NT |
| stack is apparently the same crappy stack they put into '95. And |
| they didn't bother to upgrade it for '98. |
|
|
| But do not give up hope, for there is a solution. You can simply |
| start with early Windows DOS attacks (Ping of Death, Winnuke, etc) |
| and move up a little further to attacks such as Teardrop and Land. |
| After each attack, ping them to see whether they have crashed. |
| When you finally crash them, you will likely have narrowed what |
| they are running down to one service pack or hotfix. |
|
|
| I have not added this functionality to nmap, although I must admit |
| it is very tempting :). |
|
|
|
|
| SYN Flood Resistance -- Some operating systems will stop accepting new |
| connections if you send too many forged SYN packets at them |
| (forging the packets avoids trouble with your kernel resetting the |
| connections). Many operating systems can only handle 8 packets. |
| Recent Linux kernels (among other operating systems) allow |
| various methods such as SYN cookies to prevent this from being a |
| serious problem. Thus you can learn something about your target |
| OS by sending 8 packets from a forged source to an open port and |
| then testing whether you can establish a connection to that port |
| yourself. This was not implemented in nmap since some people get |
| upset when you SYN flood them. Even explaining that you were |
| simply trying to determine what OS they are running might not help |
| calm them. |
|
|
|
|
| ----[ NMAP IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS |
|
|
| I have created a reference implementation of the OS detection techniques |
| mentioned above (except those I said were excluded). I have added this to my |
| Nmap scanner which has the advantage that it already _knows_ what ports are |
| open and closed for fingerprinting so you do not have to tell it. It is also |
| portable among Linux, *BSD, and Solaris 2.51 and 2.6, and some other operating |
| systems. |
|
|
| The new version of nmap reads a file filled with Fingerprint templates that |
| follow a simple grammar. Here is an example: |
|
|
| FingerPrint IRIX 6.2 - 6.4 # Thanks to Lamont Granquist |
| TSeq(Class=i800) |
| T1(DF=N%W=C000|EF2A%ACK=S++%Flags=AS%Ops=MNWNNT) |
| T2(Resp=Y%DF=N%W=0%ACK=S%Flags=AR%Ops=) |
| T3(Resp=Y%DF=N%W=C000|EF2A%ACK=O%Flags=A%Ops=NNT) |
| T4(DF=N%W=0%ACK=O%Flags=R%Ops=) |
| T5(DF=N%W=0%ACK=S++%Flags=AR%Ops=) |
| T6(DF=N%W=0%ACK=O%Flags=R%Ops=) |
| T7(DF=N%W=0%ACK=S%Flags=AR%Ops=) |
| PU(DF=N%TOS=0%IPLEN=38%RIPTL=148%RID=E%RIPCK=E%UCK=E%ULEN=134%DAT=E) |
|
|
| Lets look at the first line (I'm adding '>' quote markers): |
|
|
| > FingerPrint IRIX 6.2 - 6.3 # Thanks to Lamont Granquist |
|
|
| This simply says that the fingerprint covers IRIX versions 6.2 through 6.3 and |
| the comment states that Lamont Granquist kindly sent me the IP addresses or |
| fingerprints of the IRIX boxes tested. |
|
|
| > TSeq(Class=i800) |
|
|
| This means that ISN sampling put it in the "i800 class". This means that each |
| new sequence number is a multiple of 800 greater than the last one. |
|
|
| > T1(DF=N%W=C000|EF2A%ACK=S++%Flags=AS%Ops=MNWNNT) |
|
|
| The test is named T1 (for test1, clever eh?). In this test we send a SYN |
| packet with a bunch of TCP options to an open port. DF=N means that the |
| "Don't fragment" bit of the response must not be set. W=C000|EF2A means that |
| the window advertisement we received must be 0xC000 or EF2A. ACK=S++ means |
| the acknowledgement we receive must be our initial sequence number plus 1. |
| Flags = AS means the ACK and SYN flags were sent in the response. |
| Ops = MNWNNT means the options in the response must be (in this order): |
|
|
| <MSS (not echoed)><NOP><Window scale><NOP><NOP><Timestamp> |
|
|
| > T2(Resp=Y%DF=N%W=0%ACK=S%Flags=AR%Ops=) |
|
|
| Test 2 involves a NULL with the same options to an open port. Resp=Y means we |
| must get a response. Ops= means that there must not be any options included |
| in the response packet. If we took out '%Ops=' entirely then any options sent |
| would match. |
|
|
| > T3(Resp=Y%DF=N%W=400%ACK=S++%Flags=AS%Ops=M) |
|
|
| Test 3 is a SYN|FIN|URG|PSH w/options to an open port. |
|
|
| > T4(DF=N%W=0%ACK=O%Flags=R%Ops=) |
|
|
| This is an ACK to an open port. Note that we do not have a Resp= here. This |
| means that lack of a response (such as the packet being dropped on the network |
| or an evil firewall) will not disqualify a match as long as all the other |
| tests match. We do this because virtually any OS will send a response, so a |
| lack of response is generally an attribute of the network conditions and not |
| the OS itself. We put the Resp tag in tests 2 and 3 because some operating |
| systems _do_ drop those without responding. |
|
|
| > T5(DF=N%W=0%ACK=S++%Flags=AR%Ops=) |
| > T6(DF=N%W=0%ACK=O%Flags=R%Ops=) |
| > T7(DF=N%W=0%ACK=S%Flags=AR%Ops=) |
|
|
| These tests are a SYN, ACK, and FIN|PSH|URG, respectively, to a closed port. |
| The same options as always are set. Of course this is all probably obvious |
| given the descriptive names 'T5', 'T6', and 'T7' :). |
|
|
| > PU(DF=N%TOS=0%IPLEN=38%RIPTL=148%RID=E%RIPCK=E%UCK=E%ULEN=134%DAT=E) |
|
|
| This big sucker is the 'port unreachable' message test. You should recognize |
| the DF=N by now. TOS=0 means that IP type of service field was 0. The next |
| two fields give the (hex) values of the IP total length field of the message |
| IP header and the total length given in the IP header they are echoing back to |
| us. RID=E means the RID value we got back in the copy of our original UDP |
| packet was expected (ie the same as we sent). RIPCK=E means they didn't fuck |
| up the checksum (if they did, it would say RIPCK=F). UCK=E means the UDP |
| checksum is also correct. Next comes the UDP length which was 0x134 and DAT=E |
| means they echoed our UDP data correctly. Since most implementations |
| (including this one) do not send any of our UDP data back, they get DAT=E by |
| default. |
|
|
| The version of nmap with this functionality is currently in the 6th private |
| beta cycle. It may be out by the time you read this in Phrack. Then again, |
| it might not. See http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ for the latest version. |
|
|
|
|
| ----[ POPULAR SITE SNAPSHOTS |
|
|
| Here is the fun result of all our effort. We can now take random Internet |
| sites and determine what OS they are using. A lot of these people have |
| eliminated telnet banners, etc. to keep this information private. But this is |
| of no use with our new fingerprinter! Also this is a good way to expose the |
| <your favorite crap OS> users as the lamers that they are :)! |
|
|
| The command used in these examples was: nmap -sS -p 80 -O -v <host> |
|
|
| Also note that most of these scans were done on 10/18/98. Some of these folks |
| may have upgraded/changed servers since then. |
|
|
| Note that I do not like every site on here. |
|
|
| # "Hacker" sites or (in a couple cases) sites that think they are |
| www.l0pht.com => OpenBSD 2.2 - 2.4 |
| www.insecure.org => Linux 2.0.31-34 |
| www.rhino9.ml.org => Windows 95/NT # No comment :) |
| www.technotronic.com => Linux 2.0.31-34 |
| www.nmrc.org => FreeBSD 2.2.6 - 3.0 |
| www.cultdeadcow.com => OpenBSD 2.2 - 2.4 |
| www.kevinmitnick.com => Linux 2.0.31-34 # Free Kevin! |
| www.2600.com => FreeBSD 2.2.6 - 3.0 Beta |
| www.antionline.com => FreeBSD 2.2.6 - 3.0 Beta |
| www.rootshell.com => Linux 2.0.35 # Changed to OpenBSD after |
| # they got owned. |
|
|
| # Security vendors, consultants, etc. |
| www.repsec.com => Linux 2.0.35 |
| www.iss.net => Linux 2.0.31-34 |
| www.checkpoint.com => Solaris 2.5 - 2.51 |
| www.infowar.com => Win95/NT |
|
|
| # Vendor loyalty to their OS |
| www.li.org => Linux 2.0.35 # Linux International |
| www.redhat.com => Linux 2.0.31-34 # I wonder what distribution :) |
| www.debian.org => Linux 2.0.35 |
| www.linux.org => Linux 2.1.122 - 2.1.126 |
| www.sgi.com => IRIX 6.2 - 6.4 |
| www.netbsd.org => NetBSD 1.3X |
| www.openbsd.org => Solaris 2.6 # Ahem :) |
| www.freebsd.org => FreeBSD 2.2.6-3.0 Beta |
|
|
| # Ivy league |
| www.harvard.edu => Solaris 2.6 |
| www.yale.edu => Solaris 2.5 - 2.51 |
| www.caltech.edu => SunOS 4.1.2-4.1.4 # Hello! This is the 90's :) |
| www.stanford.edu => Solaris 2.6 |
| www.mit.edu => Solaris 2.5 - 2.51 # Coincidence that so many good |
| # schools seem to like Sun? |
| # Perhaps it is the 40% |
| # .edu discount :) |
| www.berkeley.edu => UNIX OSF1 V 4.0,4.0B,4.0D |
| www.oxford.edu => Linux 2.0.33-34 # Rock on! |
|
|
| # Lamer sites |
| www.aol.com => IRIX 6.2 - 6.4 # No wonder they are so insecure :) |
| www.happyhacker.org => OpenBSD 2.2-2.4 # Sick of being owned, Carolyn? |
| # Even the most secure OS is |
| # useless in the hands of an |
| # incompetent admin. |
|
|
| # Misc |
| www.lwn.net => Linux 2.0.31-34 # This Linux news site rocks! |
| www.slashdot.org => Linux 2.1.122 - 2.1.126 |
| www.whitehouse.gov => IRIX 5.3 |
| sunsite.unc.edu => Solaris 2.6 |
|
|
| Notes: In their security white paper, Microsoft said about their lax security: |
| "this assumption has changed over the years as Windows NT gains popularity |
| largely because of its security features.". Hmm, from where I stand it |
| doesn't look like Windows is very popular among the security community :). |
| I only see 2 Windows boxes from the whole group, and Windows is _easy_ for |
| nmap to distinguish since it is so broken (standards wise). |
|
|
| And of course, there is one more site we must check. This is the web site of |
| the ultra-secret Transmeta corporation. Interestingly the company was funded |
| largely by Paul Allen of Microsoft, but it employs Linus Torvalds. So do they |
| stick with Paul and run NT or do they side with the rebels and join the Linux |
| revolution? Let us see: |
|
|
| We use the command: |
| nmap -sS -F -o transmeta.log -v -O www.transmeta.com/24 |
|
|
| This says SYN scan for known ports (from /etc/services), log the results to |
| 'transmeta.log', be verbose about it, do an OS scan, and scan the class 'C' |
| where www.transmeta.com resides. Here is the gist of the results: |
|
|
| neon-best.transmeta.com (206.184.214.10) => Linux 2.0.33-34 |
| www.transmeta.com (206.184.214.11) => Linux 2.0.30 |
| neosilicon.transmeta.com (206.184.214.14) => Linux 2.0.33-34 |
| ssl.transmeta.com (206.184.214.15) => Linux unknown version |
| linux.kernel.org (206.184.214.34) => Linux 2.0.35 |
| www.linuxbase.org (206.184.214.35) => Linux 2.0.35 ( possibly the same |
| machine as above ) |
|
|
| Well, I think this answers our question pretty clearly :). |
|
|
|
|
| ----[ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|
|
| The only reason Nmap is currently able to detect so many different operating |
| systems is that many people on the private beta team went to a lot of effort |
| to search out new and exciting boxes to fingerprint! In particular, Jan Koum, |
| van Hauser, Dmess0r, David O'Brien, James W. Abendschan, Solar Designer, Chris |
| Wilson, Stuart Stock, Mea Culpa, Lamont Granquist, Dr. Who, Jordan Ritter, |
| Brett Eldridge, and Pluvius sent in tons of IP addresses of wacky boxes and/or |
| fingerprints of machines not reachable through the Internet. |
|
|
| Thanks to Richard Stallman for writing GNU Emacs. This article would not be |
| so well word-wrapped if I was using vi or cat and ^D. |
|
|
| Questions and comments can be sent to fyodor@DHP.com (if that doesn't work for |
| some reason, use fyodor@insecure.org). Nmap can be obtained from |
| http://www.insecure.org/nmap. |
|
|
| ----[ EOF |
|
|