RE: Windows 7

["Rob Nicholls" <robert () robnicholls co uk>]

Christo,

That sounds quite unusual, and could be related to the similar problem
recently mentioned here:

http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/2011/q1/52

David suggested providing him with the --iflist output from those two debug
releases. This does look to me like an Nmap problem, but I have no idea why
the mapping to the WINDEVICE isn't present at all. Hopefully this is
something that can be fixed in a later release of Nmap. I'm glad we seem to
be getting somewhere, but you'll probably have to thank David from now on as
I'm getting out of my depth here!

Rob

-----Original Message-----
From: nmap-dev-bounces () insecure org [mailto:nmap-dev-bounces () insecure org]
On Behalf Of Christian Savalas
Sent: 04 February 2011 23:05
To: Rob Nicholls
Cc: nmap-dev () insecure org
Subject: Re: Windows 7

Hi Rob,

Maybe we are onto something now. The output of -iflist which I sent you was
the output in its entirety. It does not continue to display the libpcap
mapping of DEV to WINDEVICE. Why would that be? I've got my fingers crossed!
Thank you again for helping me!

Christo

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Rob Nicholls <robert () robnicholls co uk>
wrote:
> Hi Christo,
>
> You're right, eth16 does look like the correct interface. After 
> running --iflist and getting the list of interfaces seen below, do you 
> get any further output before the list of routes? It should look something
like:
> DEV   WINDEVICE
> eth0  <none>
> eth1  <none>
> eth2  \Device\NPF_{12AB34CD-E567-89F0-AB01-234C567890D1}
> eth3  \Device\NPF_{12AB34CD-E567-89F0-AB01-234C567890D1}
> eth4  <none>
> eth5  \Device\NPF_{12AB34CD-E567-89F0-AB01-234C567890D1}
> eth6  <none>
> eth7  \Device\NPF_{12AB34CD-E567-89F0-AB01-234C567890D1}
> eth8  <none>
> eth9  <none>
> eth10 <none>
> ppp0  <none>
> ppp1  <none>
> lo0   <none>
> eth0  <none>
> eth1  <none>
> eth2  \Device\NPF_{12AB34CD-E567-89F0-AB01-234C567890D1}
> eth3  \Device\NPF_{12AB34CD-E567-89F0-AB01-234C567890D1}
> eth4  <none>
> eth5  \Device\NPF_{12AB34CD-E567-89F0-AB01-234C567890D1}
>
> For this particular host, eth2 is the correct interface, and eth2 has 
> the right WINDEVICE against it. If you're getting <none> against eth16 
> then this could be why you're not seeing any traffic sent by Nmap/WinPcap.
>
> The "Microsoft" entry in Wireshark should be normal, I think it simply 
> means you're using Vista/7 with NDIS6 drivers that hand everything 
> over to an intermediate Microsoft driver that does the (hard?) work of 
> converting
> 802.11 frames into 802.3 frames that can be dealt with more easily.
>
> Rob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nmap-dev-bounces () insecure org 
> [mailto:nmap-dev-bounces () insecure org]
> On Behalf Of Christian Savalas
> Sent: 04 February 2011 22:31
> To: Rob Nicholls; nmap-dev () insecure org
> Subject: Re: Windows 7
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Nice to hear from you again. Btw, you had a good point, that the -e 
> switch is unnecessary with -sT... overlooked the redundancy. Anyway, 
> I'll try to speak to each of your presumptions. When iflist is run 
> while connected wirelessly, the result is this:
>
> ************************INTERFACES************************
> DEV   (SHORT) IP/MASK           TYPE        UP   MTU  MAC
> eth0  (eth0)  (null)/0          ethernet    down 0    
> 00:00:00:00:00:00
> eth1  (eth1)  (null)/0          ethernet    up   1500 
> 8C:F5:20:52:41:53
> eth2  (eth2)  (null)/0          ethernet    up   1500 
> 8C:F5:20:52:41:53
> eth3  (eth3)  (null)/0          ethernet    down 1500 
> 00:26:B9:CF:50:5F
> eth4  (eth4)  (null)/0          ethernet    down 1500 
> 00:26:B9:CF:50:5F
> eth5  (eth5)  (null)/0          ethernet    up   1500 
> 8C:F5:20:52:41:53
> eth6  (eth6)  (null)/0          ethernet    up   1500 
> 8C:F5:20:52:41:53
> eth7  (eth7)  (null)/0          ethernet    down 1500 
> 00:26:B9:CF:50:5F
> eth8  (eth8)  (null)/0          ethernet    up   1500 
> 8C:F5:20:52:41:53
> eth9  (eth9)  (null)/0          ethernet    up   1500 
> 8C:F5:20:52:41:53
> eth10 (eth10) 169.254.89.175/16 ethernet    up   1500 
> 00:50:56:C0:00:01
> eth11 (eth11) 169.254.176.88/16 ethernet    up   1500 
> 00:50:56:C0:00:08
> eth12 (eth12) (null)/0          ethernet    down 1500 
> F0:7B:CB:8F:71:B7
> eth13 (eth13) (null)/0          ethernet    down 1500 
> F0:7B:CB:8F:71:B7
> eth14 (eth14) (null)/0          ethernet    down 1500 
> F0:7B:CB:8F:71:B7
> eth15 (eth15) (null)/0          ethernet    down 0    
> 00:02:76:1E:E4:F6
> ppp0  (ppp0)  (null)/0          other       up   1494
> ppp1  (ppp1)  (null)/0          other       down 0
> lo0   (lo0)   127.0.0.1/8       loopback    up   1500
> eth16 (eth16) 192.168.1.133/24  ethernet    up   1500 
> F0:7B:CB:8F:71:B7
> eth17 (eth17) (null)/0          ethernet    up   1500 
> F0:7B:CB:8F:71:B7
> eth18 (eth18) (null)/0          ethernet    up   1500 
> F0:7B:CB:8F:71:B7
> eth19 (eth19) (null)/0          ethernet    up   1500 
> F0:7B:CB:8F:71:B7
> eth20 (eth20) (null)/0          ethernet    up   1500 
> F0:7B:CB:8F:71:B7
> eth0  (eth0)  (null)/0          point2point up   4091
> eth1  (eth1)  (null)/0          point2point down 1480
> eth2  (eth2)  (null)/0          point2point up   1460
> eth3  (eth3)  (null)/0          point2point up   1464
> eth4  (eth4)  (null)/0          point2point down 1280
> eth5  (eth5)  (null)/0          point2point down 1280
> eth6  (eth6)  (null)/0          point2point down 1280
> eth7  (eth7)  (null)/0          point2point down 1280
>
>
> To me, this indicates that eth16 would be the correct adapter. The 
> story gets even more interesting when you factor in Wireshark's 
> behavior. While I know getting promiscuous mode to work with a factory 
> installed wireless card is a pipe dream, I have confirmed that 
> wireless packet capturing on my own wireless card with Wireshark DOES 
> indeed work with all other traffic, except for Nmap traffic (without 
> -sT). Does this point to a problem with Nmap->Winpcap interaction? The 
> last weirdness I can add to the mystery is that although Wireshark 
> flawlessly detects non-promiscuous traffic relevant to my wireless 
> interface, Wireshark shows the wireless interface name as "Microsoft", 
> whereas my ethernet controller shows up more normally as "Atheros L1C 
> etc...".
>
> To be continued, I suppose...
>
> Christo
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Rob Nicholls 
> <robert () robnicholls co uk>
> wrote:
> > Hi Christo,
> >
> > I'm glad you had more luck with wired!
> >
> > WinPcap on Windows has quite a few limitations, so it's possible that 
> > this is why you're having less success using the wireless interface. 
> > The
> WinPcap
> > FAQ states:
> >
> > Wireless adapters: these adapters may present problems, because they 
> > are
> not
> > properly supported by the Windows Kernel. Some of them are not 
> > detected, other don't support promiscuous mode. In the best case, 
> > WinPcap is able to see an Ethernet emulation and not the real 
> > transiting packets: this means that the 802.11 frames are transformed 
> > into fake Ethernet frames before being captured, and that control 
> > frames are not received
> >
> > When you use -sT you're performing a Connect scan, and on Windows 
> > this
> uses
> > the native operating system to send them (if you use --unprivileged 
> > it'll only use the OS to do the scans, which prevents many Nmap 
> > features from working properly) so Nmap doesn't have to work out 
> > which interface to use
> as
> > it doesn't use WinPcap to send the packets (and this is why -e isn't 
> > necessary here).
> >
> > If you do a --packet-trace you'll see the difference in Nmap's output 
> > between a SYN scan using WinPcap (lots of details about flags and 
> > ids) and
> a
> > Connect scan through the OS (it pretty much just says "Operation now 
> > in progress"). The fact -sT works for you suggests to me that the 
> > problem is related to WinPcap or your wireless card, although it's 
> > possible that Nmap is failing to detect your wireless device 
> > properly. I suspect you don't
> need
> > to use -Pn when doing a Connect scan with the wireless card.
> >
> > I assume eth16 appeared to correspond with your wireless card when 
> > you ran "nmap --iflist"? Did you happen to spot any other interfaces 
> > that had something like <none> against the WINDEVICE? There have been 
> > issues in the past where the wrong interface was determined, or the 
> > correct interface couldn't be correctly tied to the right WINDEVICE, 
> > but David's solved most of these problems.
> >
> > I couldn't quickly spot any traffic sent to scanme.nmap.org, so 
> > either you weren't capturing from the right network adaptor or (much 
> > more likely) the packets were never sent by Nmap/WinPcap using that 
> > adaptor (it's possible they were sent to another adaptor, that might 
> > not exist/show up in Wireshark).
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christian Savalas [mailto:csavalas () gmail com]
> > Sent: 04 February 2011 20:22
> > To: Rob Nicholls
> > Subject: Re: Windows 7
> >
> > Hi again,
> >
> > It's really ironic that after a year of tooling with this I would 
> > discover new information a few minutes after finally sendig you guys a
message!
> After
> > I hit send, I realized I hadn't tried it on a wired ethernet 
> > connection
> for
> > two revisions. Lo and Behold, it works...
> > Cool! And on the wireless side, I discovered that the addition of the 
> > -sT switch with -Pn does indeed produce the expected results, but I 
> > may as
> well
> > use Superscanner for that ;)
> >
> > I should have mentioned in my first message that all other Windows 
> > net
> tools
> > like ping, tracert work just fine on any address, using the wireless 
> > interface. And I have indeed visited scanme.nmap.org with a browser.
> >
> > What's odd is that nmap works fully with ethernet, only partially
> (tcpip.sys
> > style -sT) with wireless. Does this point to the winpcap library? I 
> > would think so, but then again, Wireshark appears to capture packets.
> >
> > I got excited about your suggestion to specify the interface 
> > explicitly,
> but
> > then I remembered what I discovered about the scan working with the 
> > -sT switch, with no explicit selection of interface.
> > Needless to say, I did try it, with no different results.
> >
> > The command:
> >
> > "nmap -d -Pn -e eth16 scanme.nmap.org"
> >
> > yields the resulting output:
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> > Winpcap present, dynamic linked to: WinPcap version 4.1.2 (packet.dll 
> > version 4.1.0.2001), based on libpcap version 1.0 branch 1_0_rel0b
> > (20091008)
> >
> >
> >
> > Starting Nmap 5.50 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2011-02-04 11:50 Pacific
> Standard
> > Time
> >
> > PORTS: Using top 1000 ports found open (TCP:1000, UDP:0, SCTP:0)
> >
> > --------------- Timing report ---------------
> >
> >  hostgroups: min 1, max 100000
> >
> >  rtt-timeouts: init 1000, min 100, max 10000
> >
> >  max-scan-delay: TCP 1000, UDP 1000, SCTP 1000
> >
> >  parallelism: min 0, max 0
> >
> >  max-retries: 10, host-timeout: 0
> >
> >  min-rate: 0, max-rate: 0
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------
> >
> > mass_rdns: Using DNS server 192.168.1.1
> >
> > mass_rdns: Using DNS server 192.168.1.1
> >
> > mass_rdns: Using DNS server 192.168.1.1
> >
> > Initiating Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 11:50
> >
> > mass_rdns: 0.02s 0/1 [#: 3, OK: 0, NX: 0, DR: 0, SF: 0, TR: 1]
> >
> > Completed Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 11:50, 0.01s elapsed
> >
> > DNS resolution of 1 IPs took 0.02s. Mode: Async [#: 3, OK: 1, NX: 0,
> > DR: 0, SF: 0, TR: 1, CN: 0]
> >
> > Initiating SYN Stealth Scan at 11:50
> >
> > Scanning scanme.nmap.org (64.13.134.52) [1000 ports]
> >
> > Packet capture filter (device eth16): dst host 192.168.1.133 and 
> > (icmp or ((tcp or udp or sctp) and (src host 64.13.134.52)))
> >
> > SYN Stealth Scan Timing: About 14.50% done; ETC: 11:53 (0:03:03 
> > remaining)
> >
> > SYN Stealth Scan Timing: About 29.50% done; ETC: 11:53 (0:02:26 
> > remaining)
> >
> >
> > "
> > "
> >
> >
> > Completed SYN Stealth Scan at 11:53, 203.00s elapsed (1000 total 
> > ports)
> >
> > Overall sending rates: 9.85 packets / s, 433.50 bytes / s.
> >
> > Nmap scan report for scanme.nmap.org (64.13.134.52)
> >
> > Host is up, received user-set.
> >
> > All 1000 scanned ports on scanme.nmap.org (64.13.134.52) are filtered 
> > because of 1000 no-responses
> >
> >
> >
> > Read from C:\Program Files (x86)\Nmap: nmap-payloads nmap-services.
> >
> > Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 203.38 seconds
> >
> >           Raw packets sent: 2000 (88.000KB) | Rcvd: 0 (0B)
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > As you can see, the host is declared up, with no open ports. And now 
> > with -Pn removed from the command (nmap -d -e eth16 scanme.nmap.org), 
> > I am left with this:
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> > Winpcap present, dynamic linked to: WinPcap version 4.1.2 (packet.dll 
> > version 4.1.0.2001), based on libpcap version 1.0 branch 1_0_rel0b
> > (20091008)
> >
> >
> >
> > Starting Nmap 5.50 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2011-02-04 11:56 Pacific
> Standard
> > Time
> >
> > PORTS: Using top 1000 ports found open (TCP:1000, UDP:0, SCTP:0)
> >
> > --------------- Timing report ---------------
> >
> >  hostgroups: min 1, max 100000
> >
> >  rtt-timeouts: init 1000, min 100, max 10000
> >
> >  max-scan-delay: TCP 1000, UDP 1000, SCTP 1000
> >
> >  parallelism: min 0, max 0
> >
> >  max-retries: 10, host-timeout: 0
> >
> >  min-rate: 0, max-rate: 0
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------
> >
> > Initiating Ping Scan at 11:56
> >
> > Scanning scanme.nmap.org (64.13.134.52) [4 ports]
> >
> > Packet capture filter (device eth16): dst host 192.168.1.133 and 
> > (icmp or ((tcp or udp or sctp) and (src host 64.13.134.52)))
> >
> > Completed Ping Scan at 11:56, 4.39s elapsed (1 total hosts)
> >
> > Overall sending rates: 1.82 packets / s, 69.28 bytes / s.
> >
> > mass_rdns: Using DNS server 192.168.1.1
> >
> > mass_rdns: Using DNS server 192.168.1.1
> >
> > mass_rdns: Using DNS server 192.168.1.1
> >
> > Nmap scan report for scanme.nmap.org (64.13.134.52) [host down, 
> > received no-response]
> >
> > Read from C:\Program Files (x86)\Nmap: nmap-payloads nmap-services.
> >
> > Note: Host seems down. If it is really up, but blocking our ping 
> > probes,
> try
> > -Pn
> >
> > Nmap done: 1 IP address (0 hosts up) scanned in 4.75 seconds
> >
> >           Raw packets sent: 8 (304B) | Rcvd: 0 (0B)
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> > So strange, because the output seems to have resolved the domain to 
> > the ip 64.13.134.52, and, beyond that, "ping" works from the command
prompt.
> > Lastly, I have tried capturing packets with Wireshark while running 
> > the
> scan
> > with AND without -Pn, but I am by no means an expert on packet analysing.
> I
> > attached the two logs for you, just in case it would help. From my
> untrained
> > eye, I honestly don't see any NMap traffic.
> >
> > I sincerely appreciate you getting back to me so soon, and I hope to 
> > hear from you with good news!
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Christo
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Rob Nicholls 
> > <robert () robnicholls co uk>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Christo
> > >
> > > On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 01:01:18 -0800, Christian Savalas wrote:
> > > > Despite this, regardless of which address I scan, (even
> > > > scanme.nmap.org) I am told that 0  hosts are up.
> > >
> > > If you add -Pn to the Nmap commands you're running, Nmap will assume 
> > > the host is up and should attempt to scan the host.
> > >
> > > Are you able to use Windows' built in "ping" utility to ping a 
> > > remote host over the internet? e.g.
> > >
> > > > ping scanme.nmap.org
> > >
> > > Pinging scanme.nmap.org [64.13.134.52] with 32 bytes of data:
> > > Reply from 64.13.134.52: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=50 Reply from
> > > 64.13.134.52: bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=50 Reply from 64.13.134.52:
> > > bytes=32 time=145ms TTL=50 Reply from 64.13.134.52: bytes=32 
> > > time=145ms TTL=50
> > >
> > > This is one of the checks that Nmap tries to determine if a host is 
> > > up. If you don't get a response then it's possible that your ISP is 
> > > filtering ICMP traffic.
> > >
> > > Are you able to view http://scanme.nmap.org using your browser? You 
> > > should get a white page with a message from Fyodor in black text. If 
> > > you can see this, then you can access port 80/TCP. This is another 
> > > port that Nmap will try in order to determine whether a host is up. 
> > > If you can't see the web page then something bad is happening.
> > >
> > > Have you tried running Wireshark at the same time as an Nmap scan?
> > > This would let you see if packets are sent from or returned to your 
> > > host. I'd be surprised if Nmap is failing to identify the returned 
> > > packets, but this might happen if you have teamed NICs, for example.
> > >
> > > If you add -d to the Nmap command you'll see some debug information, 
> > > including a line like:
> > >
> > > Packet capture filter (device eth7): dst host xx.xx.xx.xx and (icmp 
> > > or ((tcp or udp or sctp) and (src host xx.xx.xx.xx)))
> > >
> > > If you run "nmap --iflist" you should see a list of interfaces (and
> > routes).
> > > It's possible that the correct NIC isn't picked up by Nmap and it's 
> > > trying to send packets over the wrong interface (and getting nothing 
> > > back). You can use -e to state the correct interface to use, e.g.
> > >
> > > > nmap scanme.nmap.org -e eth7
> > >
> > > Starting Nmap 5.51SVN ( http://nmap.org ) at 2011-02-04 09:57 GMT 
> > > Standard Time Nmap scan report for scanme.nmap.org (64.13.134.52) 
> > > Host is up (0.15s latency).
> > > Not shown: 993 filtered ports
> > > PORT      STATE  SERVICE
> > > 22/tcp    open   ssh
> > > 25/tcp    closed smtp
> > > 53/tcp    open   domain
> > > 70/tcp    closed gopher
> > > 80/tcp    open   http
> > > 113/tcp   closed auth
> > > 31337/tcp closed Elite
> > >
> > > Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 10.00 seconds
> > >
> > >
> > > Rob
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christian Savalas
> > Marina Pointe Tech Support
> > 13600 Marina Pointe Drive
> > Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
> > +1 (310) 343-2000 (cell)
>
>
>
> --
> Christian Savalas
> Marina Pointe Tech Support
> 13600 Marina Pointe Drive
> Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
> +1 (310) 343-2000 (cell)
> _______________________________________________
> Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list 
> http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
> Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/



--
Christian Savalas
Marina Pointe Tech Support
13600 Marina Pointe Drive
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
+1 (310) 343-2000 (cell)
_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/


_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/