Penetration Testing mailing list archives
Re: NAT is present?
From: Volker Tanger <vtlists () wyae de>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:59:03 +0200
Greetings! On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:21:58 +0200 "xxradar" <xxradar () radarhack com> wrote:
Hey, .1 seems to be a checkpoint firewall (264 is a checkpoint port) I'm pretty sure that NAT rules in checkpoint can be configured to behave like this on purpose (or by mistake) -----Original Message----- From: pinoch0 () gmail com [mailto:pinoch0 () gmail com] *.*.*.1 PORT STATE SERVICE 264/tcp open bgmp 500/tcp open isakmp
[...]
All the host of the subnet seems to have http and https open but when
Sounds a lot like a CKP FW1 with the HTTP "security server" enabled, which generally is allowing HTTP/HTTPS from the network you scanned from. This "ports-open-to-all-servers-but-does-not-work" behaviour is common among all proxy-based firewalls (e.g. Raptor, Symantec) or firewall content servers (e.g. CheckPoint, Astaro, Innominate mGuard) as the proxy generally has to accept all traffic and is deciding AFTER initial connect wether the connection is allowed. Technically this could be changed e.g. by packet filters that restrict access *before* the traffic is redirected to the proxy, but this usually is regarded as superfluous. Maybe the double management (PF *and* proxy rules) is regarded as too complicated? I am not sure about the performance impact of such double-filtering, but in high illegal load scenarios the additional PF probably is preventing the system to get into high(er) load compared to a "blank" proxy approach that is so common. I know of one technical reason for this, though: traffic redirection to the local proxy usually is done in the pre-routing PF table, while "normal" PF rules follow later in the "forward" PF rules. Adding PF rules in thw forward chain will never be reached of course, and thus it is sensible to leave such PF rules out. Back to CheckPoint: 264/tcp is another hint, while nominally reserved for BGMP (http://netweb.usc.edu/bgmp/), here everything looks like Checkpoint. They are using this port for the "Check Point VPN-1 SecuRemote Topology Requests", which is used by the CheckPoint SecuRemote/SecureClient VPN client program. Which usually is using IPSec internally nowadays - and with it IKE/ISAKMP at port 500. Have you run a UDP scan too? Then you should probably find ports 500 (IKE) and 4500 (IPSec NAT traversal for CKP) open on *.*.*.1, too if this is a CKP firewall/VPN. Bye Volker -- Volker Tanger http://www.wyae.de/volker.tanger/ -------------------------------------------------- vtlists () wyae de PGP Fingerprint 378A 7DA7 4F20 C2F3 5BCC 8340 7424 6122 BB83 B8CB ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Audit your website security with Acunetix Web Vulnerability Scanner: Hackers are concentrating their efforts on attacking applications on your website. Up to 75% of cyber attacks are launched on shopping carts, forms, login pages, dynamic content etc. Firewalls, SSL and locked-down servers are futile against web application hacking. Check your website for vulnerabilities to SQL injection, Cross site scripting and other web attacks before hackers do! Download Trial at: http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/pen-test_050831 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- NAT is present? pinoch0 (Sep 11)
- Re: NAT is present? Cedric Blancher (Sep 12)
- Re: NAT is present? Felikz (Sep 12)
- RE: NAT is present? xxradar (Sep 12)
- Re: NAT is present? Volker Tanger (Sep 14)
- RE: NAT is present? Philippe Bogaerts (Sep 15)
- Re: NAT is present? Volker Tanger (Sep 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: NAT is present? Paul Culmsee (Sep 12)