Re: Odd identd behavior

[kgp () nethere com]

Mike,

220 is the banner message for an ftp server.
If you telnet to it and hit return after recieving the banner message you
should get a 530 if it's a normally configured ftp server (and if it's not
then why'd they leave the 220 on the banner?).

dig or nslookup the site. That should give you a contact name and phone
number although a lot of folks leave that out now. It is probably the
person paying for the site and you'll have to ask to be put in touch with
the actual admins.

Kevin

Quoting "Christopher E. Cramer" <chris.cramer () duke edu>:

> Mike,
>
> This looks like the output from an FTP server.  If I had to guess, I
> would
> say that this looks like someone compromised a machine and installed a
> warez ftp server on the identd port.
>
> -c
>
> --
> Christopher E. Cramer, Ph.D.
> University Information Technology Security Officer
> Duke University,  Office of Information Technology
> 334 Blackwell St., Suite 2106, Durham, NC 27701
> PH: 919-660-7003  FAX: 919-668-2953  CELL: 919-210-0528
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Mike Owen wrote:
>
> > While going through logs, and looking at mail server ident daemon
> > replies that don't fit the RFC-1413 standard, I noticed the following
> > string from a few servers:
> >
> > "220 ..:: ?lit?-Cr?w Rulez ::..."
> >
> > Looks to me like this group has been compromising mail servers, and
> > then instead of taking them down, lets them continue running, although
> > with a slight modification. They probably siphon off a copy of all
> > email transiting their servers as well, although without access to any
> > of these servers, I can't tell.
> >
> > Interesting to note, if you send 2 ident requests, the second one comes
> back as:
> > "220 ..:: ?lit?-Cr?w Rulez ::....530 Not logged in..."
> >
> > This leads me to believe this is the backdoor into these mail servers,
> > after all, if you're trying to hide a backdoor from port scans, or
> > dealing with stringent firewall rules, subverting an existing
> > listening process is a smart way to do it.
> >
> > I have not notified the 0wned sites, mostly because I'm not really
> > sure what to do there. I can't email them, which means I have to
> > attempt to find a contact, and then call them. Then of course, the
> > person I manage to get a hold of needs to understand what I'm trying
> > to say, and I have to hope they don't then try and email someone
> > telling them that they have been compromised, thereby letting the
> > attackers know.
> >
> > I'm curious as to whether anyone else has seen ident replies like this.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike