Re: backorifice-brute

[Gorjan Petrovski <mogi57 () gmail com>]

We discussed the initiation of the backorifice-brute script at great
length at the NSE meetings and we decided that it shouldn't run by
default because the backorifice service is far from widespread an it's
going to be even less used in the future. I'd like to point out that
this is the BackOrifice server not the BackOrifice2000, with which the
situation is a little bit different.

Thanks for your remark nevertheless. It is a valid one to say the least.

Gorjan


On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Ron <ron () skullsecurity net> wrote:
> Why did you decide not to run it by default against 31337? I realize that it can be slow, and that 31337 will almost 
> always be open-filtered, but all brute scripts are nasty like that.
>
> Ron
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 23:53:31 +0200 Gorjan Petrovski <mogi57 () gmail com> wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I've finally finished the backorifice-brute script, and decided on the
> > criteria on which the script should run.
> >
> > The BackOrifice service is a very old service which now we presume
> > would be used only in a galaxy far far away. Because of the time
> > needed for the bruteforcing we've included a mandatory script
> > argument. This argument (backorifice-brute.ports) specifies the ports
> > on which the script should run and if omitted, the script never runs.
> > We've also included a debug message if the default port on which the
> > service is found, 31337/udp, is open|filtered but not selected with
> > the ports argument, thus notifying the user of a chance for version
> > detection using the backorifice-brute script.
> >
> > The host.times.timeout worked out perfectly with the service, I guess
> > I made a mistake in testing it out before. Sorry for the confusion,
> > David.
> >
> > I've also skimmed through the BackOrifice2000 client source code. The
> > protocol is different, the encryption is different compared to the
> > BackOrifice client. BO2K looks like a piece of art compared to BO :-)
> >
> > Feel free to comment, as always.
> >
> > I'm waiting for approval on committing this script. (But I have plenty
> > to work on, and it's a pretty non-popular service, so no pressure)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Gorjan
> _______________________________________________
> 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/