From: "Marius Mertens" <marius.mertens@gmx.de>
To: Netfilter User Mailing List <netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
Subject: Re: SSH Brute Force not working (any longer)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:14:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <003601c592df$9f92fda0$4206a8c0@loki> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 5d2f37910507270936737ad3d1@mail.gmail.com
Hi everybody,
On Wednesday, July 27, 2005 6:36 PM,
curby . wrote:
> I know enough to realize that it didn't stop working just because it
> hates me: most likely, i changed something in the configuration or
> something to make it stop working. However, I can't think of anyting
> I could have done to two different machines to make them stop working
> in exactly that same way. Basically, every SSH attempt skips the
> return to the input chain and jumps directly to log/drop or
> log/tarpit. I've tried increasing the --hitcount, tried rebooting or
> otherwise restarting the network service, tried using a different
> --name in recet, etc.
Well, from what your wrote I guess it suddenly ceased working. Don't worry,
you are definitely alone. Since you mentioned that it looks like it was
skipping the whole rule that should RETURN "good" packets, it sounds like
you have encountered the same thing that happened to me.
I only had a closer look at your first and second ruleset example, and if I
understand it right, the first example should always return the packets,
since RETURN is the first rule (inverted rcheck) in SSH_Brute_Force, so the
recent list should never receive an entry.
And I guess that in your second example the DROP rule (positive update
check) always matches and therefore always drops, though the way I
understand the rules, they should never match, because again the list entry
has never been set.
If my above two guesses about your ruleset behaviour are true, then you have
the same problem I had. Suddenly they ceased working, and the inverted match
was always false (where it should have matched) and an added non-inverted
match for testing with the same criteria did match, though it should have
been the other way round.
I also tried roughly the same debugging you did, with no results. It
happened with both a 2.6.12.1 kernel.org and a 2.6.11 debian kernel, reboot
did not change anything, and I was unable to find out where the problem was.
What I found out was, that low hitcounts (20 or smaller) always matched a
positive match, while high hitcounts (21 and above) never did, even after
pushing a sufficiently large number of packets through that ruleset to have
more than 21 entries within the last minute. So
iptables -A SSH_Brute_Force -m recent --name SSH ! --rcheck --seconds
0 --hitcount 20 -j RETURN
never returned. While
iptables -A SSH_Brute_Force -m recent --name SSH ! --rcheck --seconds
0 --hitcount 21 -j RETURN
always returned, regardless how many packets have been processed by that
rule within the last minute. Maybe there is a similar "critical" number of
hits for you.
So sorry, no idea how to get rid of it, but I thought you might be
interested in knowing that you are not the only one encountering that
problem. The only positive about it: I finally gave up debugging it, and as
silently as it came, the problem disappeared. Everything is working fine
again. With a still unchanged ruleset of course ;-)
So I hope (and assume) it will silently disappear for you, too, though I
would give quite a lot to actually find out what the hell went wrong in the
3 days it was not working.
Good luck,
Marius
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-27 19:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-27 16:36 SSH Brute Force not working (any longer) curby .
2005-07-27 18:31 ` Nagy Zoltan
2005-07-27 19:14 ` Marius Mertens [this message]
2005-07-27 21:55 ` Marius Mertens
2005-07-27 22:50 ` curby .
2005-07-27 23:33 ` Marius Mertens
2005-07-28 19:28 ` Taylor, Grant
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='003601c592df$9f92fda0$4206a8c0@loki' \
--to=marius.mertens@gmx.de \
--cc=netfilter@lists.netfilter.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox