Detecting Spoofed MAC Addresses On 802.11 Nets 18
Joshua Wright writes "I have written a white paper on detecting spoofed MAC addresses on wireless LAN's. This paper describes some of the techniques attackers utilize to disrupt wireless networks through MAC address spoofing, demonstrated with captured traffic that was generated by the AirJack, FakeAP and Wellenreiter tools. Utilizing the techniques I describe, it is possible to identify users who utilize spoofed MAC addresses on 802.11 networks to launch denial of service attacks, bypass access control mechanisms, or falsely advertise services to wireless clients."
First Post! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:First Post! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:First Post! (Score:1)
((Can someone tell my why my post was moderated as redundant?!))
Re:First Post! (Score:1)
I'm not sure, but I think someone said 'First Post!' yesterday. Maybe it was last week.
Re:First Post! (Score:1)
No, for one important reason... (Score:2, Informative)
UNLESS...........
the intruder either waits until the user's counter is about to flip back to 0, then DoS the user, and reset his counter, then spoof the MAC address. Or perhaps a virus or trojan could be written that would reset the valid user's counter somehow.
Re:No, for one important reason... (Score:1)
Re:First Post! (Score:2)
No. One technique relies on a bug in a script to detect anonomolous MACs from script kiddies; not generally useful or applicable. The second technique is much more interesting and useful: it uses sequence number analysis to find spoofed MACs. This is, of course, not relevant to wired nets because ethernet has no such thing as a sequence number (only source, destination and type). This might be worth investigating as some places do use MACs for authentication (eg, you have to "register" your NIC with a username/password before being allowed out of a sandbox network - very popular in wireless nets, but also used occasionally on wired nets). Off the top of my head, I can't figure out any way to reliably detect MAC spoofing over ethernet (you just have very little to work with - you might try detecting when there is a too small time difference between one MAC sending from a jack and another, but then the attacker could just wait; or you could try using some higher-level protocol stuff, similar to what's used to detect when a card goes promiscuous, but those are just heuristics and can be broken; and there are also valid reasons for MAC spoofing (like VMWare)).
Also note that the techniques he describes are not foolproof. If someone knows an IDS using these techniques is in place, they could launch an attack as follows: 1. listen for a valid MAC; 2. send out some valid traffic using your factory-assigned MAC until your sequence number almost matches the target's (eg, keep hitting their authentication web page - might be difficult if the target is also active); 3. DOS the target using the few packets you have left until you meet the sequence number, or just use a second NIC to DOS the target; 4. take over target's IP, with no discontinuity in sequence numbers.
Still a very interesting paper.
good effort, but not quite what it seems... (Score:5, Informative)
He similarly points out limitations in denial of service tools: AirJack [11ninja.net] and FakeAP [blackalchemy.to] software. However, this isn't the same as giving a general technique for analyzing MAC addresses on 802.11b, something which was strongly implied in the original post.
Re:good effort, but not quite what it seems... (Score:3, Informative)
I don't have mod points, so I've reposted it with my +1 bonus (since the Score:5, Informative parent post is wrong).
Re:packet frame sequence analysis (Score:2)
The most interesting part of the paper to me was the section where Josh mentions that Lucent cards aren't following 802.11b specification in their sequence generation. And I highly agree with his recommendation in the final paragraph for access point vendors to add extra processing power to their hardware to accomodate security tools- such as sequence analysis tools. But it is a two way street, since doing so will give attackers more potential when they've succeeded with an exploit.
Re:good effort, but not quite what it seems... (Score:1)
Either way, wireless networks remain vulnerable...
Infinite Whitepapers (Score:1)