Anti-Honeypot Technology

By Ryan Resella

Anti-honeypot technology

lWhat is a Honeypot?

nDifferent types

nLegal Issues

 

lWhat is Anti-honeypot technology?

nHow it affects honeypots

nTools used

What is a Honeypot?

 

l“A honey pot is a computer system on the Internet that is expressly set up to attract and "trap" people who attempt to penetrate other people's computer systems” –whatis.com

More Honeypot Definitions…

l“A honeypot is an information system resource whose value lies in unauthorized or illicit use of that resource.”  -Lance Spitzner

lHoneypots are a highly flexible security tool with different applications for security

lHave multiple uses, such as prevention, detection, or information gathering.

 

Honeypots…

lHoneypots all share the same concept: a security resource that should not have any production or authorized activity.

lTheoretically, a honeypot should see no traffic because it has no legitimate activity.

lThis means any interaction with a honeypot is most likely unauthorized or malicious activity.

 

Honeypot Purposes

lDistract hackers from more valuable systems on the network

lCan provide early warning about new attack and exploitation trends

lThey allow in-depth examination of adversaries during and after exploitation

lServes as an Intrusion Detection System

Types of Honeypots

lThere are many different types of Honeypots and can generally be broken down into two types:

nLow-interaction honeypot

nHigh-interaction honeypot

Low-interaction honeypots

lThey have limited interaction.

lThey normally work by emulating services and operating systems (e.g. FTP, telnet, SMTP, UNIX, Linux)

lAttacker activity is limited to the level of emulation by the honeypot

lExamples of low-interaction honeypots: Spectr, Honeyd and KFSensor

High-interaction honeypots

lUsually complex solutions that use real operating systems and applications

lNo emulation is used, the attacker sees a real system

lExample: a real FTP server on a Linux system with full interaction.

lAvailable tools: Symantec Decoy Server and Honeynets.

Advantages of Low-interaction honeypots

lSimplicity

lEasier to maintain and deploy

lMinimal risk, as the emulated services control what attackers can and cannot do.

Disadvantages of Low-interaction honeypots

lCan only log limited information

lDesigned to capture known activity

lEmulated services can only do so much

lBecoming easier for skilled attackers to identify

Advantages of High-interaction honeypots

lCan capture far more information, including new tools, communications, or attacker keystrokes.

lLearn about the attackers behavior and unexpected behaviors

lCan do everything a low-interaction honeypot can do and more

Disadvantages of high-interaction honeypots

lComplex and difficult to maintain

lCan use this system to attack other non honeypot systems

lRequires more resources

Legal Issues of Honeypots

lLiability: You can potentially be held liable if your honeypot is used to attack or harm other systems or organizations. This risk is the greatest with high-interaction honeypots.

 

lPrivacy: Honeypots can capture extensive amounts of information about attackers, which can potentially violate their privacy, such as IRC chats or emails. This could violate the privacy of the attacker, or more likely people he is communicating with. Once again, this risk is primarily with high-interaction honeypots.

 

lEntrapment: Entrapment is a legal defense used to avoid a conviction, you cannot be charged with entrapment. Most legal experts believe that entrapment is not an issue for honeypots

Wireless Honeypot Experiment

lPurpose: to see how many unauthorized users attempt to access the wireless access point

lGather any information about the user

lUse low-interaction honeypot

lRan experiment for one week

Honeypot Experiment

Wireless Honeypot

lUsed wireless access point at work

lWireless access point had no encryption enabled, Netgear wireless router with DSL connection, and was easily accessible from the street.

lThe potential attacker could only access the internet and not connect to the LAN.

lLogged all DHCP connections given from the server to client

 

 

DHCP Log

Results

lThe server assigns IP addresses using DHCP protocol. 

lThe DHCP server log recorded all DHCP activity over a one week time period.

lOver the one week time period no unauthorized DHCP connections were logged.

lConclusion: no unauthorized attempt to access the wireless access point was logged

 

Anti Honeypot Technology

 

 

What is Anti-honeypot technology?

 

 

lTools that are used to identify honeypots

 

lFor example “Honeypot Hunter”

Effects on honeypots

lIf a honeypot is detected, users can attempt to bypass detection

lHoneypot can be attacked if detected

lThe honeypot could be used to attack other systems

 

More effects on honeypots

lPrevents honeypots from collecting valuable information

lHoneypot itself loses effectiveness of being a covert system once compromised

lGives attackers more characteristics to identify honeypots

 

Characteristics of identifying honeypots

lFinding honeypots is a difficult process

lAttackers look for differences between a real system and a honeypot representation of a system

lHoneypot systems typically limit outgoing bandwidth and the outgoing number of connections

lAlters outbound packets to prevent attacks

Connection Limiting

lHoneypot will count the outbound connections within a period of time.

lOnce the threshold is reached the new outbound connections are denied

lOne of the most easiest characteristics to detect

lSimply open up 10-20 websites and see if the connection is blocked

 

Outbound packet alteration

lModifies packets that are believed to be of an exploitive nature

lHoneypots compute a hash of portions of the packet

lReturns a response based on the hash

lAttacker expects to receive a known response but instead receives a modified response from the honeypot

Send-Safe Proxy Scanner

lSend-Safe’s proxy scanner searches for multiple open proxy servers for obscuring a spammers identity.

 

Honey Pot Hunter

l“Send-Safe Honeypot Hunter is a tool designed for checking lists of HTTPS and SOCKS proxies for so called “honeypots”. “Honeypots” are fake proxies run by the people who are attempting to frame bulkers by using those fake proxies for logging traffic through and then send complaint’s to one’s ISPs”

 

 

Honeypot Hunter

Honeypot Hunter

lThe first commercially available honeypot detection tool

lHoneypot hunter tests open proxy connectivity

lIt classifies the proxy as:

nSafe(good)

nBad(failed)

nTrap(honeypot)

How Honeypot Hunter works

lOpens a false mail server on the local system using port 25 to test the proxy connection

lHoneypot hunter attempts to proxy back to its own false mail server

lThis approach identifies most invalid proxies and honeypots.

 

Other tools

lVarious noncommercial code used to identify honeypots

lSebek.c , sebek-find.c , unsebek.c, vmware_detect.s

lThese tools exploit vulnerabilities in popular honeypot systems like Sebek, Honeyd and VMWare

Honeypot timeline

l1.  Honeypot

l2.  Honeypot Detection Tools

l3.  Anti Honeypot Detection tools

l4.  Anti Anti Honeypot Detection tools

lWill the cycle ever end?

Conclusions

lHoneypots are a great way to observe, identify and capture potential attackers.

lThe effectiveness of  honeypot technology only exists if it is unknown to the attacker

lHoneypot administrators must make every effort to avoid being detected (eg.  Changing default error messages)

 

Conclusions….

lEssentially, the honeypot technologies must remain secret in order for them to be effective in the field.

lHoneypot program writers must continually update and change their program to avoid being identified by attackers.

 

 

References

lDefinition of a honeypot -  Feb 24,2004 http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci551721,00.html

l“Definitions and Values of Honeypots” by Lance Spitzner, May 29,2003, http://www.tracking-hackers.com/papers/honeypots.html

l“Honeypots, Honeynets” , May 3, 2004 http://www.honeypots.net/

l“Honeypots: Are They Illegal?” by Lance Spitzner, June 12, 2003, http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1703

l“Local Honeypot Identification” by Joseph Corey, September 9, 2003, http://www.phrack.org/fakes/p62/p62-0x07.txt

l“Anti-Honeypot Technology” by Neal Krawetz

lSend-Safe – Proxy Hunter and Honeypot Hunter – www.send-safe.com