KFSensor Vs Honeyd Honeypot System Sunil Gurung [60-475] Security and Privacy on the Internet KFSensor Vs Honeyd Honeypot System

Agenda Introduction Honeypot Technology KFSensor Honeyd Features Tests Conclusion

Introduction Good Defence is Good Offence Network security – Firewall, IDS, antivirus. Traditional approach – defensive Today – offensive approach Honeypot solutions

Honeypot Technology “A honeypot is security resource whose value lies in being probed, attacked, or compromised.” - Lance Spitzner we want attackers to probe and exploit the virtual system running emulated services. System no production value, no traffic, most connection probe, attack or compromised. Complements the traditional security tools.

Fig: The basic setup up of the honeypot system. In the figure two KFSensor are configured production honeypots. Figure taken from “ User Manual of KFSensor – Help “

TYPES of ATTACKERS Script Kiddies Amateurs, don’t care about the host Educate the inadequacy of the security policy Blackhat Focus on high value system, more experienced More dangerous and operate silently

Types of Honeypot Low Interaction High Interaction Interaction: level of activity Honeypot allows with attacker Low Interaction Emulated services, easy to deploy and maintain, less risk. Designed to capture only known attack High Interaction Setup real services and provides interaction with OS More information, no assumption made give full open environments. Can use the real honeypot to attack others. Symantec Decoy Server, Honeynet

KFSensor Commercial low interaction honeypot solution Windows OS Preconfigured services: ssh, http, ftp etc Easy configuration and flexible Components of KFSensor Scenarios, Sim Server – standard and banner

Low interaction, open source Developed by Niels Provos of U of M Honeyd Low interaction, open source Developed by Niels Provos of U of M Features: service emulation and IP stack of OS Product Detail Software: honeyd Version: honeyd 0.8 License: open source Download site: http://honeyd.org OS: Windows, Linux, Unix – Solaris

ARPD, Libraries Dependencies Libevent-0.8a.tar.gz, libpcap0.8.3.tar.gz Installation ARPD, Libraries Dependencies Libevent-0.8a.tar.gz, libpcap0.8.3.tar.gz Honeyd package Installation process: # tar -zvxf libevent-0.8a.tar.gz Compile the libevent: # cd libevent-0.8a (Note: pwd is /honeyd_packages/ libevent-0.8a) #. /configure # make # make install

Major Differences between the two software IP address assignment Listening port OS emulation Open source advantage Financial value

How it works Configuration File Nmap.print & Xprobe2 Script for running the services

Explanation of Configuration file # Example of a simple host template and its binding annotate "AIX 4.0 - 4.2" fragment old create template set template personality "AIX 4.0 - 4.2" add template tcp port 80 open add template tcp port 22 open add template tcp port 23 open set template default tcp action reset bind 192.168.1.80 template

Nmap.print and Xprobe2 # Contributed by Felix Lindner (flindner@gmx.de) Fingerprint AXENT Raptor Firewall running on Windows NT TSeq(Class=TR) T1(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=2017%ACK=S++%Flags=AS%Ops=M) T2(Resp=N) T3(Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=2017%ACK=S++%Flags=AS%Ops=M) T4(Resp=Y%DF=N%W=0%ACK=S++%Flags=AR%Ops=) T5(Resp=Y%DF=N%W=0%ACK=S++%Flags=AR%Ops=) T6(Resp=Y%DF=N%W=0%ACK=S++%Flags=AR%Ops=) T7(Resp=N) PU(Resp=N)

Test Environment Inside the router 1) University network 2) Home network: putting the honeypot system inside the router [192.168.0.102] Various test performed:

Testing Honeyd IP of honeypot: 192.168.1.122 IP of host running the honeypot: 192.168.1.121 Running ARPD #arpd 192.168.0.0\24 2) Running Honeyd #honeyd –d –f config.sample –p nmap.print –x xprobe2 –l \”Log File” –I 2

Test 1: FTP (KFSensor)

Test 2: FTP honeyd

Other possible test (Network Topology) route entry 10.0.0.1 route 10.0.0.1 link 10.0.0.0/24 route 10.0.0.1 add net 10.1.0.0/16 10.1.0.1 latency 55ms loss 0.1 route 10.0.0.1 add net 10.2.0.0/16 10.2.0.1 latency 20ms loss 0.1 route 10.1.0.1 link 10.1.0.0/24 route 10.2.0.1 link 10.2.0.0/24 create routerone set routerone personality "Cisco 7206 running IOS 11.1(24)" set routerone default tcp action reset add routerone tcp port 23 "scripts/router-telnet.pl" create netbsd set netbsd personality "NetBSD 1.5.2 running on a Commodore Amiga (68040 processor)" set netbsd default tcp action reset add netbsd tcp port 22 proxy $ipsrc:22 add netbsd tcp port 80 "sh scripts/web.sh" bind 10.0.0.1 routerone bind 10.1.0.2 netbsd

Results – take from the abstract $ traceroute -n 10.3.0.10 traceroute to 10.3.0.10 (10.3.0.10), 64 hops max 1 10.0.0.1 0.456 ms 0.193 ms 0.93 ms 2 10.2.0.1 46.799 ms 45.541 ms 51.401 ms 3 10.3.0.1 68.293 ms 69.848 ms 69.878 ms 4 10.3.0.10 79.876 ms 79.798 ms 79.926 ms

Conclusion Both are low interaction Honey with better feature like IP simulation and OS IP stack simulation KFSensor better GUI easy configuration Can not replace the existing system. Work better along with it.