DREXEL UNIVERSITY

Info 710 Project

Network Incident Investigation, Acquisition, and
Response
John Misczak, John Ehring & Chris Grabosky
9/2/2010
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Network Forensics Discussion....................................................................................................................... 3
Types of Forensic Data .................................................................................................................................. 4
Statistical Data .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Alert Data .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Session Data .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Full Content Data ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Relevant Tools ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Packet Sniffing Tools ................................................................................................................................. 4
Packet Analyzers ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Text Search Utilities .................................................................................................................................. 5
Trace Tools ................................................................................................................................................ 5
Network Statistics Tools............................................................................................................................ 5
Intrusion Detection ................................................................................................................................... 5
Network Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 6
Windows Network Evidence Acquisition ...................................................................................................... 6
First Trace.................................................................................................................................................. 6
Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 6
Alert Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 8
Session Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 11
Full Content Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 13
Second Trace ........................................................................................................................................... 14
Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 14
Alert Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 16
Session Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 20
Full Content Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 21
UNIX First Trace .......................................................................................................................................... 23
Physical Properties .................................................................................................................................. 23
Basic Content Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 25
Alerts ....................................................................................................................................................... 27
Sessions ................................................................................................................................................... 31
 Full Content Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 34
Comparison Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 40
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 41
Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 42
Introduction

Before forensic experts begin any investigation, they must fully grasp and understand the basic core
principles of digital forensics. Most importantly, digital forensics experts must understand the proper
protocol which must be followed before any investigation can occur; failure to do so could result in
perfectly good digital evidence being thrown out due to being inadmissible.

Additionally, a forensic investigator must have a solid understanding of the types of data involved in a
network acquisition investigation. Statistical, alert, session, and full content data can all provide various
clues into the underpinnings of what actually happened during a network event. Once these types of
data are understood, a digital forensics expert can begin their analysis using a variety of tools. These
tools can change depending on the operating system in question, but they are generally based on the
same principles and forensic techniques. Packet sniffing tools, packet analyzers, text search utilities,
trace tools, network statistics tools, intrusion detection, and network monitoring can each provide
specific data sets to a forensic expert.

In our analysis of network incident investigation, acquisition, and response, we will demonstrate typical
network acquisition processes using various types of data and specific tools common to forensic experts.
We will conduct a network acquisition process on both the Windows and UNIX environments. Finally,
we will compare these two environments to see what they share and how they differ from one another.

Network Forensics Discussion

Ben Laurie describes network forensics as “using evidence remaining after an attack on a computer to
determine how the attack was carried out and what the attacker did” (Laurie, 2004, p. 51). However,
this simplistic definition does not do the field justice. Network Forensics is a discipline within the greater
context of digital forensics which focuses on the collection of data, intrusion detection, and evidence
gathering via the monitoring of a network. It can be used to gather evidence after the fact, as Laurie
suggested, but can also be used to find evidence of a future attack or an attack in progress, as well as
when a potential attack is likely to take place. Furthermore, network forensics has the potential for
usefulness beyond calculated attacks; digital forensic evidence can be used to support prosecution of
other crimes, such as the distribution or retention of child pornography.

As Laurie describes, network forensics involves much more than the collection of leftover data, as many
cybercriminals are fully aware of their actions, and so seek to conceal their crimes. By utilizing a number
of network forensic techniques, security professionals can help unmask these crimes and find real,
useable evidence of wrong-doing and illegal activities which can be used in a court of law. Attackers are
likely to distort or remove evidence of their crimes by “modifying logs, deleting core dumps, and
installing software...which can’t be seen by using standard utilities” (Laurie, 2004, p. 51). It is the duty of
a network forensics specialist to understand the potentialities behind these cover-ups and to look for
the clues which can reveal that data has been tampered with or altered.
Many network attacks fail. For example, buffer overflow attacks require the execution of code from a
very specific location in order to be successful. This location depends highly on the operating system, its
build, and compilers used. Often, attacks will not know the exact location of this directory and will be
forced to try several variations before a successful attack is made. Forensics experts can use these failed
attempts to help determine what took place and what data could have been modified (Laurie, 2004).

Types of Forensic Data

Statistical Data
Statistical data is the summary information from a log dump that may provide a first direction into
forensic analysis (such as which protocol or application had been used). This type of data can be created
by using such applications as tcpdstat (for basic summary information) or Argus (for network flow
summary information).

Alert Data
Alert data consists of a more in-depth analysis based on patterns from a log dump. It can help to identify
possibly malicious activity. Intrusion detection applications, such as Snort, are capable of producing this
type of data.

Session Data
Session data looks at session information from a higher level in the OSI model and identifies nodes that
were communicating, including messages sent and received, as well as information about those
messages. Session data can help to identify strange session information like an overflow of SYN packets
or dropped connections, which can be a telltale sign of malicious or criminal activity.

Full Content Data

Full content looks into the full packet including control information anduser data (payload). This type of
data can help to identify actual attack information. However, obtaining this information is a very time
consuming process due to the large amounts of data involved. Therefore, previous analysis is necessary
to identify which packets should be analyzed for their full content.

Relevant Tools

Packet Sniffing Tools

Packet sniffing tools, such as tcpdump (for UNIX operating systems) and windump (for Windows
operating systems) can be used by network forensics experts to “convert binary data in packets to
human readable format”, intrusion detection, or logging traffic for later evidence collecting (Fuentes &
Dulal, 2005, p. 169). These types of tools can be used to create dumps of communications through the
TCP/IP and TCP/UDP stack to be analyzed for inconsistencies or evidence of an attack by understanding
the exact correspondence between sender and receiver. Tcpdump, of which windump is a Windows-
friendly port, was created in the early 1990s, is one of the most basic packet sniffing tools available; it is
a fundamental part of more complicated tools, such as Ethereal (Fuentes & Dulal, 2005).

Packet Analyzers
Packet analyzers, such as Ethereal and the more up-to-date Wireshark (both available on UNIX and
Windows platforms, as well as other operating systems), expand upon the work of packet sniffing tools
such as tcpdump. Included in packet analyzers are the functionality of packet sniffers, in addition to a
GUI (making the application more user-friendly), as well as filters which can display or capture particular
types of records. Packet analyzers, while similar in function to packet sniffers, “make it easier to make
sense of a stream of ongoing network communications” (Fuentes & Dulal, 2005, p. 173). By providing an
interface which can more easily make sense of a considerable amount of data, the work of a network
analyst is severely reduced.

Text Search Utilities

Text search utilities, such as ngrap and grep (which stands for “global regular expression print”), print
every line in a specific data set which contain a specific sequence of characters, regardless of whether or
not it is a word or part of another word (Goebelbecker, 1995). These text search utilities are extremely
useful to forensics experts because theyallow large quantities of log data (or output from network
dumps) to be quickly filtered for relevant information.

Trace Tools
Trace tools, such as tcptrace (developed by Shawn Ostermannfor the UNIX platform), helps to analyze
TCP dump files and identify session information. Tcptrace can work with packet sniffers/analyzers, such
as tcpdump, windump, Ethereal, and Wireshark, by using their data dumps as input. Once this input is
analyzed, tcptrace can provide information such as elapsed time between sending and receiving
packets, the specific segments of the packets which are sent and received, throughput, and total bytes
(Ostermann, 2003).

Network Statistics Tools

Network statistics tools, such as tcpdstat (developed by Dave Dittrich for the UNIX operating system),
“produce a per-protocol breakdown of traffic by bytes and packets, with average and maximum transfer
rates” from input gleaned packet sniffers/analyzers, such as tcpdump or Wireshark (Dittrich). These
types of tools allowforensics experts to obtain basic summary information of a network dump.

Intrusion Detection
Many intrusion detection tools which are “capable of performing real-time traffic analysis and packet
logging on IP networks” are currently available(Roesch). Snort is the leading tool in this market, one of
the reasons we have chosen it as our primary intrusion detection tool. Snort’s main usesinclude
performing protocol analysis, content searching/matching, detection of attacks, stealth port scans, and
OS fingerprinting attempts, among other types of attacks (Roesch). Specifically for our investigation, we
will run Snort in batch mode against already collected data to find patterns in the logs consistent with
malicious activity.
Network Monitoring
Though many network monitoring software suites are available, we have chosen Argus for its ability to
transform Wireshark/Ethereal output (libpcap data) into session data, capable of being analyzed with
other tools. Additionally, Argus can itself analyze packet files and “generate summary network flow
data” ( QoSient, LLC, 2010). Argus can also be used to analyze network streams and produce audits for
live networks.

Windows Network Evidence Acquisition

First Trace
The file that our team starts with for the first trace is the first part of the capture file from JBR Bank’s
incident, labeled s2a.lpc. While this file contains a wealth of network evidence data due to it being a
packet capture of a JBR Bank system, it is rather difficult to assess the exact cause and severity of the
incident by looking at it as whole. Instead, the preferred method is to work from the outside in, starting
with the statistical data of the capture.

Statistical Analysis
In order to perform some statistical analysis on the capture file, the team elected to use its first tool, a
program called tcpdstat (http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/talks/core02/tools/tools.html). In order to
get tcpdstat to properly compile on a Linux platform, however, the team had to download the packages
build-essential and libpcapdev-0.8 first. Once these packages were installed from their respective
repositories, tcpdstat compiled and was available for use.

The team then used tcpdstat to analyze the capture file and output the results of the analysis into a text
file for easier viewing.

With the file created, its contents can be opened and viewed in any text editor. The team chose to
relocate its output and results files to another machine not involved in the forensic analysis in order to
prevent any volatile data from being overwritten. When viewing the results of running the capture file
through tcpdstat, a few scenarios came to light that are possibly backed by evidence of the capture file’s
statistics.
First, the highest packet counts are fairly typical except for one entry. While IP, TCP, HTTP, and HTTPS
are all frequently used protocols in regular web traffic, the high packet count for the “other” field
indicates that a protocol unknown by tcpdstat is used frequently in the trace, or many different
unknown protocols were used a few times each. The latter theory was found to carry more weight once
the team noticed that numerous other protocols had just a few packets each. Thus, it is highly likely that
someone was attempting to send small amounts of a large variety of traffic in order to see what got
through; in other words, a port scan may have been performed on this JBR Bank system. However, there
could be many possible reasons why this pattern of traffic occurred that do not include an attack or
malicious individual; therefore, the team could not arrive at a conclusion at this point In the
investigation, and moved onto the next type of analysis.

Alert Data Analysis

While tcpdstat was useful for statistical analysis, it has little to no value as a tool that examines and
helps analyze network alert data. Thus, the team had to turn to its second tool, the open-source
intrusion detection system called Snort. Snort is a useful tool due to its flexibility; it can either be
activated as a live on the wire detection system, or it can be run after the fact on a collected batch of
data. Since the team already had the capture file, the second option was chosen.

Snort was run through the command line with a number of flags that configured it to run in the fashion
that the team desired. The flag “-c /etc/snort/snort.conf” tells Snort where to look for its rules file that
governs how the program will function and what it will look for. The “-r s2a.lpc” parameter gives snort
the location of the file to consider; since snort was being run from the directory that included the file,
the team did not have to include the full path. The “-b” flag tells snort to run in the aforementioned
batch mode, while “-l /var/log/snort” informs the program what directory to place its log files in.
The alert file generated by running snort contains a number of alerts based on data traffic patterns in
the capture file. While a first look at the file may yield nothing more than a rather large column of text,
one can quickly see that the various incidents are delimited by the series of characters “[**]”
surrounding the title of the incident.

Even in the first few alerts, the phrase “Attempted Information Leak” and “Web Application Attack”
occur multiple times. For each of these attacks, the victim IP address that acts as the destination for
attacks and source for leaks is 103.98.91.41, which the team had been informed, was the IP address of
the JBR Bank system. Furthermore, the attacks appear to be occurring over TCP Port 80, which is
frequently used on a web server such as the one employed by JBR Bank.

Furthermore, near the end of the alert file, the requests on TCP port 80 stop and numerous amounts of
other requests are made. These include using ICMP, SNMP, the SOCKS web proxy to gather additional
information about the system, such as what services are running and therefore can be used to the
attacker’s advantage.
By first closely examining the key port of the web server and then fanning out to investigate other
potential avenues of attack or exploitation, it is clear that the party who was interacting with the JBR
Bank system has intentions other than simply accessing the bank’s web site. In order to find out exactly
what those intentions may be, the team moved onto the next set of data for this trace.

Session Data Analysis

While tcpdstat and Snort have helped the team with statistical and alert data respectively, so far they
fall short when it comes to examining session data. For that purpose, the team elected to use the tool
Argus to once again examine the capture file for possible information that would help in the
investigation. Once again, flags were used when running Argus from the command line; “-d” switches
Argus to background mode, whereas “-r s2a.lpc” tells Argus the data for review is in the file s2a.lpc and
“-w s2a.argus” instructs Argus on where to put its output.

Subsequently, the team used Argus’ client, “ra”, to decipher the Argus data and place it into a text file
that could be easily read. Numerous switches were employed yet again; “-a” turns on summary statistics
for the data, whereas “-c” formats the output with bytes sent by a system first, followed by bytes
received by the system next. The “-n” switch does not allow ra to replace Ips and port numbers with
known host names and services, thereby allowing the team to more easily connect the dots with the
other types of data collected in this investigation. “-r s2a.argus” tells ra to read the data from the s2a
Argus file, whereas “grep –v drops” takes the status report that Argus would normally add to the text
file and removes it.

The output is formatted with a line wrap in order to present the screenshot at a readable size. The
destination for each line of traffic is TCP port 80, and about 6 packets were sent and received in each
case. More importantly, the FIN packet seen frequently means that each connection was closed after it
was used for a brief period of time, meaning that a number of different vulnerabilities for the web
server’s port 80 were attempted in order to see what worked and what failed.

Later on in the output, a number of ports are contacted with one packet each, with the server replying
with one packet to each connection as well. The large number of ports that this occurs to is either a
rather significant coincidence, or strong evidence that someone performed a port scan on the JBR Bank
system.
Now that the team has become suspicious of these connections to multiple ports on the system, it
would like to see the contents of the packets in question. This desire entails more significant analysis,
however, in the form of complete content investigation.

Full Content Data Analysis

Since the team wanted to examine the entire content of individual packets, the popular packet capture
and trace file tool Wireshark was enlisted. Wireshark allowed the team to search for packets based on
the timestamp in question (18:55:18 on September 23, 2003) as well as the port numbers (1359, 305,
698, etc.) that were possibly scanned by a malicious individual.
In numerous communications from the attacker’s system (IP address 95.16.3.79.47990) to the JBR Bank
web server (IP address 103.98.91.41.698), a hexadecimal pattern of “5555 5555 5555” was found in the
content field of the packet. This pattern was corroborated with network security information sources as
being the signature of a reconnaissance tool called Nmap. At this point, the team feels fairly certain that
a malicious individual has been gathering intelligence for an attack on JBR Bank’s web server; however,
the team does not know what the attacker is after or exactly what method he/she will be using.
Fortunately, another trace file was also given to the team in the hopes of containing additional
information and answers.

Second Trace
Statistical Analysis
With most of the information gleaned from the first capture file, the team turned to the second packet
capture for its second trace investigation. Once again, the first type of data to be examined was that of
statistical data, as it gave a broad overview of the trace and allowed the team to choose its next moves.
Just like before, the trace file, this time called s2b.lpc, was run through tcpdstat in order to generate
some summary statistics for review.
The resulting output text file, s2b.tcpdstat.txt, is much shorter than last time but still contains enough
relevant data to make a few insights and decisions on next action items.
Once again, the protocol labeled “other” has a high amount of traffic; in fact, it represents nearly 84% of
all application layer traffic. The team realized that a high amount of traffic unrecognized by tcpdstat
could simply be newer protocols being used in the exchange of information; however, with strong
evidence to support port scanning and vulnerability reconnaissance from the first capture file, the
strong presence of unknown protocol traffic is more cause for concern.

Alert Data Analysis

Just as in the first trace, the second capture file was passed through the team’s intrusion detection
program, Snort, to review any alerts that may be cause for concern. Several of the same switches were
used, as well as the additional parameter of “>snort.stats” at the end of the command that places the
statistics from Snort into a file for later review.
Since all of the data needed for review is now in the snort.stats file, the team opened that file and began
parsing through the information contained within.

The team noticed that the number of TCP packets reported here matched that of the output from
tcpdstat. Additionally, some of the packets categorized as “other” in tcpdstat are revealed to be ARP
packets by Snort, a protocol not detected by tcpdstat. The team also notices that there were 176 alerts
for this capture file, and decides to check out the s2b.alert file that was generated by Snort.
The first several alerts are concerned with access to a printer through a potentially vulnerable web
application. The links provided in the alert provide further information that can be used to bring
background information to such an alert; for example, a buffer overflow in an Internet Printing module
in the Windows 2000 operating system can possibly allow remote users to acquire root privileges.
Gaining root would be one of the most desirable achievements an attacker could reach, so any incident
related to giving root access is considered serious by the team. However, the attacker attempts three
times to perform this trick through the printing extension, meaning that it may not have worked and the
attacker was simply making sure it was the security of the system and not his own errors that caused the
attempt to fail.

Another alert seen clearly in this alert log is that of a denial of service, or DoS, attack. This type of attack
could potentially bring down JBR Bank’s web server, causing them to lose public image as well as money
due to the unavailability of tis banking services. With a few ideas about what types of attacks the
intruder may have tried, the team decided to turn to session data to see what connections were made.

Session Data Analysis

Once again, the tool Argus was used on the second capture file in order to detect the traffic and
connections going back and forth between the web server and other machines, including those
belonging to the attacker.
Just like before, the web server (destination for attacks, source for outgoing leaks or transmissions) has
the IP address of 103.98.91.41. Also, the IP address of 95.208.123.64 is seen as the destination for an
outgoing FTP connection; this was the same IP address seen attempting to exploit vulnerabilities in the
Snort alert data. Furthermore, there are multiple connections through TCP port 60906, which is an
unusually high port number that the team did not recognize at this point in the investigation. Lastly, the
web server successfully establishes a connection with the attacking machine at 20:00:51 on October 1,
2003, as seen by the line indicating the connection on port 6667. With these notable items, port
numbers, and timestamps in mind, the team turned to full packet examination once again in order to
glean even more details about the attack.

Full Content Data Analysis

The team took a different approach than simply using Wireshark for this trace; rather, they decided to
utilize a tool called tcpflow to narrow the packets down to just those that crossed TCP ports 21, 60906,
1465, and 6667, as they were the ports that became interesting due to previously found evidence.

Tcpflow created eight files as a result of this command, which all follow a nomenclature of
“sourceIPaddress.portnumber-destinationIPaddress.portnumber”. The file named
095.016.003.023.01408-103.098.091.041.60906 provides the first meaningful information for this part
of the investigation, as it includes a series of commands.

These commands didn’t tell the team much by themselves, so the team decided to open up the
response message sent by JBR Bank’s web server, which was found by flipping the order of the
addresses around.
A number of files are found on the server, including several that should not be on a bank’s web server –
notably nc.exe, which is a program called netcat that creates TCP connections that can be used as
backdoors for attackers. Knowing that the intruder probably had an easy way in and out of the system
now, the team turned its attention to subsequent messages sent between the web server and the
attacker’s machine. The biggest interest surrounded the message 103.098.091.041.01465-
095.208.123.064.03753, which shows the web server providing the contents of a help file to the remote
attacker and attempted transferring of an executable named “update.exe”.

Due to information already obtained from JBR Bank, the team knows that a program named PsExec was
in some way utilized in the attack. Armed with several types of data, including full content included in
several of the packets sent to and from the victim system, the team decided to search for any mention
of PsExec using a tool called Ngrep.

The results from the ngrep search were placed in a file called s2b.ngrep.psexec.txt, which allowed the
team to review the results at their leisure on a separate machine. The team noticed several mentions of
PsExec in this results file; however, its repeated presence raised more questions than it answered.

PsExec’s purpose is to establish a connection a system that an attacker is targeting, typically for the
intruder’s own malicious purposes; however, it needs administrative rights to do so. The team already
noticed the attacker attempt to gain root through the use of a printer extension vulnerability, but it
appeared that the attempt(s) failed. Without any further log files or captures, the team could only
hypothesize that the attacker eventually succeeded at compromising the aforementioned vulnerability,
or found another similar one that worked.

UNIX First Trace

Physical Properties
Just like the example Windows intrusion, there is another set of data collected from an intrusion of a
UNIX system for BRJ, a software company. Although the platform is different, many of the mechanics
and goals are the same as a Windows investigation. Since it was a remote intrusion, that is to say it was
accessed via the network and not the keyboard plugged into the computer, network traffic could be
captured into a Libpcap-formatted file with tcpdump. This tool will capture data from a given interface,
in this case the UNIX system’s eth0, and record it to disk.

However because there is both legitimate traffic in addition to the traffic from the intruder, this file can
become massive quickly. Tcpslice was used to make the file smaller and slice it up to just the applicable
pieces. This Libpcap file was delivered to the team for investigation in addition to output from Snort like
a portscan log.
The portscan file follows the pattern of “date source:port ->destination:port type” and can be seen here.
The results of looking at this file shows that an attacker at the IP address of 94.90.84.93 issued a
portscan to a wide array of ports on a BRJ Software server (102.60.21.3) on September 8 between
2:20:42 and 2:20:45 in the afternoon. This Snort log file with its 1552 lines (and thus a scan of 1552 ports
on the system) simply says a scan occurred since it was recorded by the BRJ Software server. However it
does not say what the BRJ Software server responded to the attacker (e.g. whether the port was open).

Basic Content Analysis

The physical appearance of a log file being large, like the Snort portscan file, is the first step of the
investigation. By looking into that file and determining that a portscan occurred and the source IP
address of the scan, the team is better prepared for the next step which is the basic content analysis.

By looking at the Libpcap dump from the network interface, some basic statistics can be gathered by
using the tool tcpdstat. This tool has done some basic information gathering that will further limit the
scope of the digital forensic investigators. It shows the start and end time of the capture (roughly 75
minutes long) and the total capture size (14.73 MB captured of data from 56377 packets and with
additional information stored, the total Libpcap file comes to 15.59 MB) and the most common
protocols.
Most data traveled over TCP/IP. At the application layer, the applications most used were FTP, telnet,
and SSH. All of these may be used by the attacker as it allows file transfer as well as a shell to control the
UNIX system. The advantage here is that FTP and telnet are not encrypted so any data that traversed the
network for these application layer protocols was captured in the Libpcap dump and can be analyzed by
deep packet inspection (full content analysis). If the attacker used SSH, the information would be
encrypted and thus the full content analysis would yield nothing additional of worth.
Alerts
Because so much traffic used the FTP and telnet protocols, it still would not be very easy to jump right
into full content analysis. Instead some additional investigation may yield a way to further narrow the
search scope to identify the intruder and what he/she did. This further analysis can be done with Snort.

Snort has many rules that are used to identify malicious, strange, or suspicious network traffic. By
feeding the Libpcap file through Snort, it can generate files and use these predefined rules that may
identify what the intruder was doing. By using the command snort -c
/etc/snort/snort.conf -r s3.lpc -b -l ./SnortOut it generated two files in the
SnortOut directory based on the rules prescribed in the Snort configuration file and the Libpcap (lpc) file.
The one file that will be useful here is an alert file.
Snort generated several alerts that should be of concern to the investigative team. The first alert
mentions that the intruder attempted to gain access to a privileged user account (like root). Further
entries later prove that it was the root user that was being accessed. To do this, the intruder was
attempting to gain access to an exploit of a printing daemon (lprd). Snort rules are useful in that it may
give a link to the security site SecurityFocus.com that will further explain what was going on. By properly
exploiting this security vulnerability, it may be possible to gain access to this privileged account.
The rule that generated it was the Snort attack-responses.rules file. The line with the yellow highlight
shows that it was checking for raising an alert that the user was changed to root (often user ID 0 on
UNIX systems).
By gaining access to the root user, much more damage can be done to the system as well as allowing the
intruder to have much more access to files. The investigators know that the intruder gained root access
from the Snort log entry that said “id check returned root” which is created through the line highlighted
in the attack-responses.rules file shown above. The entry shows that it was done in the time period
where the intrusion happened from the same IP address of the likely intruder. Additionally, it was sent
over telnet, an unencrypted channel. This is something that would not likely occur from BRJ employee as
they should be using SSH.
There are also many failed login attempts listed in the Snort log. While good because it means the
person was locked out, it is still problematic as it does not show successful log in attempts. Because
these login alerts eventually stop, it is likely that the intruder finally did gain access to the system. This is
further proved through the userid check mentioned above which originates on the BRJ Software server
on port 2323 (meaning the intruder was successfully able to access the server over port 2323).

Sessions
One possible solution that would fit the team’s findings thus far would be that the intruder was able to
start a telnet server listening on port 2323 of the BRJ server through the lprd buffer overflow exploit.
However additional investigation must occur to prove this. The additional information could be obtained
through looking at the data logged from the telnet session. This is done with the tcptrace tool.
The number of connections between 94.90.84.93 (a system not owned by BRJ and the same address the
team has been tracking so far) and 102.60.21.3 (a BRJ system) is what is important here. These
connections should not exist; their presence is indicative of a brute force attack on the lpr daemon. The
complete/reset shown in the last column combined with the packets sent and received by the BRJ
system (the two preceding columns) show that the brute force attack was failing for some time. If it
succeeded, it would look like the first two connections (the legitimate connections between BRJ
servers). There the packet count is well above the normal SYN/ACK/RST and instead a session occurs.
Unfortunately for BRJ, eventually the attack does work.
As seen below on the highlighted 1880 session, the intruder gains access to the system. Once he/she has
access, the BRJ server begins sessions to talk to a remote system. The remote system is a new IP address
of 94.178.4.82, and the port number of 21 points to it being an FTP server. The investigators now know
that the intruder has compromised the BRJ system, is able to telnet in, gain root access, and FTP out of
the system. This is further proven later by the traffic originating at the intruder’s IP and accessing the
BRJ server successfully over port 514 (which means he/she can access the system and login with rlogin,
rcp, or RSH).

More connections exist later. One of those proves that the intruder can SSH to the BRJ server
(problematic because, as mentioned previously, these sessions are encrypted so the investigators are
unable to see exactly what was being done through network analysis). However what is strange is that
the intruder, it seems, begins to use the BRJ server as a way to attack another server, 94.200.10.71.

In the first three sessions listed above show that the intruder was able to send a finger request to the
machine and then log into it via telnet. This is bad as it looks like it is coming from BRJ and not the
attacker who first attacked BRJ. Then, using the BRJ server, the intruder begins to brute force his/her
way into the 94.200.10.71 FTP server. Again, this eventually ends and at the session ID of 1696 it shows
a successful session and a large file transfer. After this is the end of the file, but the file ends strangely as
well. Traffic is going over port 2323 on the BRJ server, a port that should not be in use. More things are
going on so further analysis is needed.

Full Content Analysis

The session analysis focused in on which sessions need more attention. This attention is given through
full content analysis where the payload of each TCP/IP packet is examined in an attempt to reconstruct
what communications were happening between the intruder and the BRJ server. This will allow BRJ to
know what may have been taken, modified, removed, installed, or otherwise tampered on their UNIX
system.

Starting with sessions 2087 and 2089, the investigators can compare the data from these packets. A diff
was done on the output of the tcpflow command that separated these sessions from the rest of the
Libpcap capture file. The diff is shown below. The difference shows what made the 2089 session attack
on the lpr daemon successful and what was unsuccessful in the 2087 session.
With this information, the investigators know the latter was a success so the attention can now be
focused on the 3879 session. The tcpflow command extracted two files. The first will be called the
“input” file. This contains the commands that the intruder typed into the BRJ system. The other file will
be called the “output” file as it contains what the BRJ UNIX server responded via telnet to the intruder’s
commands. Screen shots of the two files are shown below.
Here, the best technique would be to pull up both files side-by-side, then using experience with UNIX
and Linux systems, the investigator would be able to match outputs with the appropriate input. So, for
example, the intruder issued commands to figure out information about the system, the logged in user,
and the network interface. Using the output file, the investigators get the exact same output that the
intruder would have seen after issuing these commands.

The basics of Linux or UNIX command line is required here to align the two files. However after doing so,
the intruder’s malice seem to be that the intruder created a hidden directory /tmp/.kde, FTP to
94.178.4.82, and download the binary files that start with “knark” (a rootkit kernel module) to that
directory. The intruder then adds a user “lpd” to the system with the same UID as root and enables RSH
access for this (and all other users because the “++” was specified in the .rhosts file). After that, he/she
does some basic poking about and kills the brute force program that he/she used to brute FTP into the
94.200.10.71 server, likely in an attempt to hide his/her tracks.

The intruder later telnets in again, this time with an account he has the username and password for:
richard. This access was likely gained through an easy to guess (or brute force) password. Once in, the
intruder executes lpd that allows root access. After proving he is root by checking his/her active user ID
and username, he begins to check commands like netstat and ps to see what is running on the system.
Specifically, he or she is looking for a program datapipe. Using a rootkit, he/she is able to hide the
datapipe process.

The intruder repeats this process again later by logging in as the compromised account and running
/usr/sbin/root lpd /bin/bash that dumps him into a root prompt (which kindly returns “Do you feel lucky
today, hax0r”). Once in, he/she attempts to tar up /home and /var/mail and put it in the hidden
directory /tmp/.kde he created earlier. Then, after failing to create an FTP connection to 94.20.1.9,
he/she pings that server to see 90+% packet loss. The intruder eventually is able to connect to that
server via FTP but the results are unknown from this trace. Again he/she logs in later but after seeing
that the compromised account richard is logged in elsewhere, he/she disconnects, likely to avoid
suspicion.

That was the last time that there is record of the intruder logging in. However additional examination
should occur on the FTP transfer he/she may have been able to begin. There is one file that says the IP
address of that FTP server belongs to zeus.anonme.com. This file, created by using the tcpflow
command on the Libpcap file to look specifically for port 21 traffic not going to 94.200.10.71, is the
result of the first failed FTP connection to 94.20.1.9 mentioned above. The next file in the sequence
shows that the intruder logged in successfully with the username shadowman, switched the transfer
mode to binary, and tried to copy the files.tar.gz (the archive of the /var/mail and /home directories
he/she created by logging in as richard earlier).

So far, most of everything has been reconstructed. However there still is the business of when the
intruder used SSH. Up until now, that SSH data could not be processed because it was encrypted.
Although the SSH channel into the server was secure, if the intruder used a network resource that
reached out of the BRJ machine that was not secure, the investigators can figure out what was being
done. It looks like this is what happened: the intruder SSH’d into the BRJ system and, from there,FTP’d
out of the server. Because FTP is not encrypted, that data was captured and can be dissected.

Based on the server responses, it looks like the intruder logged in anonymously to a Windows NT FTP
server. From there the intruder retrieved brutus.pl, net-telnet-3.03.tar.gx, allwords.txt, nat10.tar, john-
1.6.tar.gz, and datapipe.c. The first three of these were used to do a dictionary brute force attack on the
FTP server (mentioned earlier). Because the Libpcap file captures everything, all of these files were
recorded. Since the datapipe.c file is an uncompiled C file, it can be read simply by looking at the stream
(unlike the tar files which are binary and would need to be reconstructed). This gives full insight into the
whole process of what the intruder was doing.
Comparison Analysis
In performing both the Windows and UNIX evidence gathering activities, the team noticed a few
similarities between the two processes, as well as a few major differences. While the two operating
systems do not share much in common natively, they do both use the same network protocols to
interact with other machines and the Internet. Thus, most, if not all, of the network evidence gathered
in either investigation was relevant for both; which IP addresses belong to which machines and which
ports correspond to which services did not change depending on which operating system was being
investigated at the time. This correspondence allowed evidence found in one investigation to be of use
in the other, preventing the team from having to reinvent the wheel.

Additionally, the use of an unpatched vulnerability allowed the intruder to get his or her foot in the door
in both cases. For the Windows machine, it was a buffer overflow in an Internet Printing extension; in
the case of UNIX, it was a buffer overflow in the print spool protocol. Even though the intruder did not
have access to an employee’s login credentials from the outset, he/she was still able to gain access and
perform malicious actions through this weakness. Information available online allowed the team to
recognize exactly which vulnerability was used after using Snort to examine the respective batch files; if
such information was readily accessible, a patch or fix was most likely also obtainable that could have
prevented or at least impaired these incidents.

On the other hand, the two investigations yielded an expected number of dissimilarities. The Windows
network evidence acquisition yielded typically general details; the team discovered that a port scan was
used, which IP addresses were associated with the attack, and that a file was transferred to the victim
machine in order to facilitate future access for the attacker. Most of the data examined in the Windows
investigation stemmed from the capture files which were run through a number of tools, including Snort
and Argus. Therefore, it was difficult to get a good idea of what exactly the attacker was doing, what
he/she was looking for, and how much damage had been done at the point that the investigation took
place.

Conversely, the UNIX investigation provided a surprisingly large number of specifics that could be used
by the team to draw conclusions about the incident. For starters, a record of every command the
intruder used through his/her backdoor connection was discovered, allowing the team to follow in the
attacker’s footsteps as the intrusion happen. Moreover, the specific exploit was identified, along with
the affected port numbers and protocols. User credentials created and used by the attacker were also
discovered, giving the team solid clues on where to look next on the machine to fully uncover the extent
of the incident. This quantity of details helps the team more accurately assign responsibility for the
intrusion and create a response plan that will cover up the vulnerabilities used and go about bringing the
attacker to justice.

Lastly, while the UNIX investigation could be performed using another UNIX machine, the Windows
investigation required the use of a Linux machine with a number of pre-requisites established; namely,
build-essential and libpcapdev-0.8. Such a requirement may prevent a less experienced user from
performing the investigation, as a typical Windows user may not be familiar with Linux or its
dependency and package management system to effectively work through such an examination. A UNIX
user, alternatively, would be using the same platform that he/she was familiar with to perform the
investigation, so the operating system learning curve is non-existent, thereby requiring that the user
only learn how to use the right tools in the correct fashion. While this point is obsolete when an
experienced forensics team that is well versed in all operating systems is involved, it does create a
barrier to aspiring forensic professionals who may be trying to manually troubleshoot and inspect
potentially malicious parts of their systems.

Conclusion
Knowledge of how computer systems interact was important to perform a forensic investigation.
Knowing the mechanisms for access to both Windows and UNIX systems meant that the team would be
ready for an investigation with the correct tools. These tools ranged from packet sniffers, to text editing
and comparison tools, to network intrusion and detection systems. Each of these tools proved useful
from a forensics perspective to analyze statistical data, or summary information, alert data, data that
has been flagged as possibly malicious, session data, or higher level information that can reconstruct
communication patterns, and full content data, or the raw data flowing over a network.

These tools were applied on real world data for both Windows and UNIX systems. The attack on
Windows systems was able to be located as a buffer overflow, eventually allowing access to the system.
The UNIX system had a similar fate with a buffer overflow attack and the ability for the attacker to gain
access to that system to attack others.

In conclusion, these techniques are useful on virtually any system and may be used for a variety of
reasons. This may include locating an attacker, determining if a virus has infected the network, looking
for users doing unlawful or things against policy (like gaining access to files or copying files off secure
systems), or a variety of other purposes. Depending on the level, the different types of forensic data can
be collected and evaluated with these tools in a similar process. Although the intricacies of Windows
and UNIX systems differ, the fact that both are networked operating systems means both are vulnerable
for attack but can be examined in relatively similar ways.
Works Cited
QoSient, LLC. (2010, March 28). ARGUS -Auditing Network Activity - Getting Started. Retrieved August 5,
2010, from QoSient: http://www.qosient.com/argus/gettingstarted.shtml

Dittrich, D. (n.d.). Tools written/modified by Dave Dittrich. Retrieved August 5, 2010, from University of
Washington: http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/talks/core02/tools/tools.html

Fuentes, F., & Dulal, K. (2005). Ethereal vs. Tcpdump: a comparative study on packet sniffing tools for
educational purpose. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20 (4), 169-175.

Goebelbecker, E. (1995). Using grep: Moving from DOS? Discover the power of this Linux utility. Linux
Journal (18es).

Laurie, B. (2004). Network Forensics. Queue, 2 (4), 50-56.

Liskov, B., Curtis, D., Johnson, P., & Scheifer, R. (1987). Implementation of Argus. ACM Symposium on
Operating Systems Principles , 111-122.

Ostermann, S. (2003, November 4). tcptrace - Official Homepage. Retrieved August 5, 2010, from
tcptrace: http://tcptrace.org/

Roesch, M. (n.d.). About Snort. Retrieved August 5, 2010, from Snort :: About Snort:
http://www.snort.org/snort