[Discussion] Suricata rule not giving alerts

[Jelte]

Jelte schreef op 7/15/2014 12:08 AM:
> Victor Julien schreef op 7/14/2014 9:27 AM:
>> On 07/14/2014 12:21 AM, Jelte O. wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I have a rule from the ET rule-set to alert against an attack that is
>>> used to exploit a vulnerability in nginx 1.3.9-1.4.0. In order to
>>> trigger this rule I loaded an exploit module in Metasploit and fired it
>>> on my server.
>>>
>>> The vulnerability:
>>> https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2028
>>> The rule: http://doc.emergingthreats.net/bin/view/Main/2016918
>>> The Metasploit module:
>>> https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/blob/master/modules/exploits/linux/http/nginx_chunked_size.rb
>>>
>>> I'll repeat the rule here:
>>>
>>>
>>>     alert tcp $EXTERNAL_NET any -> $HTTP_SERVERS $HTTP_PORTS (msg:"ET
>>>     WEB_SERVER Possible NGINX Overflow CVE-2013-2028 Exploit Specific";
>>>     flow:established,to_server; content:"chunked"; http_header; nocase;
>>>     fast_pattern:only; pcre:"/Transfer-Encoding\x3a[^\r\n]*?chunked/Hi";
>>>     pcre:"/^[\r\n\s]*?[^\r\n]+HTTP\/1\.\d[^\r\n]*?\r?\n((?!(\r?\n\r?\n)).)*?Transfer-Encoding\x3a[^\r\n]*?Chunked((?!(\r?\n\r?\n)).)*?\r?\n\r?\n[\r\n\s]*?(f{6}[8-9a-f][0-9a-f]|[a-f0-9]{9})/si";
>>>     reference:url,www.vnsecurity.net/2013/05/analysis-of-nginx-cve-2013-2028/;
>>>     reference:url,github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/blob/master/modules/exploits/linux/http/nginx_chunked_size.rb;
>>>     classtype:attempted-admin; sid:2016918; rev:6;)
>>>
>>> My attack did not generate any alerts. However, as soon as I removed the
>>> "http_header;" and changed "/Hi" to "/i" (in the first pcre) the rule
>>> started generating alerts. From this it seems like the HTTP header is
>>> not complete/not recognized by Suricata. However, when I do an extended
>>> logging on the HTTP traffic, I do see entries like:
>>>
>>> 07/13/14-23:45:27.830342 - - Chunked HTTP/1.1 GET mifpudtilvpjqsjl / - 0
>>> x.x.x.x:40590 -> y.y.y.y:80
>>>
>>> My "customformat" for the http-log contains "%{Transfer-Encoding}i",
>>> which would actually be the "contents of the defined HTTP Request Header
>>> name" according to the documentation (refer to
>>> https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/projects/suricata/wiki/Custom_http_logging).
>>> <https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/projects/suricata/wiki/Custom_http_logging%29.>
>>>
>>> I also created packet dumps of both legitimate web traffic and this
>>> attack and analyzed the streams in Wireshark. In both dumps there are
>>> TCP PDU's which are re-assembled, but in the valid web traffic Wireshark
>>> labels the protocol for some of the fully assembled client-to-server
>>> packets as HTTP while for the attack there are only TCP packets from the
>>> client to the server.
>>>
>>> I am wondering why the HTTP header is not available. I am not sure if
>>> this is caused by Suricata, my OS/network interface or the rule itself.
>>> I hope someone can help me out!
>> As a first step, I'd suggest walking through this page
>> https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/projects/suricata/wiki/Self_Help_Diagrams
>>
> Thanks Will and Victor for your replies! I didn't know of the Self Help
> Diagrams yet, unfortunately, because it could have saved me some time on
> an earlier issue I had with bad TCP checksums. Anyway, I have traffic in
> the stats log and the http log, I already disabled checksum validation
> and the startup log says the rule has successfully been loaded (for
> testing purposes I have only included this single rule). Also, my server
> is not part of a VLAN.
>
> Offloading is enabled for my NIC. If I issue the "ethtool --show-offload
> eth0" command I see that the rx-checksumming, the tx-checksumming,
> tcp-segmentation-offload and the generic-segmentation-offload are on.
> The NIC does not seem to support turning off the rx-checksumming (I get
> "Operation not supported") but I was able to turn off the others. This
> didn't have any effect, though. I also created another packet dump of
> the attack after disabling these settings and compared this one to the
> one I created before turning off the tx-checksumming and segmentation
> offloading and they both matched. I already disabled the checksum
> validation in Suricata to get rid off the invalid checksum errors I had
> in the beginning.
>
> I went to all the self help diagrams but I still couldn't find the
> cause. I did notice that I forgot to mention two important things:
>
> - Snort (on the same system) does generate an alert for that particular
> rule.
> - Suricata does generate alerts for other rules in which I filter on
> content from the http header. For instance, a HTTP request inside
> Firefox generates alerts for a rule that includes 'content:"Mozilla";
> http_header; nocase;'.
>
> It seems like it has to do with the specific exploit that is used in
> Metasploit. Refer to
> https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/blob/master/modules/exploits/linux/http/nginx_chunked_size.rb
>
> Do you know anything else I can do for debugging? I have included the
> pcap of the attack in the attachment.
>
> Thanks,
> Jelte.
Just re-posting the issue here because I still am not able to solve it...