[Discussion] Suricata rule not giving alerts

Tue Jul 22 11:16:46 UTC 2014

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jelte <masterjel5000 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Anoop Saldanha schreef op 7/22/2014 4:09 AM:
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Jelte <masterjel5000 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Anoop Saldanha schreef op 7/21/2014 4:32 AM:
>>>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Jelte <masterjel5000 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>> Does changing the "http_header" to "http_raw_header" and 'H' to 'D'
>>>> make any difference?
>>>>
>>> Thanks, but I already tried that and it didn't work. I double checked,
>>> just to be sure, but even without the pcre's (just the
>>> flow:established,to_server; content:"chunked"; http_raw_header; nocase;)
>>> I get no alerts.
>>>
>>> Maybe someone is able to reproduce the issue locally? just fire the
>>> exploit via Metasploit and make sure that you have the rule enabled.
>>>
>>> I'm eager to find the solution, so any help will be greatly appreciated!
>>>
>> It would be helpful if you could supply the pcap for this?
>>
>
> I already attached it in a previous email (7/15/2014), but here is it
> again :-)

Can you test if this patch works for you? -

https://github.com/ironbee/libhtp/pull/78

-- 
-------------------------------
Anoop Saldanha
http://www.poona.me
-------------------------------