Good points all. Scanning through CCO, theres varius info about Evil Twins and Honeypots to be found. The two terms seems to be more or less pointing at the same thing.
In one doc though, I came across this : (source : http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/wireless/ps5678/ps6521/prod_white_paper0900aecd8040f7b2_ns337_Networking_Solutions_White_Paper.html ) <output emitted> *honeypot** ** An authorized access point deployed by a network administrator to detect and mitigate unauthorized network access.* <snippet cut> So I think that Evil twins are APs not owned or deployed by admins, using the same SSID as your Corp, and trying to lure people to use it. And Honeypots is the same, OR setup by admins, using a bogus SSID to lure hackers to try and hack that one instead. Kelvin 2010/10/17 Kristján Ólafur Eðvarðsson <[email protected]> > Honey pot and Evil Twin. > > > > Good stuff Tor, > > > > But again they seem to mention those 2 in the same sentences. In your > article > > they mention honeypots but sometimes it is written honey pot, so perhaps > you didn´t > > search for that one. > > > > here is something from your link: > > > > „Cisco couples these advanced detection and classification techniques with > an extensive attack, vulnerability, and performance detection library. > Examples of event classes detected include: rogue access points/clients, ad > hoc connections, hacker access points such as *honeypots and evil twins*, > network reconnaissance, authentication and encryption cracking, > man-in-the-middle attacks such as address/identity spoofing and replay > attacks, protocol attacks, denial-of-service (DoS) attacks, over-the-air and > network security vulnerabilities, and performance issues such as co-channel > interference and coverage holes.“ > > > > Does someone care to explain the difference ? > > I am begining to think that there is no major difference between the two. > > But the conversation is good. Makes you remember this forever J > > > > So I stick with using both in OEQ format. That cant hurt. > > > > regards. Kristjan > > > > *From:* Tor A. L. Olsen [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* 17. október 2010 17:48 > *To:* Kelvin Dam > *Cc:* Kristján Ólafur Eðvarðsson; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [CCIE Wireless] 1. OEQ Answers (second) > > > > I will go for Evil Twin as Kelvin advocates for. > > > > Rouges offering same SSID is performing an "Impersonation and Spoofing > Attack" and if we take a look on Cisco WIPS "Impersonation and Spofing > Detection" is described as > > > > "Analyzes traffic behavior, performs pattern matching and authentication > methods to detect tools and techniques such as MAC/IP spoofing, fake access > points, evil-twin access points, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) > spoiling, and other methods, providing an alert of potential data theft or > unauthorized network access". > > > > Herein is, in fact, mentioned the Evil Twin whereas there is nothing about > "Honeypot AP". > > > > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/wireless/ps9733/ps9817/data_sheet_c78-501388.html > > > > > As a side note I would like to mention that, in the CCNP Wireless Course > IAUWS, the definition of Evil Twin actually is stated as Rouge advertising > "our" SSID. > > > > Tor > > > > On 17/10/2010, at 17.19, Kelvin Dam wrote: > > > > Im may very well be way off here, but Im not convinced that the > definition of "honeypot" you posted is correct. > > > > I believe that a Evil Twin is an AccessPoint, broadcasting the same SSID > as a corporation for instance, trying to lure users to use it. > > > > A HoneyPot is more or less the same, but doesnt have to be the same SSID, > and also used by admins to lure attackers into a confined subnet to > > be monitored. > > > > Im basing my assumptions on these : > > > > Evil Twin > > The attacker uses a bogus base > station<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_station>that someone connects to > using > Wi-Fi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi> wireless technology. By > imitating the name of another, legitimate wireless provider, they can fool > people into trusting the internet services that they are providing. When the > users log into bank or e-mail <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail>accounts, > the phishers have access to the entire transaction, since it is > sent through their equipment. > > Unwitting web <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web> users are > invited to log into the attacker's > server<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_%28computing%29>with bogus login > prompts, tempting them to give away sensitive information > such as usernames <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Username> and > passwords<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Password>. > Often users are unaware they have been duped until well after the incident > has occurred. > > Users think they have logged on to a wireless hotspot connection when in > fact they have been tricked into connecting to the attacker's base station. > The hacker jams the connection to the legitimate base station by sending a > stronger signal within proximity to the wireless client - thereby turning > itself into an 'evil twin.' > > A rogue Wi-Fi connection can be set up on a laptop with a bit of simple > programming and wireless card that acts as an access point. The access > points are hard to trace, since they can suddenly be shut off, and are easy > to build. A hacker can make their own wireless networks that appear to be > legitimate by simply giving their access point a similar name to the Wi-Fi > network on the premises. Since the hacker may be physically closer to the > victim than the real access point, their signal will be stronger, > potentially drawing more victims. The hacker's computer can be configured to > pass the person through to the legitimate access point while monitoring the > traffic of the victim, or it can simply say the system is temporarily > unavailable after obtaining a user id and > password.[3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_twin_%28wireless_networks%29#cite_note-2> > > > > *HoneyPots* > > A honeypot is valuable as a surveillance and early-warning tool. While it > is often a computer, a honeypot can take other forms, such as files or data > records, or even unused IP > address<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address>space. A honeypot that > masquerades as an open > proxy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_proxy> to monitor and record > those using the system is a sugarcane. Honeypots should have no production > value, and hence should not see any legitimate traffic or activity. Whatever > they capture is therefore malicious or unauthorized. One practical > application of this is a honeypot that thwarts > spam<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_%28electronic%29>by masquerading as a > type of system abused by spammers. These honeypots > categorize trapped material 100% accurately: it is all illicit. > > Honeypots can carry risks to a network, and must be handled with care. If > they are not properly walled off, an attacker can use them to break into a > system. > > *Victim hosts <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_%28network%29>* are an > active network counter-intrusion tool. These computers run special software, > designed to appear to an intruder as being important and worth looking into. > In reality, these programs are dummies, and their patterns are constructed > specifically to foster interest in attackers. The software installed on, and > run by, victim hosts is dual purpose. First, these dummy programs keep a > network intruder occupied looking for valuable information where none > exists, effectively convincing him or her to isolate themselves in what is > truly an unimportant part of the network. This decoy strategy is designed to > keep an intruder from getting bored and heading into truly security-critical > systems. The second part of the victim host strategy is intelligence > gathering. Once an intruder has broken into the victim host, the machine or > a network administrator can examine the intrusion methods used by the > intruder. This intelligence can be used to build specific countermeasures to > intrusion techniques, making truly important systems on the network less > vulnerable to intrusion. > > > Any takers on this? :) > > > > Kelvin > > 2010/10/15 Kristján Ólafur Eðvarðsson <[email protected]> > > Hi Kelvin, > > That OEQ was rather good. I gave it some thought and scrolled through > the help of my WCS server. Which in fact is very good and explains a lot of > things. > > It is a rouge AP so It cant be a friendly based on that fact. Malicious is > the same thing > basically as a rouge. So they are probably looking for a classification of > that rouge. > > I first read through the classifications of rouges and didn't see a clear > answer to that questions > but for everyone I like to share this info. > > "Rogue Access Point Classification Types > Rogue access points classification types include: > > Malicious-Detected but untrusted or unknown access points with a malicious > intent within the system. They also refer to access points that fit the > user-defined malicious rules or have been manually moved from the friendly > access point classification. See "Malicious Rogue APs" for more information. > Friendly-Known, acknowledged, or trusted access points. They also refer to > access points that fit the user-defined friendly rogue access point rules. > Friendly rogue access points cannot be contained. See "Friendly Rogue APs" > for more information. For more information on configuring friendly access > point rules, see "Configuring Friendly AP Controller Templates". > Unclassified-Rogue access point that are not classified as either malicious > or friendly. These access points can be contained and can be moved manually > to the friendly rogue access point list. See for more information. See > "Unclassified Rogue APs" for more information." > > However when I was reading this I just remembered that I have sometimes got > this warning in WCS > in real setups. "With Honey pot AP detected" > > And this seems to best answer to this question. Do you guys agree ? > > > "Honey Pot AP Detected > Alarm Description and Possible Causes > The addition of WLANs in the corporate environment introduces a whole new > class of threats for network security. RF signals that penetrate walls and > extend beyond intended boundaries can expose the network to unauthorized > users. A rogue access point can put the entire corporate network at risk for > outside penetration and attack. Not to understate the threat of the rogue > access point, there are many other wireless security risks and intrusions > such as mis-configured access points, unconfigured access points, and DoS > (denial-of-service) attacks. > > One of the most effective attacks facing enterprise networks implementing > wireless is the use of a "honey pot" access point. An intruder uses tools > such as NetStumbler, Wellenreiter, and MiniStumbler to discover the SSID of > the corporate access point. Then the intruder sets up an access point > outside the building premises or, if possible, within the premises and > broadcasts the discovered corporate SSID. An unsuspecting client then > connects to this "honey pot" access point with a higher signal strength. > When associated, the intruder performs attacks against the client station > because traffic is diverted through the "honey pot" access point. > > wIPS Solution > When a "honey pot" access point is identified and reported by the Cisco > Adaptive Wireless IPS, the WLAN administrator may use the integrated > over-the-air physical location capabilities, or trace device on the wired > network using rogue location discovery protocol (RLDP) or switchport tracing > to find the rogue device. " > > regards. Kristjan > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:24:00 +0200 > From: Kelvin Dam <[email protected]> > To: Stalder Dominic <[email protected]>, > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CCIE Wireless] OEQ Answers (second) > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > First question in that doc: > > *A rouge access point broadcasting a trusted SSID is called what? > > They are called ?Trusted APs? or ?Friendly APs?.* > > Is wrong I believe...A Rogue broadcasting a trusted SSID is a Evil Twin to > the best of my knowledge? > > Kelvin > > > 2010/10/13 Stalder Dominic <[email protected]> > > > And here with the small answer list ;-) > > _______________________________________________ > > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > > visit www.ipexpert.com > > > > > > > -- > Kelvin Dam > -------------- next part -------------- > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > > > > -- > Kelvin Dam > <ATT00001..txt> > > > -- Kelvin Dam
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
