i tried nessus...
i have 3 listener in my lwip application
i configured:
/**
* MEMP_NUM_TCP_PCB: the number of simulatenously active TCP connections.
* (requires the LWIP_TCP option)
*/
#define MEMP_NUM_TCP_PCB (3+0+1) //
/**
* MEMP_NUM_TCP_PCB_LISTEN: the number of listening TCP connections.
* (requires the LWIP_TCP option)
*/
#define MEMP_NUM_TCP_PCB_LISTEN 3
after a scan with nessus, i cannot connect to my board.
Sniffing with wireshark, i saw that lwip didn't answer to syn packet.
Debugging the code, i checked:
- no problem in driver, all pbufs are freed. Infact, the board answers if i
ping it
- seeing lwip_stats, i saw this:
memp[TCP_PCB]
- avail = 4
- used = 4
- max = 4
- err = 45
for each attempt to connect to board, err grows.
what's the problem????
thanks
Piero
2009/1/28 Piero 74 <[email protected]>
>
>
>>
>> > Where? Is it a lwip bug? is it already solved in current cvs? (i'm
>> > using last 1.3.0 release)
>>
>>
>> Yes it was a bug in LwIP. See:
>> http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?24596
>
>
> i suppose i have to spent some time to align my code to current cvs... or
> waiting 1.3.1 release!
>
>
>>
>>
>> > which tool i can use to simulate a flood attack and debug the driver
>> > and the stack?
>>
>> A good starting point would be nessus, which already covers a huge load of
>> vulnerability tests.
>> Other name-droppings would include:
>> - metasploit
>> - isic, ipload
>> - ettercap
>> ... lots of others and basically everything from http://sectools.org/
>> :o)<http://sectools.org/>
>
>
> thanks... i have just downloaded nessus... and thanks for the site!
>
>
>>
>>
>> > yes... i want to filer in the driver, not in lwip.. and i know... it
>> > is not a definitive solution, but can mitigate the problem.
>>
>> Still a SYN-Flood will create a lot of load and starve resources. On an
>> embedded device this can make the device unusable. Nothing mitigated there.
>
>
> i agree with you... but i have to try to do something...
>
>
>>
>>
>> > yes.... i said the same thing to our marketing.... "put the device
>> > behind a firewall!!".... but the answer was... security features
>> > inside the device are good marketing arguments.... :O|
>>
>> Is it? Does marketing and customers care about security features or just
>> about the Sticker that says "super-secure inside"?
>
>
> ... the second you said, of course! I think if a customer realy care about
> security, he will use a firewall!!
>
> Thanks,
> Piero
>
_______________________________________________
lwip-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
