On 10/24/10 10:12 PM, Sergey Okhapkin wrote:
Correction - auth module is merged in 3.1, but auth_db modules are still
separate.
yes, only auth modules were merged, like I wrote.
auth_db functions use return codes and API functions from auth module.
Cheers,
Daniel
On Sunday 24 October 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
probably omitted by mistake, but please keep the mailing list cc-ed.
On 10/24/10 3:38 PM, Sergey Okhapkin wrote:
Note that I check return code of www_authorize to be -1 (invalid user)
and block IP in this case only. Other error codes should not block the IP
address.
This one remembered me that in 3.1 we merged the auth modules and we
used the one coming from ser because it has better nonce protection and
other enhancements than kamailio version.
That means the return codes have changed, the new ones are listed now at:
http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/stable/modules_k/auth_db.html#id2753068
Added also note in migration wiki page:
http://www.kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/install:3.0.x-to-3.1.0#modules_k_
auth_db
Cheers,
Daniel
On Sunday 24 October 2010, you wrote:
I watched live an attack on voipuser.org while running 3.1 before
release. It lasted 18 hours. I didn't want to ban it because was useful
for testing and see if it reveals any weak. In most of the cases it hit
pike module. I got some data and plan to make an article about it soon.
Anyhow, as a result of that, default config for kamailio has a section
for detecting and banning such "bad" IPs, using pike to detect floods
and htable to keep it blocked. Search WITH_ANTIFLOOD directive. It can
be enhanced like you pointed here, so if the authorize fails, add the IP
in the banned list stored in htable.
Using fail2ban together with IP tables has the advantage of dropping the
packets before getting to application and eating cpu, although in the
case of voipuser.org the cpu was not affected much - the rate was
170-200 requests per second.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 10/24/10 3:06 PM, Sergey Okhapkin wrote:
I'm second for fail2ban. I block IP addresses with failed registration
attempts for 1 hour. Here is my setup:
kamailio.cfg:
if (is_method("REGISTER")) {
if(www_authorize("", "subscriber")< 0) {
if($rc == -1) {
xlog("L_INFO","Invalid username from
$proto:$si:$sp\n"); sl_send_reply("200","OK");
} else
www_challenge("", "0");
exit;
}
....
/etc/fail2ban/filter.d/openser.conf:
[Definition]
#_daemon = kamailio
failregex = Invalid username from ...:<HOST>:
/etc/fail2ban/jail.conf:
findtime = 600
[openser-iptables]
enabled = true
filter = openser
action = iptables-allports[name=OPENSER, protocol=all]
logpath = /var/log/openser/openser # Replace with your sr log location
maxretry = 10
bantime = 3600
On Sunday 24 October 2010, Uriel Rozenbaum wrote:
Juha,
I think we should be specially careful about black-lists. We receive
many of these attacks in a per-day basis and a lot of them are from
residential addresses or university, so I'm guessing some kind of worm
or trojan performing the attack from various IPs.
If you have the time, try fail2ban deamon. It can relate some
brute-force events and act accordingly blocking an IP on iptables,
executing a script. You send to "jail" those addresses for a period of
time, then you can get them out again; and of course you can manually
revert.
Last, as a description of the attacks I saw, first it runs an NMAP
like scan checking which IPs answer from 5060, then it starts sending
registers (usually asterisk answers 404 if the user does not exist),
then when the proxy challenges, it interprets the user is found and
starts making dictionary attacks on the password (1234, admin, and so
on). Keep safe complicated passwords, make kamailio challenge
everything and you'll be safe. and again, fail2ban is a pretty good
solution for brute force.
This might help you finding a solution for your attacks.
Cheers,
Uriel
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Juha Heinanen<j...@tutpro.com> wrote:
while doing some tests, i noticed that one of my proxies started to
receive lots of register requests with different user names starting
from a letter. there was also invite attempts in the logs. they
came from ip 202.82.16.99 which according to traceroute is somewhere
in china.
should we start publishing a black list of these attack ip addresses?
-- juha
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing
list sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
