> Some consumer quality routers assume that all LAN addresses *MUST* be
> in an RFC1918 range, e.g., 192.168.n.n. The routers usually allow the
> user to set the third octet, but not the first or second, and they
> reserve the last octet for DHCP and/or local fixed addresses. IIRC,
> most allow the user to set the subnet mask's last octet too, but
> that's as much flexibility as users get.
Some ISPs manage the router and assign a fixed address to the LAN.
> Sometimes, the same restrictions apply to the other devices on the
> LAN, especially printers, and so it's often easier to put a 44net
> address on the "WAN" side of a router and do NAT.
Well, I think the main reason why people are doing this is limitations in typical
consumer-quality operating systems. One widely used OS appears to have been
dumbed down to the level that it is no longer possible to set a second address
on a network interface (was possible in older versions!), let alone to configure
policy routing.
People want to be able to access the AMPRnet using their devices that they
also use for internet browsing. It would be straightforward to set an extra
44.x.x.x address on the network and a route for 44.0.0.0/8 pointing to the
router used for that, and it would basically work.
I do this on my workstation but I also have policy routing to send traffic
with my AMPRnet source address to the AMPRnet. So I can also allow access
from internet addresses and send the return traffic the right way. But that
widely used OS cannot do that, at least not from the GUI (registry hacks
probably still work).
There are ways to work around it: you can install a second network card, or
you can add a VLAN to your network. Unfortunately, that again is not a feature
of the rudimentary network code of that OS, it is to be provided in the drivers
of the network card. Sometimes it is possible to download drivers from the
card manufacturer site and do VLAN, but when the manufacturer does not care
about that or places this in a different market segment, you are out of luck.
With all those limitations, I can understand why people install a more capable
router (e.g. MikroTik) to let it handle the job that is too difficult for MS,
and resort to NAT to make their systems available on both internet and AMPRnet.
But, doing it that way is even more tricky. It can work correctly, but you
carefully have to consider all the possible paths and handle them correctly
using suitable NAT rules, routing policy, and multiple route tables.
Unfortunately even some professional "firewall devices" are unable to operate
in transparent mode and always assume they have to do NAT. There are examples
of that in our network as well. People take home left-over big name devices
from work and try to use them in our HAMNET, usually encountering all kinds of
limitations and also bugs due to the old firmware. Support has ended or there
never has been any support without separate, expensive, contract.
It is normally more cost-effective to buy e.g. a MikroTik hEX3 and use that,
if only because of the huge savings in energy costs...
Rob
Yes Ruben that is ok but is used the platform .orion to precisely not be
located and remain anonymous through thor browser with proxy relay.
Any of there attack attemps that we stopped may passed you these links
(think are obsolete now) so you can verify for yourself whether they are
legal or not.
http://sonuh5glplozc2m.tor2web.org/A4113B9D69E5094Ahttp://sonuh5glplozc2m.onion.to/A4113B9D69E5094A
or via thor:
sonuh5glplozc2m.onion/A4113B9D69E5094A
Follow the instructions of the site and then with the ID:A413B9D69E50F94A
!!!
and good luck with this...
73 de Gabriel YV5KXE
Venezuela AMPR-Coordinator
Message: 9
Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 15:29:41 +0000
From: Ruben ON3RVH <on3rvh(a)on3rvh.be>
To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: [44net] the current worldwide Windows ransomware
situation
Message-ID: <1B69D7CC-274E-4635-8D90-C162A950A5FF(a)on3rvh.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Just a small correction as I don't like to see this kind of misinformation,
but .onion is the Tor network and Tor is not underground.
It's not because criminals like to use it that it is underground.
There are legit sites too within the .onion domain.
Ruben - ON3RVH
> On 14 May 2017, at 16:59, Gabriel Medinas <gmedinas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> Grettings to the group, this Rasomware theme is an evolving project, some
> employe just opened an infected email and it was an attack vector on the
> internal platform that runs around the LAN via the port 445 SMB protocol
> using a security hole that already Microsoft solved two months ago.
>
> Precisely the attackers know that many companies do not update the OS of
> their internal pc for issues of licensing and budget that make them
> vulnerable, also do not pay much attention to the safety of their
> equipment, here was shown how fragile it is the windows platform for these
> attacks and is the bulk of the equipment that these large companies have,
> such as the case of Telefonica in Spain, FEDEX, hospital networks in
> England, etc.
>
> These themes are every day in BBVA Corporation in my IT Security
> (Cybersecurity) Venezuela work, see this problem in a important evolution
> but it is more to come because they will continue looking for new
> possibilities to be able to collect the money with the Bitcoins.
>
> On the question of the domains, those that are in the common Internet
those
> are not relevant, only the important are the .onion underground that they
> use to recolet the extortion money from people-companies through these
> crypto tools attacks.
>
> As Brian says, linux and mac are safe for now...
>
> 73 de Gabriel YV5KXE
> Venezuela AMPR-Coordinator
>
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 04:51:33 +0000
> From: R P <ronenp(a)hotmail.com>
> To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: Re: [44net] the current worldwide Windows ransomware
> situation
> Message-ID:
> <BY2PR14MB04246C791B6C331478C3B033C7E30@BY2PR14MB0424.
> namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> IM not sure that this is the right group but as i wrote before here we
> have top experts in it field so Ill try
>
> I read the explain on the virus in the sites ...
>
> The domain is well known .. someone pay for it
>
> is it so problem to catch the person who paid for this domain ???
>
> what about shutting out this domain and by that stop the spread of the
> software ?
>
Grettings to the group, this Rasomware theme is an evolving project, some
employe just opened an infected email and it was an attack vector on the
internal platform that runs around the LAN via the port 445 SMB protocol
using a security hole that already Microsoft solved two months ago.
Precisely the attackers know that many companies do not update the OS of
their internal pc for issues of licensing and budget that make them
vulnerable, also do not pay much attention to the safety of their
equipment, here was shown how fragile it is the windows platform for these
attacks and is the bulk of the equipment that these large companies have,
such as the case of Telefonica in Spain, FEDEX, hospital networks in
England, etc.
These themes are every day in BBVA Corporation in my IT Security
(Cybersecurity) Venezuela work, see this problem in a important evolution
but it is more to come because they will continue looking for new
possibilities to be able to collect the money with the Bitcoins.
On the question of the domains, those that are in the common Internet those
are not relevant, only the important are the .onion underground that they
use to recolet the extortion money from people-companies through these
crypto tools attacks.
As Brian says, linux and mac are safe for now...
73 de Gabriel YV5KXE
Venezuela AMPR-Coordinator
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 04:51:33 +0000
From: R P <ronenp(a)hotmail.com>
To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: [44net] the current worldwide Windows ransomware
situation
Message-ID:
<BY2PR14MB04246C791B6C331478C3B033C7E30@BY2PR14MB0424.
namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
IM not sure that this is the right group but as i wrote before here we
have top experts in it field so Ill try
I read the explain on the virus in the sites ...
The domain is well known .. someone pay for it
is it so problem to catch the person who paid for this domain ???
what about shutting out this domain and by that stop the spread of the
software ?
> Yes, I can see your example. Fortunately, one thing I have seen so far
> is routers being supplied with all inbound connections stopped.
> Furthermore, mine doesn't allow you to totally disable the firewall,
> only for specific hosts (which I have done for some key Linux systems),
> or for specific ports on specific hosts (which I did on Windows for
> testing - I never leave Windows exposed to the net). Now with a router
> like mine, your scenario wouldn't work, because the temporary IP
> addresses would never be allowed to pass.
> So, there are ways to build it into the router design to make it harder
> for people to shoot themselves in the foot. :)
Yes, I think there has been some ISP/Manufacturer working group to get this
cleared up and defined. My ISP waited with IPv6 rollout until this was
resolved, and the router they deliver does exactly what you describe above.
When IPv6 was designed, the idea was still that every host should be able
to communicate with every other host. That has proven to be a bad idea
on an open network, so IPv6 had to be crippled to make it viable. But that
at the same time removes one of the major incentives to roll it out, as NAT
can be used as an alternative solution in most situations. Many places
have still not started IPv6 rollout...
Rob
If you're interested in reading more about the current Windows
worm/ransomware, these two sites have brief articles explaining what's up.
http://blog.talosintelligence.com/2017/05/wannacry.htmlhttps://securelist.com/blog/incidents/78351/wannacry-ransomware-used-in-wid…
Note that they recommend blocking ports 139 and 445 to help prevent the
spread of the worm infection. Amprgw has been blocking those ports for
quite some time, but that doesn't prevent the infection from spreading
within a group of computers or an organization. It is strongly suggested
that people running Windows should be sure that all issued patches have
been applied.
As usual, systems running non-Windows OS's (Linux, etc) are immune to
this attack.
- Brian
I know that very few of you are looking at the amprgw router statistics,
but for those who do care: the current statistics (packet/byte counts)
accumulate since router boot time. Would it be more helpful/meaningful
if the totals reset at midnight so that they reflect daily trends?
Also, some of the numbers are getting large enough that they're not
intuitively meaningful. There's no convenient way to insert thousands
separators. Would 'scientific notation' (eg, 1.56e9) be helpful? (This
is the 'g' format specifier in 'C'.) Or alternatively, notation such
as 1.5k, 2.4M, 8.1G, or 1.2T could possibly be generated.
- Brian
> Patches are often applied late because it's not rare to experience serious disruption.
> Anyway the software being patched is poorly made in the first place.
> The problems caused by patches are actually another sign of very poor software design.
And not the least: after 25 years of development on Windows the patching mechanism still
is in a sad state, requiring unreasonable time and resources to find and install required patches.
It is very clear that quality isn't a priority for Microsoft *at all*. They only care about
making money, what happens to their customers and how much time they waste on using and maintaining
their products does not matter to them as long as they keep buying.
Rob
> To help prevent this from affecting AMPRNet systems, I am now blocking
> inbound port 16992 at the amprgw gateway. I hope this won't cause you
> any difficulties.
Thanks for the hint. It is surprisingly difficult to get technical information
from the Intel documents. Do you block TCP only or also UDP? And what about
ports 16993 and 16994? (and maybe even 623 and 664?)
The nice thing about such new vulnerabilities is that they allow you to identify
the aforementioned scanners and put them on the permanent blacklist.
Aside from shodan.io (that were already on the blocklist) I also see
52.174.52.33 census01.project-magellan.com
Yet another annoying "research" project...
You could try to get 44.0.0.0/8 opted out via research(a)project-magellan.com
Rob