so I'm working on a project where the program can detect when its being scanned for malicious purposes by checking how many ports are being scanned at the same time and scanning them back using the SYN method and I would like to know if the TCP or UDP protocol is better for a so called "counter-scan" to the target without getting noticed I have some ideas like:
I can send them using UDP and the attacker wouldn't notice them .
using the TCP method use the existing 3 way handshake to mask the
SYN packets with his responses
sorry I have no source code since I'm still brain storming
Yes, UDP scan can be done by looking at ICMP (NOT IMCP) port unreachables, but these are often filtered.
I guess UDP would not be less "noticed"--TCP does more harm since it needs state saved (waiting for ACKs).
(nit: please work on your English)
This question was posted on StackExchange - NetworkEngineering. People suggested me to post it here. Here is my original post.
I am trying to write a client that initiates a TCP connection and sends some data. On the server side, I am using nc that listens to a certain port. Now I am able to complete the 3-way handshaking. netstats shows that the connection is established. However, after my client starts sending data, it never gets an ACK.
The client is implemented on top of DPDK, and thus bypasses the kernel stack. The server binds to a different NIC. The two NICs are directly connected. The TCP part is handled by my own code. Due to the lack of knowledge, the implementation is greatly simplified in the sense that I set a lot of fields to some fixed numbers, such as the window size.
As a newbie in networking, I have no clue what could go wrong, and thus not sure what information I should provide to help you identify the problem. Here is a screenshot from wireshark. My client is at 192.168.0.10:12345 and my server listens at 192.168.0.42:3456. No ACK is sent from the server side after packet 6.
Also, the reason for the incorrect FCS is that I had to pad zeros to the SYN and the first ACK packets, so that they are at least 64 bytes, which is a requirement from the client NIC.
I did a comparison between packets from my client and packets from nc client. It seems that for the first data packet, the only real difference is that mine does not have any TCP options, while the nc one carries a timestamp. Could this be the problem?
Please let me know if you spot anything that may cause this no-ACK issue.
I have a router1-switch-router2 connection. My problem is if I send a packet from router1 to router2, it is not received at router2. I am sure the ipaddress/subnet address are correct. And am also sure that packets are going out the router1. And I am also sure of the internal port connections of the switch. I have access to the onpath switch. Is there any specific command that can be used in the switch to check whether the packet is received or not? ARP itself not getting resolved
You can have a packet capture app running on both the sender and receiver that would tell the incoming and outgoing packets on both boxes.
In this case probably your packet is getting dropped either on the sender or receiver side. There can be million reasons for a packet drop. But this is a good step to start with.
I want to identify an UDP or TCP packet that have its source IP address faked. My guess is that even if the packet is faked with a program such has hping, the MAC src address is still the same on all the faked packets, is this correct?
If my idea is not correct, how can I identify such packets that are being faked and looks like it has different source for each and every packet?
Thanks.
MAC addresses can be faked too.
With TCP, its easy to identify / handle this. You'll reply to a fake SYN packet with a SYN-ACK. If it was a real client, it'd reply with an ACK to complete the handshake. Only caveat is that you'll have to implement syn-cookies so that you don't create state & use up resources while waiting for an ACK.
With UDP, there is no way to know, since the protocol is connection-less. If you send a reply to the fake packet, you're not guaranteed a response from a "real" client. So there is no way to identify a fake one.
The way I see it, UDP and TCP have nothing to do with this. You're talking about only layer 2 (MAC) and layer 3 (IP). Even at that though, you have no way of knowing, because the source MAC address should be that of the closest router to the recipient (assuming the packet did not originate in your subnet.) So you should see the same MAC address for most all inbound packets (again, internet traffic only).
Now there are profiling tools like p0f that work on signatures of packets, and you could try and do some heuristics based on that information, but nothing very concreted could be determined.
From the packet you can get the MAC address of the nearest node. Yeah you can send ACK packet to the fake source address(IP) and then use Traceroute command to know the path of the source packet, so that you can atleast find the location of the originating. It works well in TCP and you can have acknowledgement also.
Why is the IP called a connectionless protocol? If so, what is the connection-oriented protocol then?
Thanks.
Update - 1 - 20:21 2010/12/26
I think, to better answer my question, it would be better to explain what "connection" actually means, both physically and logically.
Update - 2 - 9:59 AM 2/1/2013
Based on all the answers below, I come to the feeling that the 'connection' mentioned here should be considered as a set of actions/arrangements/disciplines. Thus it's more an abstract concept rather than a concrete object.
Update - 3 - 11:35 AM 6/18/2015
Here's a more physical explanation:
IP protocol is connectionless in that all packets in IP network are routed independently, they may not necessarily go through the same route, while in a virtual circuit network which is connection oriented, all packets go through the same route. This single route is what 'virtual circuit' means.
With connection, because there's only 1 route, all data packets will arrive in the same order as they are sent out.
Without connection, it is not guaranteed all data packets will arrive
in the same order as they are sent out.
Update - 4 - 9:55 AM 2016/1/20/Wed
One of the characteristics of connection-oriented is that the packet order is preserved. TCP use a sequence number to achieve that but IP has no such facility. Thus TCP is connection-oriented while IP is connection-less.
The basic idea is pretty simple: with IP (on its own -- no TCP, UDP, etc.) you're just sending a packet of data. You simply send some data onto the net with a destination address, but that's it. By itself, IP gives:
no assurance that it'll be delivered
no way to find out if it was
nothing to let the destination know to expect a packet
much of anything else
All it does is specify a minimal packet format so you can get some data from one point to another (e.g., routers know the packet format, so they can look at the destination and send the packet on its next hop).
TCP is connection oriented. Establishing a connection means that at the beginning of a TCP conversation, it does a "three way handshake" so (in particular) the destination knows that a connection with the source has been established. It keeps track of that address internally, so it can/will/does expect more packets from it, and be able to send replies to (for example) acknowledge each packet it receives. The source and destination also cooperate to serial number all the packets for the acknowledgment scheme, so each end knows whether packets it sent were received at the other end. This doesn't involve much physically, but logically it involves allocating some memory on both ends. That includes memory for metadata like the next packet serial number to use, as well as payload data for possible re-transmission until the other side acknowledges receipt of that packet.
TCP/IP means "TCP over IP".
TCP
--
IP
TCP provides the "connection-oriented" logic, ordering and control
IP provides getting packets from A to B however it can: "connectionless"
Notes:
UDP is connection less but at the same level as TCP
Other protocols such as ICMP (used by ping) can run over IP but have nothing to do with TCP
Edit:
"connection-oriented" mean established end to end connection. For example, you pick up the telephone, call someone = you have a connection.
"connection-less" means "send it, see what happens". For example, sending a letter via snail mail.a
So IP gets your packets from A to B, maybe, in any order, not always eventually. TCP sorts them out, acknowledges them, requests a resends and provides the "connection"
Connectionless means that no effort is made to set up a dedicated end-to-end connection, While Connection-Oriented means that when devices communicate, they perform handshaking to set up an end-to-end connection.
IP is an example of the Connectionless protocols , in this kind of protocols you usually send informations in one direction, from source to destination without checking to see if the destination is still there, or if it is prepared to receive the information . Connectionless protocols (Like IP and UDP) are used for example with the Video Conferencing when you don't care if some packets are lost , while you have to use a Connection-Oriented protocol (Like TCP) when you send a File because you want to insure that all the packets are sent successfully (actually we use FTP to transfer Files). Edit :
In telecommunication and computing in
general, a connection is the
successful completion of necessary
arrangements so that two or more
parties (for example, people or
programs) can communicate at a long
distance. In this usage, the term has
a strong physical (hardware)
connotation although logical
(software) elements are usually
involved as well.
The physical connection is layer 1 of
the OSI model, and is the medium
through which the data is transfered.
i.e., cables
The logical connection is layer 3 of
the OSI model, and is the network
portion. Using the Internetwork
Protocol (IP), each host is assigned a
32 bit IP address. e.g. 192.168.1.1
TCP is the connection part of TCP/IP. IP's the addressing.
Or, as an analogy, IP is the address written on the envelope, TCP is the postal system which uses the address as part of the work of getting the envelope from point A to point B.
When two hosts want to communicate using connection oriented protocol, one of them must first initiate a connection and the other must accept it. Logically a connection is made between a port in one host and other port in the other host. Software in one host must perform a connect socket operation, and the other must perform an accept socket operation. Physically the initiator host sends a SYN packet, which contains all four connection identifying numbers (source IP, source port, destination IP, destination port). The other receives it and sends SYN-ACK, the initiator sends an ACK, then the connection are established. After the connection established, then the data could be transferred, in both directions.
In the other hand, connectionless protocol means that we don't need to establish connection to send data. It means the first packet being sent from one host to another could contain data payloads. Of course for upper layer protocols such as UDP, the recipient must be ready first, (e.g.) it must perform a listen udp socket operation.
The connectionless IP became foundation for TCP in the layer above
In TCP, at minimal 2x round trip times are required to send just one packet of data. That is : a->b for SYN, b->a for SYN-ACK, a->b for ACK with DATA, b->a for ACK. For flow rate control, Nagle's algorithm is applied here.
In UDP, only 0.5 round trip times are required : a->b with DATA. But be prepared that some packets could be silently lost and there is no flow control being done. Packets could be sent in the rate that are larger than the capability of the receiving system.
In my knowledge, every layer makes a fool of the one above it. The TCP gets an HTTP message from the Application layer and breaks it into packets. Lets call them data packets. The IP gets these packets one by one from TCP and throws it towards the destination; also, it collects an incoming packet and delivers it to TCP. Now, TCP after sending a packet, waits for an acknowledgement packet from the other side. If it comes, it says the above layer, hey, I have established a connection and now we can communicate! The whole communication process goes on between the TCP layers on both the sides sending and receiving different types of packets with each other (such as data packet, acknowledgement packet, synchronization packet , blah blah packet). It uses other tricks (all packet sending) to ensure the actual data packets to be delivered in ordered as they were broken and assembled. After assembling, it transfers them to the above application layer. That fool thinks that it has got an HTTP message in an established connection but in reality, just packets are being transferred.
I just came across this question today. It was bouncing around in my head all day and didn't make any sense. IP doesn't handle transport. Why would anyone even think of IP as connectionless or connection oriented? It is technically connectionless because it offers no reliability, no guaranteed delivery. But so is my toaster. My toaster offers no guaranteed delivery, so why not call aa toaster connectionless too?
In the end, I found out it's just some stupid title that someone somewhere attached to IP and it stuck, and now everyone calls IP connectionless and has no good reason for it.
Calling IP connectionless implies there is another layer 3 protocol that is connection oriented, but as far as I know, there isn't and it is just plain stupid to specify that IP is connectionless. MAC is connectionless. LLC is connectionless. But that is useless, technically correct info.