I want to figure out whether my computer is somehow causing a UDP flood that is originating from my network. So that's my underlying problem, and what follows is simply my non-network-person attempt to hypothesize a solution using python. I'm extrapolating from recipe 13.1 ("Passing Messages with Socket Datagrams") from the python cookbook (also here).
Would it possible/sensible/not insane to try somehow writing an outgoing UDP proxy in python, so that outgoing packets could be logged before being sent on their merry way? If so, how would one go about it? Based on my quick research, perhaps I could start a server process listening on suspect UDP ports and log anything that gets sent, then forward it on, such as:
import socket
s =socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_DGRAM)
s.bind(("", MYPORT))
while True:
packet = dict(zip('data', 'addr'), s.recvfrom(1,024))
log.info("Recieved {data} from {addr}.".format(**packet))
But what about doing this for a large number of ports simultaneously? Impractical? Are there drawbacks or other reasons not to bother with this? Is there a better way to solve this problem (please be gentle).
It might be easier just to install Wireshark, instead of rolling your own in Python.
Related
Ok, I realize this situation is somewhat unusual, but I need to establish a TCP connection (the 3-way handshake) using only raw sockets (in C, in linux) -- i.e. I need to construct the IP headers and TCP headers myself. I'm writing a server (so I have to first respond to the incoming SYN packet), and for whatever reason I can't seem to get it right. Yes, I realize that a SOCK_STREAM will handle this for me, but for reasons I don't want to go into that isn't an option.
The tutorials I've found online on using raw sockets all describe how to build a SYN flooder, but this is somewhat easier than actually establishing a TCP connection, since you don't have to construct a response based on the original packet. I've gotten the SYN flooder examples working, and I can read the incoming SYN packet just fine from the raw socket, but I'm still having trouble creating a valid SYN/ACK response to an incoming SYN from the client.
So, does anyone know a good tutorial on using raw sockets that goes beyond creating a SYN flooder, or does anyone have some code that could do this (using SOCK_RAW, and not SOCK_STREAM)? I would be very grateful.
MarkR is absolutely right -- the problem is that the kernel is sending reset packets in response to the initial packet because it thinks the port is closed. The kernel is beating me to the response and the connection dies. I was using tcpdump to monitor the connection already -- I should have been more observant and noticed that there were TWO replies one of which was a reset that was screwing things up, as well as the response my program created. D'OH!
The solution that seems to work best is to use an iptables rule, as suggested by MarkR, to block the outbound packets. However, there's an easier way to do it than using the mark option, as suggested. I just match whether the reset TCP flag is set. During the course of a normal connection this is unlikely to be needed, and it doesn't really matter to my application if I block all outbound reset packets from the port being used. This effectively blocks the kernel's unwanted response, but not my own packets. If the port my program is listening on is 9999 then the iptables rule looks like this:
iptables -t filter -I OUTPUT -p tcp --sport 9999 --tcp-flags RST RST -j DROP
You want to implement part of a TCP stack in userspace... this is ok, some other apps do this.
One problem you will come across is that the kernel will be sending out (generally negative, unhelpful) replies to incoming packets. This is going to screw up any communication you attempt to initiate.
One way to avoid this is to use an IP address and interface that the kernel does not have its own IP stack using- which is fine but you will need to deal with link-layer stuff (specifically, arp) yourself. That would require a socket lower than IPPROTO_IP, SOCK_RAW - you need a packet socket (I think).
It may also be possible to block the kernel's responses using an iptables rule- but I rather suspect that the rules will apply to your own packets as well somehow, unless you can manage to get them treated differently (perhaps applying a netfilter "mark" to your own packets?)
Read the man pages
socket(7)
ip(7)
packet(7)
Which explain about various options and ioctls which apply to types of sockets.
Of course you'll need a tool like Wireshark to inspect what's going on. You will need several machines to test this, I recommend using vmware (or similar) to reduce the amount of hardware required.
Sorry I can't recommend a specific tutorial.
Good luck.
I realise that this is an old thread, but here's a tutorial that goes beyond the normal SYN flooders: http://www.enderunix.org/docs/en/rawipspoof/
Hope it might be of help to someone.
I can't help you out on any tutorials.
But I can give you some advice on the tools that you could use to assist in debugging.
First off, as bmdhacks has suggested, get yourself a copy of wireshark (or tcpdump - but wireshark is easier to use). Capture a good handshake. Make sure that you save this.
Capture one of your handshakes that fails. Wireshark has quite good packet parsing and error checking, so if there's a straightforward error it will probably tell you.
Next, get yourself a copy of tcpreplay. This should also include a tool called "tcprewrite".
tcprewrite will allow you to split your previously saved capture files into two - one for each side of the handshake.
You can then use tcpreplay to play back one side of the handshake so you have a consistent set of packets to play with.
Then you use wireshark (again) to check your responses.
I don't have a tutorial, but I recently used Wireshark to good effect to debug some raw sockets programming I was doing. If you capture the packets you're sending, wireshark will do a good job of showing you if they're malformed or not. It's useful for comparing to a normal connection too.
There are structures for IP and TCP headers declared in netinet/ip.h & netinet/tcp.h respectively. You may want to look at the other headers in this directory for extra macros & stuff that may be of use.
You send a packet with the SYN flag set and a random sequence number (x). You should receive a SYN+ACK from the other side. This packet will have an acknowledgement number (y) that indicates the next sequence number the other side is expecting to receive as well as another sequence number (z). You send back an ACK packet that has sequence number x+1 and ack number z+1 to complete the connection.
You also need to make sure you calculate appropriate TCP/IP checksums & fill out the remainder of the header for the packets you send. Also, don't forget about things like host & network byte order.
TCP is defined in RFC 793, available here: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc793.html
Depending on what you're trying to do it may be easier to get existing software to handle the TCP handshaking for you.
One open source IP stack is lwIP (http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/lwip/) which provides a full tcp/ip stack. It is very possible to get it running in user mode using either SOCK_RAW or pcap.
if you are using raw sockets, if you send using different source mac address to the actual one, linux will ignore the response packet and not send an rst.
I am working on a project where I have a client server model in python. I set up a server to monitor requests and send back data. PYZMQ supports: tcp, udp, pgm, epgm, inproc and ipc. I have been using tcp for interprocess communication, but have no idea what i should use for sending a request over the internet to a server. I simply need something to put in:
socket.bind(BIND_ADDRESS)
DIAGRAM: Client Communicating over internet to server running a program
Any particular reason you're not using ipc or inproc for interprocess communication?
Other than that, generally, you can consider tcp the universal communicator; it's not always the best choice, but no matter what (so long as you actually have an IP address) it will work.
Here's what you need to know when making a choice between transports:
PGM/EPGM are multicast transports - the idea is that you send one message and it gets delivered as a single message until the last possible moment where it will be broken up into multiple messages, one for each receiver. Unless you absolutely know you need this, you don't need this.
IPC/Inproc are for interprocess communication... if you're communicating between different threads in the same process, or different processes on the same logical host, then these might be appropriate. You get the benefit of a little less overhead. If you might ever add new logical hosts, this is probably not appropriate.
Russle Borogove enumerates the difference between TCP and UDP well. Typically you'll want to use TCP. Only if absolute speed is more important than reliability then you'll use UDP.
It was always my understanding that UDP wasn't supported by ZMQ, so if it's there it's probably added by the pyzmq binding.
Also, I took a look at your diagram - you probably want the server ZMQ socket to bind and the client ZMQ socket to connect... there are some reasons why you might reverse this, but as a general rule the server is considered the "reliable" peer, and the client is the "transient" peer, and you want the "reliable" peer to bind, the "transient" peer to connect.
Over the internet, TCP or UDP are the usual choices. I don't know if pyzmq has its own delivery guarantees on top of the transport protocol. If it doesn't, TCP will guarantee in-order delivery of all messages, while UDP may drop messages if the network is congested.
If you don't know what you want, TCP is the simplest and safest choice.
I need to monitor how long it takes for a certain website to respond when addressed. I would like to sniff the traffic on port 80 but only when there is traffic being exchanged with the targeted site. I have searched SO and it seems like pcapy or scapy is the right tool for the job, but they seem deeper than I need. I have studying the following script:
Network traffic monitor with pcapy in python
and I think I need to change the
def __handle_packet(self, header, data):
# method is called for each packet by dispatch call (pcapy)
self._dispatch_bytes_sum += header.getlen() #header.getlen() #len(data)
logger.debug("header: (len:{0}, caplen:{1}, ts:{2}), d:{3}".format(header.getlen(), header.getcaplen(), header.getts(), len(data)))
#self.dumper.dump(header, data)
to somehow only unpack/handle packets that are destined for the target site. Note that this is for a Windows XP machine on a LAN and it is critical that the browser initiate the traffic.
Any pointers appreciated?
The problem with scapy is it doesn't handle reassembling TCP streams. Your HTTP that you're looking for is likely to be embedded in a TCP stream. To quote the docs:
Scapy is based on a stimulus/response model. This model does not work well for a TCP stack. On the other hand, quite often, the TCP stream is used as a tube to exchange messages that are stimulus/response-based.
Like you said scapy is more ideal for lower-layer things. You could, for instance, probably track IP packets on DHCP requests. Like many network tools, the complexities and stream-based nature of TCP means once you cross that layer it gets harder to reassemble everything and deal with all the retransmission and what not edge cases and coherently pull data out.
Could you use something like curl or urllib and see how long it takes for the response to come back?
I guess it's socket programming. But I have never done socket programming expect for running the tutorial examples while learning Python. I need some more ideas to implement this.
What I specifically need is to run a monitoring program of a server which will poll or listen to traffic being exchange from different IPs across different popular ports. For example, how do I get data received and sent through port 80 of 192.168.1.10 and 192.168.1.1 ( which is the gateway).
I checked out a number of ready made tools like MRTG, Bwmon, Ntop etc but since we are looking at doing some specific pattern studies, we need to do data capturing within the program.
Idea is to monitor some popular ports and do a study of network traffic across some periods and compare them with some other data.
We would like to figure a way to do all this with Python....
You probably want to use scapy for that. Just sniff all ethernet traffic on a particular interface, drop everything that is not TCP and doesn't match the port.
Not sure if scapy can already track TCP connections (stuff like recognizing duplicate sequence numbers, extracting just the payload stream) but I would guess it probably can, and if not it's not too hard to hack together a good-enough TCP connection tracker that works for 95% of the traffic.
Alternatives would be to use sockets directly (look for raw sockets) or libpcap, which can both be done from Python. You may also want to check out the filter experssion syntax of the 'tcpdump' commandline tool, maybe it can do what you want already.
I bet there are more specialized high-level tools for this, but I don't know them.
PS: if you don't know wireshark yet, go check it out and play around with it first. It can follow TCP streams and will teach you what TCP connection tracking means. Maybe its commandline binary, tshark, can be used to extract TCP streams for what you want.
IPTraf is an ncurses based IP LAN monitoring tool. Has a capability to generate network statistics including TCP,UDP,ICMP and some more.
Since you're thinking to execute it from python, you may consider to use screen (screen manager with VT100/ANSI terminal emulation) to overcome ncurses issues and you may want to pass logging and interval parameters to IPTraf which forces iptraf to log to a file in a given interval. Little bit tricky but eventually you can have what you are looking for by basically parsing the log file.
I'm planning to design a server that receives data from multiple clients, the server don't need to send anything back to the client, though STATUS_OK is still cool but not necessary.
I know the basics of Python socket module, twisted framework but my question is, should i use UDP or TCP? The client that need to stay connected at all.
I hope you guys understand my question, thank you for your wonderful help here
You should always use TCP until you have a performance problem that you know can be mitigated with UDP. TCP is easier to understand when it fails.
Can you afford to lose messages? If yes, use UDP. Otherwise use TCP. It's what they're designed for.
I would use TCP in your situation, but it's hard to tell what the specifics of your needs are. TCP is in most cases a better protocol because it's much more reliable. Data is very rarely lost in TCP, however this does slow it down a bit. Since you're not sending anything back to the client, the fact that TCP is a streaming protocol shouldn't really matter too much.
So I'd just go with TCP.
For how long will one client be connected to the server? How many concurrent connections are you planning to handle? If there will be very short bursts of data for a lot of clients, then you should go with UDP. But chances are, TCP will do just fine initially.