Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 63C75FE03 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:40:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 26361 invoked by uid 500); 15 Apr 2013 17:40:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 26265 invoked by uid 500); 15 Apr 2013 17:40:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list users@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 26256 invoked by uid 99); 15 Apr 2013 17:40:20 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:40:20 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [98.139.213.161] (HELO nm24-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com) (98.139.213.161) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:40:13 +0000 Received: from [98.139.212.151] by nm24.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Apr 2013 17:39:52 -0000 Received: from [98.139.213.4] by tm8.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Apr 2013 17:39:52 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp104.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Apr 2013 17:39:52 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1366047592; bh=83TJd1HyS9wynTgPMjmDfXlaonZGZRBSCjoi7YSiqnQ=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-Rocket-Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Antivirus:X-Antivirus-Status; b=M4YL4uwAJ5TehwWvDTzeIa51mB46vPyV8upYn5k3RMa4nxyeBLXwhApXf8fKxKhpD4Cwj9jlk9zWMhtXHMHzH+vZpdqbYuiYGL3pq8sqU7urd0Rx3Lxp/7OzdJhWkggGlanstUaV/dSmXj4LjpDHXLKEYR2f1kPbXiww7oXtKAY= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 27771.19475.bm@smtp104.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: nZW43MkVM1kVJ30viWzjpTSZyzKG7qsDaXu_NKqdPDRDDn3 NVIJAdXIu5nPrEaVnPfJjmY1aAOe7Zoqs65vFHKIorwT6BC3yFspGJHYF4sr M3OS39CFPK7kbYCEavU5k2cLbv1NCZvKRF6gvVpdOntidWpcaiGTVIeYE6k5 TZi9VnW.OnRPEQO9SpDrXVhrvM2Set0Ka7ZGRuU5uITzbBC_tYmyduVYWcbT pH9BVqpcm6nBuIPyWNdgpkcqY4lePqeUTcXG7H3hUDM8_xybLKHkNyZr8UUQ iDHCSTGsM57Xfp2XpepmM_TS6jYvby11N0QIAmJwPamSO_wgqlt2KnK6ESGw MOdOIhaTq11abwv6fQmGunwVzv6lDorf4JHN7SC_CE5Q5Lcq0_RUpu1FZSHe ATW5RLWWzjZyR1YWHjiQfUMGgLOWGwGu7TLc89Up_1_ILmhnE.jOqGIcY1CH yXs5B9wUbxRsVfxVe6fMZtcdpVpjb1Xb70vkGvy1LbV6_unDdJ9UdlIVaUYz inL058U8MtCg7lB88AKeQ3Thj2la8Y9PTmejbqJWpau9Cv29JHZ9w8AAIecy qV910BlW2dEVeprA.B5A_s.pxmQyYb32A65gk5vu50kh0bDy2MSN9T3JWxKV qAWiQwbtUhdUH X-Yahoo-SMTP: PKuT8k2swBCeFOHzkGy5rTOUTa2hBxlR X-Rocket-Received: from [127.0.0.1] (its_toasted@76.175.11.19 with ) by smtp104.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Apr 2013 10:39:51 -0700 PDT Message-ID: <516C3B4C.5000608@yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:39:24 -0700 From: Mark Eggers User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: users@tomcat.apache.org Subject: Re: Tomcat access log reveals hack attempt: "HEAD /manager/html HTTP/1.0" 404 References: <70C3D7FF9B194C1587F273ADE1623698@HP6910P> <-8374468888202311141@unknownmsgid> <516BD58F.2060207@pidster.com> <2AFD2E9D75D24E1FB992619D3549F388@HP6910P> <516BE951.7000106@pidster.com> <516C2133.8090703@ice-sa.com> <516C262F.6040007@ice-sa.com> <516C359F.4030506@ice-sa.com> In-Reply-To: <516C359F.4030506@ice-sa.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130415-0, 04/15/2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 4/15/2013 10:15 AM, Andr� Warnier wrote: > Neven Cvetkovic wrote: >> How about creating a fake manager application :))) >> >> That takes X minutes/seconds to get back a 404 ;))) >> > > Just for the sake of the discussion : > - a fake manager application would apply to just the /manager webapp, > not to other potential hacking targets, no ? (or you would have to "map" > it to any potential hacking URL, which may be inconvenient). Also, > you'd have to duplicate this webapp in any configured . > - the fact that it is a genuine webapp would mean that during the delay > before the 404 response, at least one tomcat thread remains blocked > executing that application, for each such request. I was thinking more > in the direction of off-loading such 404 responses to some specialised > lightweight thread, using as little resources as possible. It wouldn't > really matter if there is a queue of such responses waiting to happen, > as they just delay the eventual response to the (miscreant) client(s). > > More ideas ? > > P.S. I'd love to see this as a standard Tomcat feature, because it would > mean that within a certain time period, thousands and thousands of > Tomcat servers on the Internet would become annoying for these hacking > programs. If it was a webapp that everyone has to deploy on individual > tomcat servers optionally, it would be much less effective, I think. > > Of course at the moment I am just fishing here for potential negative > side-effects. > > Provided the idea makes sense however, I believe that I would also post > it on the Apache httpd list. If it was adopted there also somehow, that > could have quite a global impact. > > > One potential negative side-effect that I can see, is on one of my own > programs (or similar ones) : for some customers, I created a "URL > checker" program, which goes through their databases looking for > third-party links, and gives them a list of the ones that are not > working (so that they can correct their data). Of course if all > webservers on the web implemented my idea, then it would take much > longer for this genuine utility program to run, because it would > experience an extra delay for each incorrect URL (in case the host is > correct, but the URL on that server is not). > I'm also quite sure that Google won't really like the idea.. Google mod_security honeypot for ideas similar to this. Couple that with a mod_security exec to add IP addresses to firewalls or iptables, and I think you have a real chance at being annoying to many script-driven attacks. The cracking / botnet tools used today are really quite sophisticated. Here's an article touching the edge of what's going on: http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/04/a-beginners-guide-to-building-botnets-with-little-assembly-required/ Fun and games. . . . . just my two cents. /mde/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org