4 ms·
Neat trick. But if you have to capture traffic on the server before sending anything, doesn't it make it kinda useless?
by nemasu 13y ago
Neat trick. But if you have to capture traffic on the server before sending anything, doesn't it make it kinda useless?
- bdunbar 13y agoUse case: Abe is able to shell into host A and host B. He wants to transfer a file to B but he's being watched by [NSA, SMERSH, his boss]. Not airtight, but ... something like that?
- nemasu 13y agoHmm, I would think scp would be way more secure if he can shell into both sessions? idk. There's probably a perfect use case out there somewhere. Still a neat trick, heck you could probably do it with any service, not just DNS, cause you're basically just capturing traffic to receive it...
- mariusz79 13y ago"Better" use case - create a DNS client as a part of your Android/IOS app and send files from victim's computer to your own server :/
- pfg 13y agoI'd guess the use case would be someone trying to send files through a network that's mostly locked down (think: corporate network using a transparent proxy for HTTP, etc), but allows outgoing DNS traffic.
- userbinator 13y agoBeen there, done that. A lot of public WiFi hotspots will allow outgoing (and incoming) DNS, by design. It's unbearably slow (especially when you use SSL over it, which I'd consider almost mandatory if you do this) for anything other than email and maybe running a few shell commands, however. Applying additional obfuscation/whitening to the data stream to make it harder to detect makes it even slower.
- jessaustin 13y agoRunning a DNS server isn't inherently harder than running any other type of server. I think the point isn't to pwn any existing DNS server, but rather to hide communications from e.g. an IDS.