I have a small "lab" trying to pentest at home, and I have my main OS and on a VM I'm running Windows XP SP3 (ENG). I use the ms08_067_netapi and the reverse_tcp as a payload. When i use the exploit command this is what I get.
[*] Started reverse TCP handler on 192.168.1.69:4444
[*] Automatically detecting the target...
[*] Fingerprint: Windows XP - Service Pack 3 - lang:English
[*] Selected Target: Windows XP SP3 English (AlwaysOn NX)
[*] Attempting to trigger the vulnerability...
[*] Exploit completed, but no session was created.
What I can understand from that is that the exploit works, but the payload isn't able to function. The first thing I did was to change port from 4444 to 80 just in case, firewall was blocking the payload. I got the same reply, trying with both 80 and 443 as LPORT.
Do you have any suggestions on what else I could do?
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/112601/ms08-067-netapi-not-performing-as-expected-on-windows-xp-sp1-sp3
The Answer is in that thread
There are many reasons for this exploit to fail, in short:
The target is patched.
'Not supported language' error from the target.
The payload can't execute correctly.
Networking errors 'reverse connection through NAT'.
From experience with the same issue, I recommend to do the following:
Try not to use VMs.
Try another payloads, away from reverse connections.
Try other versions of Windows XP.
Change system languages 'sometime it works!'
Related
I have a Windows application (APP) and Audio Processing Object (APO) loaded by AudioDG.exe that communicate via gRPC:
APP part that is written in C# creates server via Grpc.Core.
APO part creates client via grpc++.
Server is on 127.0.0.1:20000 (I can see it's up and listening with netstat -ano).
I can confirm that APO is loaded into audio device graph by inspecting it with process explorer.
Everything worked like a charm on Windows 8 and 10, but on 11 it cannot communicate at all - I get either Error Code 14, Unavailable, failed to connect to all addresses or 4, Deadline Exceeded.
After enabling debug traces, I now see "socket is null" description for "connect failed" error:
I0207 16:20:59.916447 0 ..\..\..\src\core\ext\filters\client_channel\subchannel.cc:950: subchannel 000001D8B9B01E20 {address=ipv4:127.0.0.1:10000, args=grpc.client_channel_factory=0x1d8bb660460, grpc.default_authority=127.0.0.1:10000, grpc.internal.subchannel_pool=0x1d8b8c291b0, grpc.primary_user_agent=grpc-csharp/2.43.0 (.NET Framework 4.8.4470.0; CLR 4.0.30319.42000; net45; x64), grpc.resource_quota=0x1d8b8c28d90, grpc.server_uri=dns:///127.0.0.1:10000}: connect failed: {"created":"#1644240059.916000000","description":"socket is null","file":"..\..\..\src\core\lib\iomgr\tcp_client_windows.cc","file_line":112}
What I've tried so far:
Updating both parts to the latest grpc versions.
Using "no proxy", "Http2UnencryptedSupport" and other env variables.
Using "localhost" or "0.0.0.0" instead of "127.0.0.1".
Updating connection to use self signed SSL certificates (root CA, server cert + key, client cert + key).
Adding inbound / outbound rules for my port, and then disabling firewall completely.
Creating server on APO side and trying to connect with the client in APP.
Everything works (both insecure and SSL creds) if I create both client and server in C# part, but as soon as it's APP-APO communication it feels blocked or sandboxed.
What has been changed in Windows 11 that can "block" gRPC?
Thanks in advance!
In your input you write:
Server is at 127.0.0.1:20000
Further looking at the logs, you can see that:
The server is located at
grpc.server_uri=dns:///127.0.0.1:10000
Based on the question posed and the amount of data provided, I would check which port the server is really using and which port the client is looking for a connection on.
The easiest way to do this is to use the built-in Resource Monitor application. On the Network tab, in the TCP Connections list, you can find the application and the port it uses.
You can also use the PowerShell command
Test-NetConnection -Port 10000 -InformationLevel "Detailed"
Test-NetConnection -Port 20000 -InformationLevel "Detailed"
At least this is the first thing I would check based on what you described.
Regarding your question about the changes in Windows 11, I do not think that this is something that's causing problems for you. However, Windows 11 has additional security features compared to Windows 10, try disabling the security features completely as a test. Perhaps this will help solve the problem.
As for ASP.NET Core 6.0 itself (if I understood the version correctly), then there is a possibility that the server part, working not in the sandbox of the programming environment, still does not accept the client certificate. At the program level, you can try to fix this by adding the following exception to the code:
// This switch must be set before creating the GrpcChannel/HttpClient.
AppContext.SetSwitch(
"System.Net.Http.SocketsHttpHandler.Http2UnencryptedSupport", true);
// The port number(5000) must match the port of the gRPC server.
var channel = GrpcChannel.ForAddress("http://localhost:5000");
var client = new Greet.GreeterClient(channel);
More troubleshooting issues with ASP.NET Core 6.0 Microsoft described in detail here.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/grpc/troubleshoot?view=aspnetcore-6.0
I hope it was useful and at least one of the solutions I suggested will help solve your problem. In any case, if I had more information, I think I could help you more accurately.
We recently observe rare UDP communication issues that show the following symptoms:
A socket sendto() call fails with error WSAENOBUFS (10055)
A subsequent recvfrom() call on this socket does not receive anything, even though Wireshark shows that the network interface actually received the expected datagrams. This situation persists for approximately 8 seconds, afterwards new incoming datagrams can be received again from the socket.
In Windows System Log, there appears a Kernel-General information entry at the time of the sendto() error:
The access history in hive \??\C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Provisioning\Microsoft-Desktop-Provisioning-Sequence.dat was cleared updating 0 keys and creating 0 modified pages.
The issue happens on a customer system running Microsoft Windows 10 Pro for Workstations, Version 10.0.17763 Build 17763.
On that system we were able to reproduce the issue with a simple test program written in C++ that echoes UDP datagrams. We verified that the thread receiving from the socket was actually responsive all the time, by specifying a timeout of 1 second using SO_RCVTIMEO, printing some “still alive” output and immediately calling recvfrom() again.
On our own test system, we were unable to observe the issue under the same circumstances as the customer. However, we were able to provoke similar effects when playing around with the network adapter settings while the test was running. Enabling Microsoft LLDP Protocol Driver showed the sendto() error and sometimes also resulted in the 8 second “silence” period, but without any Windows System Log entry.
Any hints are greatly appreciated.
The issue seems to be related to Microsoft Provisioning Tool since Windows 10 1809.
Disabling it fixed the issue in our case:
Open Task Scheduler, go to Microsoft/Windows/Manangement/Provisioning and disable Logon task.
Source: Windows TenForums
I am using a simple UDP Receiver code built in c++. I upgrade on of my machines to Windows 7 and this line is now getting held up because the UDP stream is not getting through to the executable running:
iResult = recv(sock, RxBuf, buffsize, 0);
The recv function is just held up. I have used wire shark to make sure the UDP stream is active and correct but don't know what the problem is.
Any help would be appreciated.
(the UDP stream is broadcasted)
Unless you have set sock to non-blocking, recv() will block until data is received. So if the program is blocking there, its probably because it isn't receiving any datagrams.
A lot changed in Windows networking between XP and 7, so here some things to check:
Check your bind() statement. Make sure you are really binding the port you think you are and that you are checking for errors.
Simply turning off the firewall in Windows does not completely disable it. There are many components, especially on Vista and later, which are active all the time.
When you first run an executable, Windows Vista and later will ask you to confirm that it should have network access. If you click anything other than "Allow", then the path to that executable may be blocked forever. Adding an "Allow" rule does not override this block. To unblock it, you must turn the firewall back on, and dig down to "Windows Firewall with Advanced Security" to delete the offending rules from both Incoming and Outgoing. You might be amazed at what can build up in there.
You probably need to add an Incoming firewall rule for the UDP port that you are listening on. Even if the firewall is turned off.
Other things to try: disable any anti-virus software, run your listener as Admin, get Wireshark or another packet sniffer to make sure the packets really are reaching the machine.
My company is currently using TortoiseSVN 1.6.16 32-bit on Windows XP to connect via HTTPS to a VisualSVN-Server 2.1.19 running on a Windows Server 2003 residing in the same network (no proxy). We use a self-signed certificate and Kerberos authentication using windows credentials (I suppose this is a VisualSVN-specific feature). In this setup, everything works dandy.
When my company decided to move on to Windows 7, we tried TortoiseSVN 1.7.6 64-bit on Windows 7 64-bit which resulted in the following problem:
Any operation involving the server (repo-browser, checkout, update, checkin, ...) is unbearably slow e.g.
opening the repo-browser (10 projects): 15 min
update on a fresh checkout of 50 files: 1 min
checkin of a single empty file: 30 sec
Tortoise shows alternatively normal transmission speeds and 0 byte/s. Many small files seem to be slower than a few big ones.
The slow connection results in various failures when using neon as http-lib (serf is still slow, but operation finishes successfully without errors)
EasySVN, SmartSVN and the SVN command line client that comes with TortoiseSVN show the same behaviour. Same with TortoiseSVN 1.6.16 64-bit.
Changing the server protocol to HTTP (no SSL) does not improve the situation
On the other hand
TortoiseSVN 1.7.6 32-bit on Windows XP works fine with our server
Access via browser/WebDAV works well even under Windows 7
Server side logs do not show errors or even warnings
I found several posts which also complained about slow behaviour on Windows 7, but they didn't fit my bill because they were local operations or were restricted to TortoiseSVN.
As there is no indication that there is a general problem with Subversion on Windows 7, I suspect that it could be our OS' networking parameters or protocol versions. Are there any parameters which are known to influence Subversion's performance?
I have to admit I am not familiar with how exactly Subversion (or rather neon/serf) relies on the OS and on which parts. Any information on that would be greatly appreciated.
Are there any parameters in the subversion 'servers' file which I should test? How would you consider my chances that Wireshark'ing the connection will help me?
Similar experiences, opinions, hints, help and straws are welcome.
Wireshark shows sporadic gaps of ca. 5 sec in the TCP stream apparently caused by VisualSVN Server.
https: the server acknowledges the client hello then waits for 5 secs before sending its server hello
https: the server acknowledges the client key and than takes 5 secs before supplying its encrypted handshake data
https: even outside the handshake, server sometimes sends an ACK (on TCP level) and then waits for 5 sec before sending something back to the client (the data is encrypted so it's hard to tell whether the break occurs at some point of interest)
http: at both server side transmissions during the NTLM authentication
http: before server sending a FIN flag
A typical fail with Windows 7 against an older server is IPv6 networking.
If your machine does not have an SVN server listening on an IPv6 address Windows 7 might still try to do a TCP6 connect first (you can see it in Process Explorer if you look at the open sockets of the TortoiseSVN process while trying an operation), this has a timeout of a few seconds and then retries with IPv4.
Simple solutions are either upgrade your server to an IPv6 capable one or disable IPv6 for the Windows 7 clients.
Another thing you could verify (the answer above didn't work for us) is the Internet Explorer settings especially if you have IE9. We found that by disabling the option Automatically detect settings in the Internet Options -> Connection tab -> LAN settings, SVN started working normally again.
The issue was never properly cleared up. Most probably, the company internal network path between the client and the server was somehow at fault. The matter became obsolete when we moved the SVN server to another machine. The very same setup of server and clients works fine now, even with Windows 7.
I had the same symptom of a very slow repository browse, slow updates, slow everything.
My SVN server has two Ethernet cards, so it has two Ethernet IP addresses. The SVN server was only listening on one of the IP addresses. So a name resolution via WINS or NetBIOS could resolve to the 'wrong' IP address.
TortoiseSVN would retry, eventually the name resolution would find the 'correct' IP address, and things would work.
stupid problem. I get those from a client connecting to a server. Sadly, the setup is complicated making debugging complex - and we run out of options.
The environment:
*Client/Server system, both running on the same machine. The client is actually a service doing some database manipulation at specific times.
* The cnonection comes from C# going through OleDb to an EasySoft JDBC driver to a custom written JDBC server that then hosts logic in C++. Yeah, compelx - but the third party supplier decided to expose the extension mechanisms for their server through a JDBC interface. Not a lot can be done here ;)
The Symptom:
At (ir)regular intervals we get a "Address already in use: connect" told from the JDBC driver. They seem to come from one particular service we run.
Now, I did read all the stuff about port exhaustion. This is why we have a little tool running now that counts ports and their states every minute. Last time this happened, we had an astonishing 370 ports in use, with the count rising to about 900 AFTER the error. We aleady patched the registry (it is a windows machine) to allow more than the 5000 client ports standard, but even then, we are far far from that limit to start with.
Which is why I am asking here. Ayneone an ide what ELSE could cause this?
It is a Windows 2003 Server machine, 64 bit. The only other thing I can see that may cause it (but this functionality is supposedly disabled) is Symantec Endpoint Protection that is installed on the server - and being capable of actinc as a firewall, it could possibly intercept network traffic. I dont want to open a can of worms by pointing to Symantec prematurely (if pointing to Symantec can ever be seen as such). So, anyone an idea what else may be the cause?
Thanks
"Address already in use", aka WSAEADDRINUSE (10048), means that when the client socket prepared to connect to the server socket, it first tried to bind itself to a specific local IP/Port pair that was already in use by another socket, either an active one or one that has been closed but is still in the FD_WAIT state. This has nothing to do with the number of ports that are available.
I'm having the same issue on a Windows 2000 Server with a .Net application connecting to a SQL Server 7.0. There's like 10 servers with the same configuration and only one is showing this error several times a day. With a small test program I'm able to reproduce the error by just establishing a TCP connection on the SQL Server listening port. Running CurrPorts (http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/cports.html) shows there's still plenty of available ports in range 1024-5000.
I'm out of ideas and would like to know if you've found a solution since you've posted your question.
Edit : I finally found the solution : a worm was present on the server (WORM_DOWNAD.A) and exhausted local ports without being noticed.