Joseph S. Testa II
2024-Jun-19 20:11 UTC
An Analysis of the DHEat DoS Against SSH in Cloud Environments
On Wed, 2024-06-19 at 09:19 -0400, chris wrote:> real world example (current snapshot of portable on linux v. dheater)Thanks for this. However, much more extensive testing would be needed to show it is a complete solution. In my original research article, I used CPU idle time as the main metric. Also, I showed that very low- latency network links could bypass the existing countermeasures. I suppose in the next few days, I'll try reproducing my original steps with the new version and see what happens. - Joe
Chris Rapier
2024-Jun-24 19:04 UTC
An Analysis of the DHEat DoS Against SSH in Cloud Environments
On 6/19/24 4:11 PM, Joseph S. Testa II wrote:> On Wed, 2024-06-19 at 09:19 -0400, chris wrote: >> real world example (current snapshot of portable on linux v. dheater) > > Thanks for this. However, much more extensive testing would be needed > to show it is a complete solution. In my original research article, I > used CPU idle time as the main metric. Also, I showed that very low- > latency network links could bypass the existing countermeasures. > > I suppose in the next few days, I'll try reproducing my original steps > with the new version and see what happens.You may want to try this on IPv6 where you are frequently changing the attackers MAC address. If the IP is constructed with EUI-64 then it could start to flood the table used to store the penalized IPs. I'd really like to see what that looks like, especially in terms of CPU/memory utilization.
Joseph S. Testa II
2024-Jun-25 23:01 UTC
An Analysis of the DHEat DoS Against SSH in Cloud Environments
On Wed, 2024-06-19 at 16:11 -0400, Joseph S. Testa II wrote:> I suppose in the next few days, I'll try reproducing my original > steps > with the new version and see what happens.I managed to do some limited testing with a local VM, and the results are... interesting. I installed openssh-SNAP-20240626.tar.gz on a fresh and fully-updated Ubuntu Linux 24.04 LTS VM with 1 vCPU. While leaving the default sshd options unchanged, I was able to reduce idle time to 0.0% using "./ssh- audit.py --dheat=16 target_host". Next, I increased the vCPUs to 4. The same ssh-audit command yielded 54% idle time (averaged over 60 seconds). That's still a lot of strain on the target, despite the fact that the logs claim that the PerSourcePenalties noauth:1 restriction was being triggered. After that, I tried simply flooding the target with open connections without performing the DHEat attack ("ssh-audit.py --conn-rate-test=16 target_host"). This caused the 60-second average idle time to come all the way down to 6%! Additionally, I noticed that the systemd-journal process was consuming about 50% CPU and /var/log/auth.log grew by nearly 14MB. Aside from CPU exhaustion, some may say that causing log growth at a rate of 14MB/minute would constitute a disk space exhaustion problem. Seems like the new PerSourcePenalties implementation/default settings still allow a denial-of-service by attackers with low-latency network connections. - Joe
Seemingly Similar Threads
- An Analysis of the DHEat DoS Against SSH in Cloud Environments
- An Analysis of the DHEat DoS Against SSH in Cloud Environments
- An Analysis of the DHEat DoS Against SSH in Cloud Environments
- An Analysis of the DHEat DoS Against SSH in Cloud Environments
- An Analysis of the DHEat DoS Against SSH in Cloud Environments