EH-Net
May 23, 2013, 04:32:13 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Go back to The Ethical Hacker Network Online Magazine Home Page
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Has anyone used Protos for fuzzing?  (Read 6797 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
rayj00
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


View Profile
« on: January 15, 2008, 12:27:54 PM »


A great fuzzer for SIP, I am trying to use the Protos H225 fuzzer. It sends and receives packets ok, but I always get the following:

root@Ubuntu-Pentest:/home/rayj/Tools/H323/H225/Protos# ./h225fuzz 192.168.100.85 0 0
tcpdump: listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
Starting test run 0/0
#0: Connect success.
#0: Injecting test case, 226 bytes.
#0: Waiting 100 ms for reply...146 bytes received
#0: Waiting 50 ms before closing connection.
#0: ERROR: Bad file descriptor
#0: Connect success.
#0: Injecting valid case.
#0: Waiting 100 ms for reply...205 bytes received
#0: Waiting 50 ms before closing connection.
#0: ERROR: Bad file descriptor
Done.

Should I be concerned about the ERROR: Bad file descriptor?

Logged
Kev
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 428


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2008, 10:06:39 PM »

I haven’t used Protos, like most I have used mostly spike and not for sip specific, but I thought I would put my 2 cents in about fussers in general if you don't mind? I think fuzzing is such an import skill to learn.  Attacking the OS is really becoming a second target now. Gone are the days of the Dcom. Man that was awesome, lol!   Client side attack and apps are the way. Apps are harder than client side attacks in my opinion, but apps   can be fruitful and you should never limit yourself.
Every fuzzing app I have used is a bit cumbersome as far as automation goes. Modern fuzzers are concerned with data generation.  You really need to understand the process.  One coder friend of mine told me he could have written a fuzzer faster than it took him to learn the latest one written in python. Hopefully gone are the days of fuzzing and looking through a debugger line for line, etc...

Having said all that, there is a new fuzzer named Sulley that promises to correct all the short comings of past fuzzers. It promises to be easier and more automatic.  It can fuzz in parallel and detect tracks and place together faults it detects.  Also, it logs the health of the target and can revert to a good state using a number of methods.
Hopefully gone are the days of fuzzing and having to debug line for line!
While I am sure the usual crowd will say its a srkipt kiddies dream, I feel it should be a coders no excuse for bad code.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 05:13:02 PM by Kev » Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.093 seconds with 20 queries.