Nice to meet you Christoph!
> What to you mean with netbios addresses? There is currently no Netbios
> parser parser.
I'm thinking encoded machine names and IPs that are in netbios
broadcasts, etc.
(BTW: have you an arp parser? Can it obfuscate macs as well?)
> The information from such sites lies in http and therefore layer 5.
> Writing a http parser for anonymization of http traffic is one thing,
> the other is the correlation of such information in the different
> layers. Currently PktAnon handles protocols on layers >= 5 as pure
> payload. Therefore the structure is not taken into account but rather
> one anonymization primitive applied to the complete payload.
How about the ability to search payloads for certain strings,
user-defined (mine would be local IPs, machine names, etc)?
> You have to be careful to reduce anonymization to IP addresses. There is
> much more sensitive information that can reveal e.g. what services you
> run on your network. So verification is an important point that affects
> the complete anonymization profile and not just IP addresses.
I agree. I'm coming at this from the point of view that I have zombies
that run in a sandnet. They analyze malware and I'd like to share the
pcaps easily for research. But I can't risk the zombies being
fingerprinted. They'd be easily identifiable via MAC, IP, machine name,
public Ip ranges, etc. Those are the things I need to hide.
Thanks for the tool, sounds like nearly exactly what we need though!
Matt
>
> Best regards,
> Chris
>
>> Matt
>>
>> Richard Bejtlich wrote:
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Christoph P. Mayer <nor...@bl...>
>>> Date: Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 2:23 PM
>>> Subject: [TaoSecurity] New comment on Packet Anonymization with PktAnon.
>>> To: tao...@gm...
>>>
>>>
>>> Christoph P. Mayer has left a new comment on your post "Packet
>>> Anonymization with PktAnon":
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> we, the PktAnon developers, would be very happy to help getting
>>> PktAnon into OpenPacket.org!
>>>
>>> If there is an interest in this, we would like to kick off discussion
>>> about mainly three points:
>>>
>>> 1. What protocols need to be supported? PktAnon supports a wide range
>>> of standard protocol. But it needs extensions in higher layer
>>> protocols for layer >= 5. Due to the architecture new protocols are
>>> quite easy to add.
>>>
>>> 2. What additional anonymization primitives are needed and how can
>>> anonymized traces be verified?
>>>
>>> 3. Will we find a way to define community standardized anonymization
>>> profiles? From our point of view this requires cooperation from
>>> network engineers, researchers, and lawyers. There is still no
>>> consensus after quite some research done in this area about what
>>> anonymization is "right". Having the community in discussing about a
>>> standard set of anonymization profiles would be a huge step forward!
>>> Having standardized profiles also helps e.g. OpenPacket.org to mark
>>> traces in saying what profile has been used.
>>>
>>> I would be very happy if there is interest in discussing these points
>>> and getting the community further in sharing network traces.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Christoph P. Mayer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Posted by Christoph P. Mayer to TaoSecurity at 2:23 PM
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
>>> Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
>>> along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
>>> and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openpacket-devel mailing list
>>> Ope...@li...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openpacket-devel
>>
>
--
--------------------------------------------
Matthew Jonkman
Emerging Threats
Phone 765-429-0398
Fax 312-264-0205
http://www.emergingthreats.net
--------------------------------------------
PGP: http://www.jonkmans.com/mattjonkman.asc
|