<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: It seems TCP SYN Attack! in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/it-seems-tcp-syn-attack/m-p/1298874#M765453</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many Thanks for your reply!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2009 07:06:53 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>a.hajhamad</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2009-10-11T07:06:53Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>It seems TCP SYN Attack!</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/it-seems-tcp-syn-attack/m-p/1298872#M765448</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have very huge number of TCP connections we can see at PIX 525 firewall to Anti-Spam mail gateway. Here is sample of show connection to Anti-Spam IP X.X.X.X; by the way the attacker is using many src IP addresses:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;==============================================================================&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out ((Attacker IPs)):3235 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:01:54 bytes 0 flags UFB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):4532 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:07:28 bytes 0 flags UFB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):3112 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:08 bytes 0 flags aB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):4056 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:04:43 bytes 0 flags UFB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):11679 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:00 bytes 0 flags UB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs)4:3126 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:00 bytes 0 flags aB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):3125 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:00 bytes 0 flags aB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):16588 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:00 bytes 0 flags UB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):2846 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:01 bytes 0 flags aB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):2927 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:00 bytes 0 flags aB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):2926 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:01 bytes 0 flags aB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):2925 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:01 bytes 0 flags aB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):42869 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:02:51 bytes 596 flags UfFRIOB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):2247 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:00 bytes 0 flags aB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):1409 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:00 bytes 0 flags aB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):6062 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:09:09 bytes 0 flags UFB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):4018 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:04 bytes 0 flags aB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):1276 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:00 bytes 0 flags aB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):2559 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:00 bytes 0 flags UB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):4518 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:18 bytes 0 flags aB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):17397 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:00 bytes 0 flags aB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):2041 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:00 bytes 0 flags aB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):2191 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:22:32 bytes 0 flags UFB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):1775 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:24:39 bytes 0 flags UFB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TCP out (Attacker IPs):3341 in X.X.X.X:25 idle 0:00:00 bytes 0 flags SaAB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;==============================================================================&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As i see it is a TCP SYN attack, the Anti-Spam queue is full with TCP connections around 40,000 connections.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;One of our solutions: we applied the following configurations to the PIX firewall in order to drop embryonic and half closed TCP connections and also to limit the max number of TCP connections:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;====&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;class-map tcp_syn_smtp&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;match port tcp eq 25&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;exit&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;policy-map tcp_syn_smtp&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;class tcp_syn_smtp&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;set connection conn-max 400&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;set connection embryonic-conn-max 800&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;set connection random-sequence-number enable&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;set connection timeout embryonic 0:0:45&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;set connection timeout half-closed 0:05:00&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;set connection timeout tcp 0:10:0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;===&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;By the way the following two commands are not supported at PIX 525 7.0(6).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;set connection per-client-embryonic-max 10&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;set connection per-client-max 5&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My questions are:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1- Does our conclusion is correct according to TCP SYN attack with reference to the show conn mentioned above?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2- Does the numbers are correct according to TCP parameters &amp;amp; timeout are correct?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Abd Alqader &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:24:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/it-seems-tcp-syn-attack/m-p/1298872#M765448</guid>
      <dc:creator>a.hajhamad</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T16:24:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: It seems TCP SYN Attack!</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/it-seems-tcp-syn-attack/m-p/1298873#M765450</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;A - awaiting inside ACK to SYN, a - awaiting outside ACK to SYN,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;       B - initial SYN from outside, b - TCP state-bypass or nailed, C - CTIQBE media,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;       D - DNS, d - dump, E - outside back connection, F - outside FIN, f - inside FIN,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;       G - group, g - MGCP, H - H.323, h - H.225.0, I - inbound data,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;       i - incomplete, J - GTP, j - GTP data, K - GTP t3-response&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;       k - Skinny media, M - SMTP data, m - SIP media, n - GUP&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;       O - outbound data, P - inside back connection, p - Phone-proxy TFTP connection,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;       q - SQL*Net data, R - outside acknowledged FIN,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;       R - UDP SUNRPC, r - inside acknowledged FIN, S - awaiting inside SYN,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;       s - awaiting outside SYN, T - SIP, t - SIP transient, U - up,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;       V - VPN orphan, W - WAAS,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;       X - inspected by service module&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Most of them have flag aB meaning we are waiting for the ack from the outside.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This does appear to be a syn attack.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The MPF looks correct as well. I would match an access-list and only watch for port 25 traffic destined to the smtp server's IP address instead of match tcp 25 and only apply the policy-map on the outside interface.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-custom" href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/asa/asa80/command/reference/s1.html#wp1395546" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/asa/asa80/command/reference/s1.html#wp1395546&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:59:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/it-seems-tcp-syn-attack/m-p/1298873#M765450</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kureli Sankar</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-10-09T01:59:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: It seems TCP SYN Attack!</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/it-seems-tcp-syn-attack/m-p/1298874#M765453</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many Thanks for your reply!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2009 07:06:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/it-seems-tcp-syn-attack/m-p/1298874#M765453</guid>
      <dc:creator>a.hajhamad</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-10-11T07:06:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

