Tuesday, April 08, 2014

Using masscan to scan for heartbleed vulnerability

I've updated my port scanner, "masscan", to specifically look for Neel Mehta's "HeartBleed" vulnerability. Masscan is good for scanning very large networks (like the network).

Remember that the trick with masscan is that it has its own TCP/IP stack. This means that on Linux and Mac OS X (but not Windows), the operating system will send back RST packets in acknowledgement to a SYN-ACK. Therefore, on Linux, you have to either configure firewall rules to block out a range of ports that masscan can use without generating resets, or better yet, just set masscan to "spoof" an otherwise unused IP address on the local network.

Here is how you might use it:

masscan 10.0.0.0/8 -p443 -S 10.1.2.53 --rate 100000 --heartbleed

This translates to:

  • 10.0.0.0/8 = the network you want to scan, which is all 10.x.x.x
  • -p443 = the port(s) you want to scan, in this case, the ones assigned to SSL
  • -S 10.1.2.53 = an otherwise unused local IP address to scan from
  • --rate 100000 = 100-packets/second, which scans the entire Class A range in a few minutes
  • --heartbleed = the new option that reconfigures masscan to look for this vulnerability


The output on the command-line will look like the following:

Discovered open port 443/tcp on 10.20.30.143
Banner on port 443/tcp on 10.20.30.143: [ssl] cipher:0xc014
Banner on port 443/tcp on 10.20.30.143: [vuln] SSL[heartbeat] SSL[HEARTBLEED]

There are three pieces of output for each IP address. The first is that the open port exists (the scanner received a SYN-ACK). The second is that the SSL exists, that the scanner was able to get back a reasonable SSL result (reporting which cipher suite it's using). The third line is the "vulnerability" information the scanner found. In this case, it's found two separate vulnerabilities. The first is that SSL "heartbeats" are enabled, which really isn't a vulnerability, but something some people might want to remove from their network. The second is the important part, notifying you that that the "HEARTBLEED" vulnerability exists (in all caps, 'cause it's important).

Some researchers would like to capture the bled (disclosed) information. To do that, add the option "--capture heartbleed" to the command-line. This will add a fourth line of output per IP address:

Banner on port 443/tcp on 10.20.30.143: [heartbleed] AwJTQ1uQnZtyC7wMvCuSqEiXz705BMwWCoUDkJ93BDPU...

This line will be BASE64 encoded, and be many kilobytes in size (I think masscan truncates it to the first 4k).




2 comments:

Loki said...

Is masscan using a TLS 1.2 header, a TLS 1.1 header, or trying both? Per comments on https://gist.github.com/takeshixx/10107280, at least some servers only respond to heartbeat requests that use the TLS 1.1 header. If you only checked for TLS 1.2 (which is what the first widely available exploit code did), it seems you could potentially be massively underestimating the number of vulnerable servers.

Marcos GutiƩrrez said...

Is there any legal problem scanning for hearbleed vulnerability?