Updated README with new section references

This commit is contained in:
Mathy Vanhoef 2020-09-28 10:35:36 +04:00
parent e77b946b88
commit ab7b9ad01e

View File

@ -258,10 +258,10 @@ device and are further discussed below the table.
| `ping I,P` | Send a plaintext ping.
| `ping I,P,P` | Send a fragmented ping: both fragments are sent in plaintext.
| `linux-plain` | Mixed plaintext/encrypted fragmentation attack specific to Linux.
| <div align="center">*Broadcast fragment attack (§6.7)*</div>
| <div align="center">*Broadcast fragment attack (§6.4)*</div>
| `ping I,D,P --bcast-ra` | Send a ping request in plaintext broadcasted 2nd fragment after connecting.
| `ping D,BP --bcast-ra` | Same as above, but the ping is inject during the handshake (check with tcpdump).
| <div align="center">*A-MSDUs EAPOL attack (§6.8)*</div>
| <div align="center">*A-MSDUs EAPOL attack (§6.5)*</div>
| `eapol-amsdu BP` | Send A-MSDU disguised as EAPOL during handshake (check result with tcpdump).
| `eapol-amsdu I,P` | Same as above, except the frame is injected after obtaining an IP.
| `eapol-amsdu-bad BP` | Send malformed A-MSDU disguised as EAPOL during handshake (use tcpdump).
@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ for details.
- `ping I,P,P` and `ping I,P`: if this test succeeds it is trivial to inject plaintext frames towards the
device independent of the network configuration.
## 7.6. Broadcast fragment attack tests (§6.7)
## 7.6. Broadcast fragment attack tests (§6.4)
- Because all these tests send broadcast frames, which are not automatically retransmitted, it is recommended
to **execute these tests several times**. This is because background noise may prevent the tested devices
@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ for details.
use the filter `icmp` and in wireshark you can also use the filter `frame contains "test_ping_icmp"`
to more easily detect this ping request.
## 7.7. A-MSDUs EAPOL attack tests (§6.8)
## 7.7. A-MSDUs EAPOL attack tests (§6.5)
- `eapol-amsdu[-bad] BP`: These two tests inject the malicious frame while the client is still connecting
to the network (i.e. during the execution of the 4-way handshake). This is important because several
@ -458,18 +458,18 @@ presence of a certain vulnerability class, there is no need to test the other at
| `ping I,E,E --amsdu` | Send a normal ping as a fragmented A-MSDU frame.
| `ping I,E,P,E` | Ping with first frag. encrypted, second plaintext, third encrypted.
| `linux-plain 3` | Same as linux-plain but decoy fragment is sent using QoS priority 3.
| <div align="center">*AP forwards EAPOL attack (§6.4)*</div>
| `eapol-inject 00:11:22:33:44:55` | Test if AP forwards EAPOL frames before authenticated (use tcpdump).
| `eapol-inject-large 00:11:22:33:44:55` | Make AP send fragmented frames by EAPOL injection (use tcpdump).
| <div align="center">*No fragmentation support attack (§6.6)*</div>
| `ping I,E,D` | Send ping inside an encrypted first fragment (no 2nd fragment).
| `ping I,D,E` | Send ping inside an encrypted second fragment (no 1st fragment).
| <div align="center">*Broadcast fragment attack (§6.7)*</div>
| <div align="center">*Broadcast fragment attack (§6.4)*</div>
| `ping I,P --bcast-ra` | Ping in a plaintext broadcast frame after 4-way HS.
| `ping BP --bcast-ra` | Ping in plaintext broadcast frame during 4-way HS (use tcpdump).
| `eapfrag BP,BP` | Experimental broadcast fragment attack (use tcpdump).
| <div align="center">*A-MSDUs EAPOL attack (§6.8)*</div>
| <div align="center">*A-MSDUs EAPOL attack (§6.5)*</div>
| `eapol-amsdu[-bad] BP --bcast-dst` | Same as `eapol-amsdu BP` but easier to verify against APs (use tcpdump).
| <div align="center">*AP forwards EAPOL attack (§6.6)*</div>
| `eapol-inject 00:11:22:33:44:55` | Test if AP forwards EAPOL frames before authenticated (use tcpdump).
| `eapol-inject-large 00:11:22:33:44:55` | Make AP send fragmented frames by EAPOL injection (use tcpdump).
| <div align="center">*No fragmentation support attack (§6.8)*</div>
| `ping I,E,D` | Send ping inside an encrypted first fragment (no 2nd fragment).
| `ping I,D,E` | Send ping inside an encrypted second fragment (no 1st fragment).
## 8.1. A-MSDU attack tests (§3 -- CVE-2020-24588)
@ -548,31 +548,7 @@ Finally, in case the test `ping-frag-sep` doesn't succeed, you should try the fo
- `ping I,E,P,E` and `linux-plain 3`: If all the other mixed plain/encrypt attack tests in didn't succeed, you
can try these two extra tests as well. I think it's quite unlikely this will uncover a new vulnerability.
## 8.5. AP forwards EAPOL attack tests (§6.4)
- `eapol-inject 00:11:22:33:44:55`: This test is only meaningfull against APs. To perform this test you have to connect
to the network using a second device and replace the MAC address `00:11:22:33:44:55` with the MAC address of this second
device. _Before_ being authenticated, the test tool will send an EAPOL frame to the AP with as final destination this second
device. If the AP forwards the EAPOL frame to the second device, the AP is considered vulnerable. To confirm if the AP forwards
the EAPOL frame you must run tcpdump or wireshark on the second device. You can use the wireshark filter `frame contains "forwarded_data"`
when monitoring decrypted traffic on the wireless interface of the second device (or the tcpdump filter `ether proto 0x888e`
to monitor all EAPOL frames). See Section 6.4 of the paper for the details and impact of this.
- `eapol-inject-lage 00:11:22:33:44:55`: In case the above `eapol-inject` test succeeds, you can also try `eapol-inject-large` to see
if this vulnerability can be abused to force the transmission of encrypted fragments. You again have to use tcpdump or wireshark
to check this. Use the wireshark or tshark filter `(wlan.fc.frag == 1) || (wlan.frag > 0)` to detect fragmented frames. I found it
very rare for this attack to work.
## 8.6. Abusing no fragmentation support (§6.6)
- `ping I,D,E`: If this test succeeds, the device doesn't support (de)fragmentation, but is still vulnerable to attacks. The
problem is that the receiver treats the _last_ fragment as a full frame. See Section 6.6 in the paper for details and how this
can be exploited.
- `ping I,E,D`: If this test succeeds, then the devices treats the _first_ fragment as a full frame. Although this behaviour is
not ideal, it's currently unknown whether this, on its own, can be exploited in practice.
## 8.7. Broadcast fragment attack tests (§6.7)
## 8.5. Broadcast fragment attack tests (§6.4)
- Because all these tests send broadcast frames, which are not automatically retransmitted, it is recommended
to **execute these tests several times**. This is because background noise may prevent the tested devices
@ -596,7 +572,7 @@ Finally, in case the test `ping-frag-sep` doesn't succeed, you should try the fo
is properly received, for example using the filter `icmp` or `frame contains "test_ping_icmp"`. An alternative variant
is `eapfrag BP,AE` in case the normal variant doesn't work.
## 8.8. A-MSDU EAPOL attack tests (§6.8)
## 8.6. A-MSDU EAPOL attack tests (§6.5)
This test can be used in case you want to execute the `eapol-amsdu[-bad] BP` tests but cannot run tcpdump or wireshark on
the AP. This means this test is only meaningfull against APs. In particular, the command `eapol-amsdu[-bad] BP --bcast-dst`
@ -604,6 +580,30 @@ will cause a vulnerable AP to broadcast the ping request to all connected client
vulnerable, execute this command, and listen for broadcast Wi-Fi frames on a second device that is connected to the AP by
using the filter `icmp` or `frame contains "test_ping_icmp"`.
## 8.7. AP forwards EAPOL attack tests (§6.6)
- `eapol-inject 00:11:22:33:44:55`: This test is only meaningfull against APs. To perform this test you have to connect
to the network using a second device and replace the MAC address `00:11:22:33:44:55` with the MAC address of this second
device. _Before_ being authenticated, the test tool will send an EAPOL frame to the AP with as final destination this second
device. If the AP forwards the EAPOL frame to the second device, the AP is considered vulnerable. To confirm if the AP forwards
the EAPOL frame you must run tcpdump or wireshark on the second device. You can use the wireshark filter `frame contains "forwarded_data"`
when monitoring decrypted traffic on the wireless interface of the second device (or the tcpdump filter `ether proto 0x888e`
to monitor all EAPOL frames). See Section 6.4 of the paper for the details and impact of this.
- `eapol-inject-lage 00:11:22:33:44:55`: In case the above `eapol-inject` test succeeds, you can also try `eapol-inject-large` to see
if this vulnerability can be abused to force the transmission of encrypted fragments. You again have to use tcpdump or wireshark
to check this. Use the wireshark or tshark filter `(wlan.fc.frag == 1) || (wlan.frag > 0)` to detect fragmented frames. I found it
very rare for this attack to work.
## 8.8. Abusing no fragmentation support (§6.8)
- `ping I,D,E`: If this test succeeds, the device doesn't support (de)fragmentation, but is still vulnerable to attacks. The
problem is that the receiver treats the _last_ fragment as a full frame. See Section 6.6 in the paper for details and how this
can be exploited.
- `ping I,E,D`: If this test succeeds, then the devices treats the _first_ fragment as a full frame. Although this behaviour is
not ideal, it's currently unknown whether this, on its own, can be exploited in practice.
# 9. Advanced Usage
<a id="id-injection-tests"></a>