Suspicious Events on WLAN

written by: Krelle Xijao; article published: year 2007, month 05;


In: Categories » Electronics and communication » Network security » Suspicious Events on WLAN

Once a sufficient number of network behavior statistics are gathered, a proper wireless IDS can start looking for the suspicious events indicating the possibility of malicious attack. These events might be manifested as the presence of certain frame types, frequency of frame transmission, frame structure and sequence number abnormalities, traffic flow deviations, and unexpected frequency use. Let's categorize the events a quality wireless IDS should be able to detect and issue a warning for.

1 RF/Physical Layer Events

  • Additional transmitters in the area.

  • Channels not used by the protected WLAN in use.

  • Overlapping channels.

  • Sudden operating channel change by one or more monitored wireless devices.

  • Loss of signal quality, high level of noise, or low SNR.

These events can indicate connectivity or networking problems, severe network misconfiguration, rogue device placement, intentional jamming, and Layer 1 and Layer 2 man-in-the-middle attacks.

2 Management/Control Frames Events

  • Increased frequency of normally present network frames.

  • Frames of unusual size.

  • Unknown frame types.

  • Incomplete, corrupted, or malformed frames.

  • Floods of deassociate/deauthenticate frames.

  • Frequent reassociation frames on networks without enabled roaming.

  • Frames out of sequence.

  • Frequent probe requests.

  • Frames with ESSIDs different from the WLAN ESSID.

  • Frames with the broadcast ESSID ("Any").

  • Frames with frequently or randomly changing ESSIDs.

  • Frames with ESSIDs or other fields typical for certain intrusion tools.

  • Frames with MAC addresses not included in the ACL.

  • Frames with duplicated MAC addresses.

  • Frames with frequently or randomly changing MAC addresses.

These events can indicate network misconfigurations and connectivity problems, strong RF interference, wardrivers using active scanning tools in the area, MAC address spoofing on the WLAN, unsolicited clients connected to the WLAN, attempts to guess or brute-force a closed ESSID, or more advanced attackers mangling control and management frames to launch Layer 2 man-in-the-middle or DoS attacks.

3 802.1x/EAP Frames Events

  • Incomplete, corrupted, or malformed 802.1x frames.

  • Frames with EAP types not implemented by the WLAN.

  • Multiple EAP authentication Request and Response frames.

  • Multiple EAP failure frames.

  • EAP start and EAP logoff frame floods.

  • EAP frames of abnormal size ("EAP-of-Death").

  • Fragmented EAP frames of small size.

  • EAP frames with bad authentication length.

  • EAP frames with bad authentication credentials.

  • EAP frames with multiple MD5 challenge requests.

  • EAP frames originating from illicit authenticators (rogue access points).

  • Unfinished 802.1x/EAP authentication processes.

These events can indicate attempts to bypass the 802.1x authentication scheme, including clever rogue 802.1x device placement and access brute-forcing or advanced DoS attacks to disable the authentication mechanisms. Of course, the malformed 802.1x frames can result from strong RF interference and other Layer 1 problems.

4 WEP-Related Events

  • Unencrypted wireless traffic present.

  • Traffic encrypted with unknown WEP keys.

  • Traffic encrypted with WEP keys of different lengths.

  • Weak IV frames.

  • Frames with repeated IVs in a row.

  • No IV change.

  • Fallback to the original WEP from more secure solutions such as TKIP.

  • Failed WEP key rotation.

These events can indicate severe network security misconfigurations, insecure legacy equipment in use, users violating the security policy, rogue wireless device placement, or use of traffic injecting tools (WEPwedgie, reinj) by advanced crackers.

5 General Connectivity/Traffic Flow Events

  • Connectivity loss.

  • Sudden surge in bandwidth consumption.

  • Sudden decrease in network throughput.

  • Sudden delay increase on a point-to-point link.

  • Increased packet fragmentation level.

  • Frequent retransmits.

These events should prompt a future investigation to find the exact causes of the problem detected. An intelligent IDS inference engine should be able to link these problems to the different categories of events, thus partially automating the investigation problems.

6 Miscellaneous Events

  • Associated, but not authenticated, hosts.
  • Attacks on higher network layers triggering the "traditional" IDS.

  • Unsolicited access point management traffic.

  • Constantly duplicated or repeated data packets.

  • Data packets with corrupt data link layer checksums/MIC.

  • Flood of multiple concurrent network association attempts.

These events can indicate successful or unsuccessful cracker attacks, a host with misconfigured security settings, attempts to access and reconfigure the deployed access points, the use of traffic injecting tools, advanced DoS attacks against 802.11i-enabled hosts, or attempts to overwhelm the AP buffers with large numbers of connections from the wired or wireless side. Again, any cases of frame or packet corruption can be attributed to physical layer problems, such as interference and low signal strength.

Now you can easily recognize many of the telltale attack signs from the preceding event list. For example, frames with frequently changed MAC addresses and ESSIDs are a good indication of someone using a FakeAP. Alternatively, there is a way to brute-force closed ESSIDs using two client PCMCIA cards and Wellenreiter. We did not describe it in the Attack section because we have never tried it, and using essid_jack or dinject is far more efficient and saves resources. Such a brute-forcing attack generates frames with changing ESSIDs and MAC addresses (Wellenreiter's way to obscure the attacker's card vendor and identity). Frequent probe requests might indicate someone using Netstumbler or Ministumbler, and hosts suddenly changing their operation channel can flag out a possible man-in-the-middle attack.

Many of the events outlined can be a result of user misbehavior rather than a planned malicious attack. Users can plug in unsolicited wireless devices or use interference-creating appliances (Bluetooth, wireless cameras, cordless phones). They can connect to the AP without enabling WEP/TKIP if the AP permits it (a big mistake on the administrator's side) or miss/avoid firmware upgrades it ("if it works, don't fix it"), thus making your 802.11i-based security deployment efforts useless. Any system or network administrator knows how unruly and obnoxious some users can be.

legal disclaimer

1) Our website is not responsible for the information contained by this article as well for any and all copyright infringements by authors and writers. E-articles is a free information resource. If you suspect this article for any copyright infringements, please read the Terms of service and contact us to investigate the problem.
2) The E-articles directory team is not responsible for inaccuracies, falsehoods, or any other types of misinformation this tutorial may contain and will not be liable for any loss or damage suffered by a user through the user's reliance on the information gained here. Please read the Terms of service

Useful tools and features

Translate this article to...    Send this article to you or to a friend

Link to this article from your page   
If you like this article (tutorial), please link to it from your web page using the information above. Linking to this page, this is the only way to help us improve our service, the same time providing your visitors with a way to improve their online experience.

related articles

1. RADIUS
This section takes a few steps to describe the basic principles of the AAA methodology, which is considered to be the fundamental structure behind the Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS). Additionally we briefly identify the functionality and principles of the RADIUS protocol. In the middle of the section we go through the steps required to install, configure, maintain, and monitor your RADIUS services. We conclude with practical implementations of the RADIUS protocol in relation to user authentication on wirele...

2. PDAs Versus Laptops
The first question that beginners ask before assembling their kit is whether a laptop or a PDA should be used for wireless penetration testing of any kind. Our answer is to use both if you can. The main advantage of PDAs (apart from size) is decreased power consumption, letting you cover a significant territory while surveying the site. The main disadvantage is the limited resources, primarily nonvolatile memory. The CPU horsepower is not that important here as we are not cracking AES. Other disadvantages are the limited amount...

3. Cryptographic Hash Functions
Can symmetric cryptography meet the requirements of the Biba model, based on the data integrity checks and proper authentication? The answer is "yes," but in a very inefficient way. Recall the practical authentication example with the UNIX (well, Linux in our case) password encryption flaw when DES in ECB is used. Of course, any of the feedback modes or 128-bit block ciphers can be used instead of DES, with the obvious performance penalties. However, in our example, MD5 scales very well. A cryptographic hash function i...

4. 802.11i Wireless Security Standard and WPA
Thus, the main hope of the international 802.11 community and network administrators lies with the 802.11i standard development. Sometimes 802.11i is referred to as the Robust Security Network (RSN) as compared to traditional security network (TSN). The "i" IEEE task group was supposed to produce a new wireless security standard that should have completely replaced legacy WEP by the end of 2003. In the meantime, some bits and pieces of the incoming 802.11i standard have been implemented by wireless equipment and software vendor...

5. Proprietary Improvements to WEP and WEP Usage
The article devoted to the proprietary and standards-based improvements for currently vulnerable 802.11 safeguards. The most publicized 802.11 vulnerability is the insecurity of WEP. We have already reviewed the cryptographic weaknesses of WEP linked to the key IV space reuse and insecure key-from-string generation algorithm. There are also well-known WEP key management issues: All symmetric cipher implementations suffer secure key distribution problems. WEP is no exception. In the original design,...

6. Penetration Testing as Your First Line of Defense
It is hard to overemphasize the importance of penetration testing in the overall information security structure and the value of viewing your network through the cracker's eyes prior to further hardening procedures. There are a variety of issues specific to penetration testing on wireless networks. First of all, the penetration tester should be very familiar with RF theory and specific RF security problems (i.e., signal leak and detectability, legal regulations pertaining to the transmitter power output, and characteris...

7. Asymmetric Cryptography
Message authentication using HMACs works just fine, but how do we distribute symmetric cipher keys among the users? We can pass them around on floppies or fancy USB pen-drives with encrypted partitions on them, but what if many users live all over the world? What if the physical key distribution method takes time and the keys must be frequently changed? This is the case with the traditional WEP, which should be rotated every few minutes. Key-encrypting keys (KEKs) were offered as symmetric cipher keys used only to encrypt...

8. Examples and Analysis of Common Wireless Attack Signatures
The best way of knowing these signatures is trying out the tools in question and sniffing out their output: "Attack through defending, defend through attacking" (Dr. Mudge). The best source on wireless network intrusion tool detection and attack signatures we are aware of is Joshua Wright's "Layer 2 Analysis of WLAN Discovery Applications for Intrusion Detection" and "Detecting Wireless LAN MAC Address Spoofing" papers. A large part of this tutorial is inspired by these brilliant articles and our experience of analyzing WLAN tr...

9. Deploying a Wireless IDS Solution for Your WLAN
How many IDS solutions that implement the recommendations and follow the guidelines we have already discussed are present on the modern wireless market? The answer is none. There are many wireless IDS solutions that look for illicit MAC addresses and ESSIDs on the monitored WLAN. Some of these solutions are even implemented as specialized hardware devices. Although something is better than nothing, in our opinion such "solutions" are a waste of both money and time. They might also give you a false sense of security. Let's...

10. Hash Functions Their Performance and HMACs
Other widely used hash functions include 128-bit MD5 from RSA Data Security, Inc., which is a very fast and commonly implemented hash. MD5 is traditionally used to encrypt Linux user passwords (hashes start with the "$1$" character), authenticate routing protocols like RIPv2 and OSPF, create checksums of binaries in RPMs, and verify the integrity of Free/OpenBSD ports files. The specifications of MD5 are available in RFC 1321. Host intrusion detection tools like Tripwire (http://www.tripwire.com) use MD5 to take snapshots of a syst...