2021-09-15 20:00:35 +00:00
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
title: Escaping isolated network
|
|
|
|
date: 2021-09-15
|
|
|
|
tags: [hacking, linux]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many networks nowadays are blocking certain websites, IPs or ports, that however often doesn't mean that there actually
|
|
|
|
isn't any way to access these blocked resources. Note that even though you can read about how these restrictions can be
|
|
|
|
bypassed, I was testing these commands against my own home server, and inside of my own network. Unless you have
|
|
|
|
permission from the network owner to do this, do not follow this article and take it purely as an informative resource,
|
|
|
|
and perhaps as something to think about when securing your own network.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## The reason some networks block certain webpages
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You've probably encountered a public network, such as a one on a bus or on a train, from which you weren't able to
|
|
|
|
access a website such as youtube. The most likely reason for a block like this is because in a network like this, since
|
|
|
|
the bus or the train will be moving, you'll constantly be switching the access points and connecting to different
|
|
|
|
things, and with enough people connected to such network, streaming videos becomes incredibly resource heavy and the
|
|
|
|
network administrators will probably not like that. So they will set up a rule that prohibits you from accessing such
|
|
|
|
websites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So how could we bypass such a block
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## DNS Level block
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A simple strategy that many network admins will use is to just block the domain name of the website you're trying to
|
|
|
|
visit on the DNS level. DNS is a short for what's called a "Domain Name System", it is a tool which resolves domain
|
|
|
|
names, such as "itsdrike.com" into IP addresses of the servers which are running them, such as "172.67.161.205".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The DNS servers your machine will use usually depend on the network you're connecting to, which means that the network
|
|
|
|
admin can easily define their own server and block off certain domains. However even though by default, your machine
|
|
|
|
will rely on the DNS servers defined by the network you're on, this is by no means actually enforced and you can easily
|
|
|
|
change your DNS servers to something else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I'm using my own recursive DNS server with unbound which is then passed through pihole, but I only do this
|
|
|
|
because I don't like seeing ads which pihole can therefore block on the DNS level, just like the network admin would be
|
|
|
|
blocking a domain like youtube, however most people won't have their own DNS server, and so you'll want to use one of
|
|
|
|
the publically available servers, such as NextDNS (45.90.30.0), CloudFlare DNS (1.1.1.1) or Google DNS (8.8.8.8).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By switching the DNS IP address that your machine will be using, you will automatically bypass any DNS level blocks
|
|
|
|
because you're simply not accessing the DNS server that's blocking them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Simple proxy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even though DNS level domain blocking isn't uncommon, in most networks, if the network admins are a bit more
|
|
|
|
experienced, it usually won't be the method they'll choose, precisely because it's very easily bypassed. Instead what's
|
|
|
|
much more common is to either block the specific IP addresses to the servers that belong to YouTube with a simple
|
|
|
|
firewall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rather than attempting to connect to this website directly, from our connected machine, we will use our machine to
|
|
|
|
connect to some other machine outside of the restrictive network, ideally to some home-server, but it can even be a
|
|
|
|
personal computer left at any place with SSH service running. By doing this, we're using this other server as what's
|
|
|
|
called a "proxy".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can do this in a very simple way, just by using pure SSH. One way would be to just remote into the machine and make
|
|
|
|
the request from it, however this makes it hard to actually watch some youtube video. We could use a tool such as
|
|
|
|
youtube-dl, download the video and then stream it from our machine instead of from the blocked youtube website, or just
|
|
|
|
download the file from our server that has now downloaded this video, however that's way too crude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a much nicer method that we can use, and it is still utilizing pure SSH:
|
|
|
|
```sh
|
|
|
|
ssh -f -N -D 1080 user@server
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
This command will start SSH in background (`-f`), it won't run any actual commands (`-N`) and it will be bound to the
|
|
|
|
port 1080 on our machine (`-D`). This means that we can utilize this port as a SOCK and make our server act as SOCKS5
|
|
|
|
proxy. This kind of proxy will even be supported by most web browsers, allowing you to simply specify the address
|
|
|
|
(in our case `127.0.0.1:1080`) and have all traffic go through this external server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To test that this connection really does work, we could use the `curl` command like this:
|
|
|
|
```sh
|
|
|
|
curl --max-time 3 -x socks5h://127.0.0.1:1080 https://itsdrike.com
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
If we see the HTML code as the output, it means that we've obtained the content of the specified website through our
|
|
|
|
socks5 proxy, that we've established through simple SSH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Sshuttle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even though the crude way of simply utilizing SSH to utilize our server as a proxy will work, it does have some issues.
|
|
|
|
Specifically it's the fact that SSH on it's own will be using the TCP protocol. If you want to know more about how this
|
|
|
|
protocol works, I'd suggest watching the video below:
|
2021-09-16 21:23:18 +00:00
|
|
|
{{<youtube F27PLin3TV0>}}
|
2021-09-15 20:00:35 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However basically, it's a protocol that ensures lossless data transmission between 2 machines. This makes sense for SSH
|
|
|
|
and it is what we want, but the issue arises once we try to send TCP traffic over already established TCP tunnel. Since
|
|
|
|
our SSH tunnel is already using TCP, it will already be ensured that it is lossless and using TCP over TCP makes no
|
|
|
|
sense in this case. Not only does it not make sense from the efficiency point of view, it is in fact damaging because
|
|
|
|
TCP relies on loss and it doesn't work well without it. This is because TCP uses loss to tell when the network is too
|
|
|
|
congested, and this is the only way for TCP to know when the network is actually congested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To solve this problem, we can use a software called [`sshuttle`](https://github.com/sshuttle/sshuttle), which will wrap
|
|
|
|
all of the tunneling for us internally and avoids running this TCP over TCP connection. It's basically just a wrapper
|
|
|
|
around SSH and it will simply utilize SSH in the background, which is also why we don't need to do anything on the
|
|
|
|
server side for this to work properly, as long as we simply have the SSH server running, `sshuttle` will work fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can use sshuttle with a command like this:
|
|
|
|
```sh
|
|
|
|
sudo sshuttle -r user@machine 172.67.161.205/24 -vv
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Which will forward all traffic destined for the particular address block (the IP/number is called the CIDR notation, it
|
|
|
|
essentially specifies which IPs should be affected depending on the number after /, you can read more about it on
|
|
|
|
[wikipedia](https://wikiless.org/wiki/Classless_Inter-Domain_Routing?lang=en)). In this case, I've specified the IP of
|
|
|
|
the CloudFlare server that is behind my website, in your case, you'll probably want to use the IP of youtube, or even
|
|
|
|
simply something like `0.0.0.0/0` which will affect all IPs and proxy everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Port 22 is blocked
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In both of these examples, I've mentioned using SSH, which will be communicating with the other machine over port 22,
|
|
|
|
however this port may be blocked by the network you're on which renders all of these steps useless. To circumvent this,
|
|
|
|
you could set a different port for SSH on your server, however you will need to do that while directly on the server,
|
|
|
|
since you won't be able to establish an SSH connection and change the port, if the port for SSH would be blocked, so
|
|
|
|
you need to think about this ahead of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You could also simply redirect the port 22 to something else using iptables instead of having to mess with the SSH
|
|
|
|
config. You would do that with this command:
|
|
|
|
```sh
|
|
|
|
sudo iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 1234 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 22
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This command will make port `1234` act as the SSH port, and you could then access the server by specifying this port
|
|
|
|
instead of the default port in the ssh command:
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
ssh -f -N -D 1080 user@server -p 1234
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Deep packet inspection
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even though on many networks set up by amateurs, the steps above will likely be enough, if the person setting up the
|
|
|
|
network does have a bit more experience, they could be utilizing deep packet inspection and basically having their
|
|
|
|
servers look at the data your machine is sending out, and if these packets contain the reference to youtube.com, it
|
|
|
|
will get captured and it won't be forwarded to the actual youtube servers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This can be done in various ways, and in some of those, the proxied traffic will actually still work, because the
|
|
|
|
server may only be performing this check for certain sections of the packet, and since you're not trying to directly
|
|
|
|
reach youtube, but rather you're reaching another server that's reaching youtube, it may not get captured. However with
|
|
|
|
all of these methods, the actual destination will still be included in those packets in clear text, so if the whole
|
|
|
|
packet is scanned for them, it will get discovered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE: This assumes that you're using standard SOCKS5 proxy, not the one like in our example, which, even though it was
|
|
|
|
a SOCKS5 proxy, the traffic was actually going over the SSH tunnel, which is encrypted, and so the packets would only
|
|
|
|
contain the encrypted data going towards our server, making even this method useless. But if you're using something
|
|
|
|
like netcat instead of SSH, which isn't encrypted, or the server is directly set up to be a SOCKS5 proxy, you will not
|
|
|
|
be immune to this method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## VPNs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preventing this is a bit harder, but it's nothing too complicated, in fact many people will already be quite familiar
|
|
|
|
with this method. It is, to simply use a VPN. Even though many people will be familiar with this, this familiarity will
|
|
|
|
often come from ads and similar things, and people don't even realize what it actually means and how VPNs work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically, with a VPN, your machine is accessing some other server machine, that is making the requests on it's behalf.
|
|
|
|
This is very similar to our proxy server, however there is a major difference, which is that your machine is
|
|
|
|
communicated with the server over an encrypted tunnel. This means that all traffic going towards that VPN server will
|
|
|
|
be encrypted, and so simply searching for "youtube.com" inside of it will not achieve anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my case, I do run my own VPN server with wireguard on my home server, another popular service to run is openvpn, so
|
|
|
|
if you want to host your own VPN server, I'd advice checking both of those because each do have some pros and cons, and
|
|
|
|
picking one of those. However most people will not want to self-host their VPN, and would rather pay a subscription to
|
|
|
|
a VPN provider. Mostly because these VPN providers will have many servers across multiple countries, which means you
|
|
|
|
can even access some content that is only available from a certain country, because you're technically accessing it
|
|
|
|
from that country, it is the VPN server that is forwarding the responses back to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Protecting against VPNs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a network admin, you still have some options to battle this and prevent people even from using something as powerful
|
|
|
|
as a VPN, however this ability is somewhat limited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically, when someone is using a VPN, even though the internal traffic going to the VPN will be encrypted, the packet
|
|
|
|
does still need to contain the information about the protocol used, server destination and some other things. This will
|
|
|
|
depend on the VPN used, but some tools, such as openvpn (which is what most providers will be using) do provide a way
|
|
|
|
to "hide" the fact that you're utilizing a VPN and make the traffic appear as pure HTTPS traffic. This makes it really
|
|
|
|
hard to discover a use of a VPN, however many providers don't actually make this feature available, or they throw it
|
|
|
|
behind a higher subscription that many users won't have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But even if the users would be hiding their VPN traffic, you still have a way to prevent it, however this option is
|
|
|
|
quite limited and very specific. Basically, there are usually publically available lists of IPs that belong to the
|
|
|
|
servers of popular VPN providers. This is how platforms such as Netflix prohibit the use of some VPNs, and it is also
|
|
|
|
the reason why some providers make it their marketing point that their servers weren't yet added to such a block-list
|
|
|
|
and so it is possible to access services like Netflix from them. You could therefore do something similar and simply
|
|
|
|
block all traffic going towards the IP addresses of these VPN servers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even though this method will work and it will prevent the usage of VPNs to some extent, this black-list will constantly
|
|
|
|
need to be updated which is very tedious, and if even a service as huge as Netflix can't completely block all VPNs,
|
|
|
|
your network likely won't be able to do so either. Not to mention the custom VPNs that will never be in any of these
|
|
|
|
public block-lists, which you basically can't prevent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## My VPN is in a block-list
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So how could you bypass a protection like this? What if the access to the IP address of your VPN is actively being
|
|
|
|
blocked by the network you're on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even though VPNs are pretty much the best ways to circumvent security measures that are preventing you from accessing
|
|
|
|
certain parts of the internet within some network, it is still important to know about the other ones mentioned above.
|
|
|
|
The reason for that is precisely because many network admins will only really prevent VPNs, because they're the most
|
|
|
|
common way of bypassing their network, but they won't be doing any kind of packet inspection and so even though your
|
|
|
|
VPN may not be working, you may actually be able to use the simple unencrypted proxy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Access White-list
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you're the network admin and you really want to make the network secure, rather than just blocking certain ports,
|
|
|
|
such as the port 22 for SSH, you'd instead block all ports and only allow certain ones. Usually, these would only be 80
|
|
|
|
and 443, because 80 is the port used for HTTP and 443 is used for HTTPS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even with this solution though, because of the firewall hole on port 80, we could just set our SSH to work over port 80
|
|
|
|
and still get to our server. Or if it's a VPN, we could just utilize the "hide VPN traffic" feature and mask the
|
|
|
|
traffic as HTTPS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For this reason, some network admins will actually go as far as simply only allowing the traffic to go through their
|
|
|
|
own web proxy, which will limit our access only to some list of allowed sites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Bypassing a web proxy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Turns out that even with a security measure as strict as only allowing access to a certain web proxy, we could actually
|
|
|
|
somewhat make our way to our server, by essentially telling it to map all exiting traffic from port 443 to port 22.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To do this, we would use a command like this:
|
|
|
|
```sh
|
|
|
|
ssh -o "ProxyCommand nc -X connect -x proxy_server:3128 our_server_IP 443" user@our_server_IP
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Here we're essentially sending a proxy command to the web proxy server (listening on port 3128) to through the port 443
|
|
|
|
to our_server_IP and make requests to the SSH's default port (22) on our_server_IP. Making the actual proxy server
|
|
|
|
access our server on port 22.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, this would only work if the system administrator of that web proxy server didn't set up a firewall that
|
|
|
|
would prevent outcomming requests to be made from the server to other ports (such as 22).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE: Even though this would technically work (unless the server has a firewall in place, blocking outgoing requests to
|
|
|
|
22), I'd never recommend actually trying something like this, because this kind of mapping can be instantly detected
|
|
|
|
and if the network admins spent that much time setting up something as secure as this, you can expect there to be a
|
|
|
|
system in place that would be checking for such mapping, and it's not particularly hard to discover, as long as it is
|
|
|
|
being looked for. So if it is being looked for, you'll basically instantly get discovered, and you wouldn't even be
|
|
|
|
able to argue your way out of it like you perhaps could with the above methods, because you can say that you always use
|
|
|
|
different DNS servers, or that you always go through a proxy or a VPN, but the only reason someone would be doing
|
|
|
|
something like this is to bypass some security measure that is in place somewhere and so arguing out of that wouldn't
|
|
|
|
really be possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To explain how easy it is to discover something like this, basically all that's needed is to run a single command on
|
|
|
|
that web proxy:
|
|
|
|
```sh
|
|
|
|
iptables -t nat -L
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
And look for the output policy destinations. Even though many network admins won't do this, you shouldn't ever risk
|
|
|
|
doing something silly like this, because if you will get discovered, you could get into some serious trouble
|