packs: Update reverse shell query pack to check for a valid remote_port #7567
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
|
directionless
approved these changes
Apr 29, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi,
I would like to make a minor improvement to avoid false positives for
Behavioral_Reverse_Shellquery in osx-attacks pack. Certain build processes are spawned by IDEs such as Xcode which do not have any open files, but have an open socket that is not a network socket which results in remote_port being 0 and remote_address empty.In this PR, I basically add a check for
process_open_sockets.remote_port > 0to avoid all possible false positives which do not indicate a reverse shell. We can confirm it's safe considering port0is reserved and cannot be used for network sockets.