Edit: The post was probably heavily AI written and contains mistakes to that effect, which is unfortunate. The data in general is still interesting though.

all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 27 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The Belgian traffic? Almost entirely from a single residential IP — one box that sent over 156,000 login attempts, more than the entire country of Germany. It just sat there, hammering echo "\x6F\x6B" over and over, every single second, for weeks. Relentless.

Had a funny similar thing, there's some weird person/people that randomly probe and attack a specific game's community hosted dedicated servers; and one week this specific IP address out of Virginia was just hammering one of mine, with what amounts to a specific byte sequence, then an incrementing number of the packet (until it wrapped around). Then it stopped. Weird shit.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    It's possible it was something misconfigured, a poorly-written script, or a bug in some software causing unexpected behavior. At the scale of the Internet, all of those are very possible.

    It could also be the Internet equivalent of a numbers station.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    It's was a pretty specific non standard port on UDP. It's not even doing proper scanning since the byte sequence used isn't one that would trigger a response challenge/ack. My guess is someone trying to DOS using an older byte sequence that used to choke/kill the server software on older versions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 6 months ago

    Thanks for the warning OP

  • source
  • [–] 84 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    If they used AI, then I consider they lost all credibility.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago*

    For me it is not only that they used AI for the writing, is that they did not care to review/recheck/polishing it before releasing it to the public, so my effort in consuming it will be reciprocal

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -57 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Oh so you want them to do all that and gather all the data and do it themselves for free? What a dumb comment.

    I've run a honeypot for the last month and the data is near-identical to this. It's definitely credible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 6 months ago*

    Oh so you want them to do all that and gather all the data and do it themselves for free?

    Yes, that is what 90% of the internet has been about since it became a thing. Doing everything for profit turns everything into shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 53 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Near-identical doesn't make it valuable. Plausible but incorrect is still incorrect. AI creates plausible and credible but incorrect data.

    The plausibility and credibility is like a honeypot for your confidence. You read it, and understand it, and come to believe it. But it was false all along. You think you learned things. You actually learned nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    The issue with using AI is that the author doesn't openly disclose the use at the beginning of the paper.

    Yes, I know this particular write-up isn't for official submission to an academic journal, but sharing methodology is important.

    I would have no problem with AI-assisted writing IF the author credited the service used and, where applicable, included the prompts used.

    It should be similar to documenting any sourced material. It's not just about giving credit where credit is due. It's also about accountability.

    What a dumb comment.

    Why is this necessary? Does this add anything at all to the conversation?

    I’ve run a honeypot for the last month and the data is near-identical to this. It’s definitely credible.

    Ah, well then. Problem solved. Someone on the internet said it's credible, therefore it must be credible. Tell ya what - when you create a webpage to display your data and then provide an analysis of said data, I'll consider you credible. Until then, though, you are just some short-tempered, rude, anonymous voice shouting into the void.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago*

    If you publish something online, that's also a responsibility. If they don't want that, then they could just have made a comment somewhere "yo, i've had this container online on port 22 and this is what happened, yolo".

    Same for open source software btw.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I initially disagreed but after actually reading the post, I'm with you. If it was only the article's text that was generated and not the data or graphs then I don't see why the whole thing would be written off. I mean, it's really sad seeing people offload their writing to AI but I still found it interesting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Honeypot as a Python script in a docker container?
    Isn't that not really a true isolation?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Please say more.

    I use both on a daily basis and from what I understand, there’s no implicit access from within a container. If you set it up right, there’s no access outside the container of any sort unless you explicitly say so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago

    I'm kind of disappointed that bigboobz wasn't on the top of the password list.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    Years ago I had a synology NAS that was sleeping itself to death. Support told me open up port 22 and forward the port to the open internet. They would get to and poke around. I told them it was a terrible idea, can I at least set a password?

    No. But you can set up ip autoban.

    I no longer use synology. I gave it away.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    tf is a web scraper engineer, gen ai?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    and contains mistakes to that effect

    What mistakes?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    So is there a socket container for this? Wi wouldn't mind wasting some hacker assholes time with this

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    Weird I did the exact same thing on a VPS. Basically the same data.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago
    [–] -3 points 6 months ago

    That was an interesting read. I didn't have a lot If knowledge about this topic. So thanks for that!

    Was ist using AI for assisted writing? Maybe. But I don't have a Problem with that. I assume everyone ist using it to some extend (me included) and uses it as a tool as any other tool.

    The Data is the actual interesting Thing. Would be cool If the author could share his data (of course IP's or other personel information must be anonymized/hashed). If that is made up by AI...Well there goes your credibility. But I don't assume that from the beginning.

  • source
  • 8 comments in c/pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub view that post
    [–] 25 points 6 months ago

    What I Learned

    1. The internet is loud

    Your server isn't special. Nobody is "targeting" it. Every IP address on the internet is being continuously probed by automated systems. Within seconds of exposing port 22, you will receive login attempts. This isn't a question of "if" but "when" — and the answer to "when" is "immediately."

    1. Most attackers are dumb

    99.6% of the visitors never went beyond a single automated command. They're not hackers — they're scripts running on compromised machines, following instructions from a C2 server, executing the same uname command a million times a day across millions of IPs. The vast majority of internet "attacks" are just noise.

    1. The few smart ones are very smart

    That French IP with the /dev/tcp/ trick, rotating C2 infrastructure, and UPX-packed binaries? That's professional-grade offensive tooling. The gap between the bottom 99% and the top 1% of attackers is enormous.

    1. Crypto is a magnet

    The volume of attempts targeting Solana node credentials (solana/sol/validator/node) was surprising. Running crypto infrastructure on a publicly-accessible SSH port without key-based auth is actively being hunted.

    1. Some people are just curious

    The explorer from Cameroon, the slow typer from Berlin, the person from Bangladesh poking around /var and creating text.txt — these aren't malicious actors. They're curious humans who found an open door and wanted to see what was on the other side. They didn't download malware or try to establish persistence. They just... looked around.

    1. Nobody reads the MOTD

    The honeypot displays a full Ubuntu welcome message with system stats when you log in. Not a single interactive user appeared to notice or care that the system information was suspiciously static. First thing they do? ls.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago

    That's pretty interesting.

    I have been running an SSH tarpit for several years. Basically it's a tiny go executable that responds to SSH connections, and then proceeds to very very slowly respond with an endless banner. So clients wait endlessly for the login prompt. I have seen clients getting stuck and waiting for whole weeks.

    Link for anyone who wants to run a tarpit themselves: https://github.com/skeeto/endlessh

  • source
  • That was an interesting read.Thank you.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago*
    [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Hey, the comments link isn't actually a link, whoever is running this bot.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago
    [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Very much worth a read!

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    Not much have changed in 20 years. Was the exact same when I went to school

  • source
  • 5 comments in c/technology@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 11 points 6 months ago
    [–] 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    None of the stuff here surprises me in general, but the specifics on sources of attacks, how much crypto shit is unsecured for it to be default approach for so many attempts, how much were bots vs actual humans, etc. is all very interesting.

  • source
  • 4 comments in c/blueteamsec@infosec.pub view that post
    [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    Good read✅

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    This so much reminds me of working in the aughts and we just could not install and then update. Updates, firewalls, and other configuration had to be setup when the system was put online because they got hammered the moment they went online. It was kinda sudden. Like we could have a default installation sit on the web over a weekend and no issue and then some year we would see more and more compromised systems and eventually we just could not put something online without it being pre hardened.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Is the link fine? I'm failing to resolve

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 3 comments in c/technology@piefed.social view that post
    [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Slightly very annoyed how this reads like slop. The research is interesting but I can't keep reading this without that annoying itch you get from seeing the same pattern over and over again.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Fun read. Suprised how much of the codespeak I understood. I've run linux here or there, and I used to do some hackery decades ago. I'm no modern botnet runner, but it seems things haven't changed all too much.

  • source