How do I detect if a remote client is running Remote Desktop Protocol? and it is also accepting remote desktop connections ??
Like Open an port to detect HTTP and send request, receive request headers and see in request headers information about HTTP so I will know the person is running HTTP weather if he changed the port e.g: running HTTP 6551.
Attempt and make a connection with something that is RDP-connection aware (RDP is not HTTP). Of course, failing to establish an initial handshake is not proof that a connection can not be established. It could be blocked by a firewall, listening on another port, etc.
The MS-RDPBCGR specification, page 16 talks about connecting which in turn defers to X.224, go figure.
It'd likely just be easiest to use Wireshark and observe in-the-wild behavior to develop a minimal detection case. I suspect only the very initial portion of the handshake needs to be generated/replayed in order to "decide" that it's a listening RDP server.
(Or, perhaps use an existing RDP client which has this "test connect" functionality or the ability to be scripted.)
A fast way is to pen a shell and type
telnet IPADDRESS 3389
If you get a connection, chances are good that an RDP server is on the other side. RDP can run on any port, but TCP Port 3389 is set per default.
Windows 7 requires some extra steps to enable the telnet Client.
You could do netstat -a in the command line and see if the default port for remote desktop connection is listening, ie. TCP:3389 but thats only if the client hasn't changed the ports for MSTSC
Related
In Active Mode, FTP will use a port to connect to the client port. So in this mode, can the FTP use different local ports while initiating outgoing connections (which means FTP has different local ports for all data channels)?
In Passive Mode, FTP will send back a port number through command channel to client then listen on this port number. So in this mode, can the FTP always send back a same local port number such as 1234 to the client in this mode (which means FTP has a same local port for all data channels)?
Is there any method for use to configure such data port for the FTP Server? We assume the FTP server will work behind NAT.
Regarding the FTP Active Mode and Passive Mode, see this post and this article
I'm going to assume you're using vsftpd since you tagged your post linux and this is the most common server on modern Linux machines.
For active mode, you can disable the connect_from_port_20 option in vsftpd.conf to cause the server to use ephemeral local ports for active (PORT) outgoing data connections. The default for this option is NO but most distributions' stock configuration files set it to YES. If this is set to YES you can also set the ftp_data_port option to use a fixed local data port other than 20.
For passive mode, this is generally not supported, because of the possibility of promiscuous connections. If the server is to allow incoming data connections from IP addresses other than the client's, it has to use its own local port numbers to keep track of which data connections correspond to which control connections.
You can, however, restrict the range of local ports used by the server for PASV connections, by setting the pasv_max_port and pasv_min_port options.
See the vsftpd documentation for more information on all of these configuration options.
I have client server application that works with Firebird server. Everytime when clients connect to the server they(client apps) don't check if there is a network connection to the server so at this time my application sometimes freezes when the server computer is switched off or service has stopped, so first of all I need to check connection if remote host is switched on or at some port anything listening....
Before establishing the connection I need to check it and make sure server and service is running using Indy components.
Any ideas? also I can use IcmpClient to ping remote host and then establish connection but which is the most optimal way ?
If you just want to check if the server computer can be reached, you could do a "ping" to check that. However, if you want to check if a specific TCP port is open, then the only way to find that out is to actually do a proper connect, which leads to the "freezing" program while the connection times out if there is no-one listening on that port.
I have both a client and server application using UDP port 25565.
In order to run these on the same machine, because only one application may bind itself to port 25565, does this mean that it is necessary for me to use two separate ports for transmitting data between the applications?
What I have in mind is the following -
Client -> 25565 -> Server
Client <- 25566 <- Server
Is this the only solution or is there another way of handling this?
Your server application open a port and wait for client to connect.
Client need to know this port in advance so it can establish a connection to the desired service.
Client can use any available ports to initiate this connection (better to use ports > 1000).
The server sees in the incomming packet wich port the client is using, so it will send anwser to it. No need to specify it in your design.
After handshake the TCP/IP connection is then identified by these 4 values : server IP, server port, client IP, client port.
No other connection could have the same four values.
To answer your question. A TCP/IP connection is bi-directional, once established, the server can send data to the client and the other way around.
I would draw the scheme like this :
SERVER port 25565 <-> CLIENT port 25566 (or any other port)
Well, no. Only the server needs to listen on the port 25565 - the client will just connect to that port. There is no reason to specify which client the port should 'use' to connect to that port. Also, once the server has accepted the connection, the port can listen for other requests.
The whole point of separate UDP ports is to eliminate conflicts among applications listening to incoming packets. Changing one of these ports is probably the best solution.
However, if you really want both programs to listen on the same port you will need to use virtual network interfaces such as TUN/TAP (there is a Windows port). Then both applications will bind to the port with tha same number but on the different network interfaces.
TCP standard has "simultaneous open" feature.
The implication of the feature, client trying to connect to local port, when the port is from ephemeral range, can occasionally connect to itself (see here).
So client think it's connected to server, while it actually connected to itself. From other side, server can not open its server port, since it's occupied/stolen by client.
I'm using RHEL 5.3 and my clients constantly tries to connect to local server.
Eventually client connects to itself.
I want to prevent the situation. I see two possible solutions to the problem:
Don't use ephemeral ports for server ports.
Agree ephemeral port range and configure it on your machines (see ephemeral range)
Check connect() as somebody propose here.
What do you thinks?
How do you handle the issue?
P.S. 1
Except of the solution, which I obviously looking for,
I'd like you to share your real life experience with the problem.
When I found the cause of the problem, I was "astonished" on my work place people are not familiar with it. Polling server by connecting it periodically is IMHO common practice,
so how it's that the problem is not commonly known.
When I stumbled into this I was flabbergasted. I could figure out that the outgoing
port number accidentally matches the incoming port number, but not why the TCP
handshake (SYN SYN-ACK ACK) would succeed (ask yourself: who is sending the ACK if
there is nobody doing a listen() and accept()???)
Both Linux and FreeBSD show this behavior.
Anyway, one solution is to stay out of the high range of port numbers for servers.
I noticed that Darwin side-steps this issue by not allowing the outgoing port
to be the same as the destination port. They must have been bitten by this as well...
An easy way to show this effect is as follows:
while true
do
telnet 127.0.0.1 50000
done
And wait for a minute or so and you will be chatting with yourself...
Trying 127.0.0.1...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
Trying 127.0.0.1...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
Trying 127.0.0.1...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to 127.0.0.1.
Escape character is '^]'.
hello?
hello?
Anyway, it makes good job interview material.
Bind the client socket to port 0 (system assigns), check the system assigned port, if it matches the local server port you already know the server is down and and can skip connect().
For server you need to bind() socket to port. Once addr:port pair had socket bound, it will no longer be used for implicit binding in connect().
No problem, no trouble.
Note that this solution is theoretical and I have not tested it on my own. I've not experienced it before (or did not realize) and hopefully I won't experience it anymore.
I'm assuming that you cannot edit neither the client source code nor the server source. Additionally I'm assuming the real problem is the server which cannot start.
Launch the server with a starter application. If the target port that the server will bind is being used by any process, create an RST (reset packet) by using raw sockets.
The post below briefly describes what an RST packet is (taken from http://forum.soft32.com/linux/killing-socket-connection-cmdline-ftopict473059.html)
You have to look at a "raw socket" packet generator.
And you have to be superuser.
You probably need a network sniffer as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_socket
http://kerneltrap.org/node/3072 - TCP RST attacks
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-RawIP/lib/Net/RawIP.pm - a Perl module
http://mixter.void.ru/rawip.html - raw IP in C
In the C version, you want a TH_RST packet.
RST is designed to handle the following case.
A and B establish a connection.
B reboots, and forgets about this.
A sends a packet to B to port X from port Y.
B sends a RST packet back, saying "what are you talking about? I don't
have a connection with you. Please close this connection down."
So you have to know/fake the IP address of B, and know both ports X
and Y. One of the ports will be the well known port number. The other
you have to find out. I thnk you also need to know the sequence
number.
Typically people do this with a sniffer. You could use a switch with a
packet mirroring function, or run a sniffer on either host A or B.
As a note, Comcast did this to disable P2P traffic.
http://www.eff.org/wp/packet-forgery-isps-report-comcast-affair
In our case we don't need to use a sniffer since we know the information below:
So you have to know/fake the IP address of B, and know both ports X
and Y
X = Y and B's IP address is localhost
Tutorial on http://mixter.void.ru/rawip.html describes how to use Raw Sockets.
NOTE that any other process on the system might also steal our target port from ephemeral pool. (e.g. Mozilla Firefox) This solution will not work on this type of connections since X != Y B's IP address is not localhost but something like 192.168.1.43 on eth0. In this case you might use netstat to retrieve X, Y and B's IP address and then create a RST packet accordingly.
Hmm, that is an odd problem. If you have a client / server on the same machine and it will always be on the same machine perhaps shared memory or a Unix domain socket or some other form of IPC is a better choice.
Other options would be to run the server on a fixed port and the client on a fixed source port. Say, the server runs on 5000 and the client runs on 5001. You do have the issue of binding to either of these if something else is bound to them.
You could run the server on an even port number and force the client to an odd port number. Pick a random number in the ephemeral range, OR it with 1, and then call bind() with that. If bind() fails with EADDRINUSE then pick a different odd port number and try again.
This option isn't actually implemented in most TCPs. Do you have an actual problem?
That's an interesting issue! If you're mostly concerned that your server is running, you could always implement a heartbeat mechanism in the server itself to report status to another process. Or you could write a script to check and see if your server process is running.
If you're concerned more about the actual connection to the server being available, I'd suggest moving your client to a different machine. This way you can verify that your server at least has some network connectivity.
In my opinion, this is a bug in the TCP spec; listening sockets shouldn't be able to send unsolicited SYNs, and receiving a SYN (rather than a SYN+ACK) after you've sent one should be illegal and result in a reset, which would quickly let the client close the unluckily-chosen local port. But nobody asked for my opinion ;)
As you say, the obvious answer is not to listen in the ephemeral port range. Another solution, if you know you'll be connecting to a local machine, is to design your protocol so that the server sends the first message, and have a short timeout on the client side for receiving that message.
The actual problem you are having seems to be that while the server is down, something else can use the ephemeral port you expect for your server as the source port for an outgoing connection. The detail of how that happens is separate to the actual problem, and it can happen in ways other than the way you describe.
The solution to that problem is to set SO_REUSEADDR on the socket. That will let you create a server on a port that has a current outgoing connection.
If you really care about that port number, you can use operating specific methods to stop it being allocated as an ephemeral port.
Is there any method in c++/vc++/mfc so that I can verify whether remote machine is on network or not. I don't want to use ping command. I tried to use WSAConnect method but it takes lot of time in searching if remote machine is not on network. In that case application windoe freezes for long time. I need alternate way to verify remote machine netwotk connectivity. Plz help
You can check to see if a host name exists and if DNS can resolve an IP address for it, but this won't tell you if it's online. In order to determine if it's online, you must exchange data with the host. For this to happen the host must be listening on a port, and must send some sort of response.
Generally, the lowest common denominator for hosts is the ICMP packet - aka ping. You can write your own service in C++ to send these UDP packets, and detect a reply.
Some hosts and some routers disable ICMP to appear 'invisible'. If you know that your host accepts connections on a TCP port, you can attempt to create a tcp socket. For example, from a shell you can test using nc
nc -z google.com 80
Connection to google.com 80 port [tcp/http] succeeded!
If you do raw socket programming, you can attempt to connect to a host via, and then call select() with a short timeout.
If you don't want your app to block, use a thread.
If the only issue is that calling WSAConnect locks up your UI, you can try calling it in nonblocking mode.
Call WSAEventSelect to set the socket to nonblocking mode prior to calling WSAConnect. You then call WSAAsyncSelect or WSAEventSelect to check the status of the connection.
MSDN's page on WSAConnect has some remarks about nonblocking mode here.
You can use tracert command. Example:
tracert -w 1000 192.168.0.77
You can check if the machine is connected to a network, but without trying to transmit data to a site residing on the internet I don't think there is a way to check if that network is actually online. For example your end user might as well be connected to a DSL router which is not online at the moment.
You can use arping for it.
Also some smart switch can talk about attached host.