Re: Question on identifying cable-modem activity

Re: Question on identifying cable-modem activity

NewsGroups | Search | Tools
 comp.dcom.modems.cable  Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Re: Question on identifying cable-modem activity Todd H. 12-13-2007
Posted by Todd H. on December 13, 2007, 1:56 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

> When my cable modem is connected only to power and cable,
> the "Activity" light flickers irregularly several times per
> second, indefinitely. This seems odd, since (I presume) no
> activity has been requested.
>
> Is this normal? If so, what is this activity?

Most likely, the steady stream of attacks any host on the internet
receives.

> The best way I can think of to address this question is to
> snoop the ethernet at the cable-modem's port, but that seems
> like overkill and would be slightly disruptive. Still, I'll
> do it if nobody has a better suggestion.

Don't fear the sniffing. :-) It shouldn't be disruptive. Any chance
to use wireshark makes for a good day. :-)

I might crack out the ole hub and give it a whirl myself.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Posted by Peter Pearson on December 13, 2007, 8:41 pm
>
>> When my cable modem is connected only to power and cable,
>> the "Activity" light flickers irregularly several times per
>> second, indefinitely. This seems odd, since (I presume) no
>> activity has been requested.
>>
>> Is this normal? If so, what is this activity?
>
> Most likely, the steady stream of attacks any host on the internet
> receives.

That would certainly make interesting reading.

>> The best way I can think of to address this question is to
>> snoop the ethernet at the cable-modem's port, but that seems
>> like overkill and would be slightly disruptive. Still, I'll
>> do it if nobody has a better suggestion.
>
> Don't fear the sniffing. :-) It shouldn't be disruptive. Any chance
> to use wireshark makes for a good day. :-)
>
> I might crack out the ole hub and give it a whirl myself.

Ah, the motto of the mongoose family: Run and find out!
I like it.

The disruption would not be the sniffing itself, but the
interruption to my housemates' internet life (including
our telephone service) during the recabling process. Also,
I only have a slow, old hub. Also, I have no clue how the
cable modem will react to either (1) DHCP requests from
*both* my Linux computer and our VoIP telephone adapter,
or (2) my Linux computer using a 192.168.1.x IP address.
As you can see, I'm overflowing with ignorance, particularly
regarding the cable modem's duties.

Thanks for your attention.

--
To email me, substitute nowhere->spamcop, invalid->net.

Posted by Todd H. on December 14, 2007, 12:56 am

> >
> >> When my cable modem is connected only to power and cable,
> >> the "Activity" light flickers irregularly several times per
> >> second, indefinitely. This seems odd, since (I presume) no
> >> activity has been requested.
> >>
> >> Is this normal? If so, what is this activity?
> >
> > Most likely, the steady stream of attacks any host on the internet
> > receives.
>
> That would certainly make interesting reading.
>
> >> The best way I can think of to address this question is to
> >> snoop the ethernet at the cable-modem's port, but that seems
> >> like overkill and would be slightly disruptive. Still, I'll
> >> do it if nobody has a better suggestion.
> >
> > Don't fear the sniffing. :-) It shouldn't be disruptive. Any chance
> > to use wireshark makes for a good day. :-)
> >
> > I might crack out the ole hub and give it a whirl myself.
>
> Ah, the motto of the mongoose family: Run and find out!
> I like it.
>
> The disruption would not be the sniffing itself, but the
> interruption to my housemates' internet life (including
> our telephone service) during the recabling process.

??? How slow are ya? Plus the power into the plus a short cable
into the hub. Hold it's other end in your left hand. Hold cable
that's in the cable modem's ethernet jack in right hand. Unplug
cable modem line, put it in the router, plug that cable in your
right hand into the cable modem, downtime less than 1 second. No
one would notice unless you've got active ssh users.

> Also, I only have a slow, old hub.

Cable modems still aren't faster than an old hub with only one device
talking. Your sniffer machine that you plug intot he hub could be
configured to not even have an IP address, adn quietly sit there and
sniff the wire.

The old hub is probably still faster than cable modem speeds.


> Also, I have no clue how the cable modem will react to either (1)
> DHCP requests from *both* my Linux computer and our VoIP telephone
> adapter, or (2) my Linux computer using a 192.168.1.x IP address.
> As you can see, I'm overflowing with ignorance, particularly
> regarding the cable modem's duties.
>
> Thanks for your attention.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your setup, we have:

Before:

cable modem -----natrouter/switch--- all yer computers


After:
cable modem --HUB--natrouter/switch--all yer other computers
|
+--- 1 computer without an IP assigned running
wireshark


Everything looks the same to the cable modem right down to the
physical layer. A cable gets replaces with 2 cables and a hub. At
most the cable modem starts talking 10mbps half duplex vs 10mbps full
duplex over its ethernet interface. It doesn't see any additional
machines or dhcp requests or anything it wasn't before.

Instead of wireshark, what'd be more itneresting to run on the
sniffing computer would be snort, an intrustion detection system that
will tell you spedifically what attacks are coming in:
http://snort.org/


Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Posted by Peter Pearson on December 14, 2007, 7:17 pm
>> The disruption would not be the sniffing itself, but the
>> interruption to my housemates' internet life (including
>> our telephone service) during the recabling process.
>
> ??? How slow are ya?

You're right, it's probably not an issue, if I can just be
a little smarter about it than I've managed to be so far.
I was thinking that minutes spent with the slow hub in
the chain would be minutes of discomfort for my housemates,
but as you point out, even my slow hub is unlikely to be
slower than the cable.

[snip]
> After:
> cable modem --HUB--natrouter/switch--all yer other computers
> |
> +--- 1 computer without an IP assigned running
> wireshark

Good guess. There's a VoIP telephone adapter between the
(putative) hub and the natrouter/switch, but that changes
nothing.

So . . . is the strategy to keep my wireshark computer
(actually ethereal) from trying to talk to the cable modem
by not assigning it an IP? That's a trick I'm glad to know.
The default configuration tools on this system (Ubuntu
Dapper: System / Administration / Networking / Network
settings / Ethernet connection / Properties) don't let me
"OK" a non-DHCP configuration without an IP address. Is
there a more direct way to do it? "0.0.0.0" ?

Thanks for your patience.

--
To email me, substitute nowhere->spamcop, invalid->net.

Posted by Todd H. on December 15, 2007, 1:26 am

> So . . . is the strategy to keep my wireshark computer
> (actually ethereal)

Bad idea to run old out of date packet sniffers with known security
vulnerabilities. :-)

Wireshark replaced/supercedes ethereal. Download the latest. :-)
http://www.wireshark.org/download.html



> from trying to talk to the cable modem by not assigning it an IP?
> That's a trick I'm glad to know.

Promiscuous mode is the word ya want.
http://wiki.wireshark.org/CaptureSetup/Ethernet

> The default configuration tools on
> this system (Ubuntu Dapper: System / Administration / Networking /
> Network settings / Ethernet connection / Properties) don't let me
> "OK" a non-DHCP configuration without an IP address. Is there a
> more direct way to do it? "0.0.0.0" ?

http://www.askapache.com/security/sniffing-on-ethernet-undetected.html


This is probably overkill for your situation, and the cable modem
isn't going to care if it sees some packets from your machine, but if
you're interested in being as certain as possible you aren't changing
anything, this would be the way to go.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Similar ThreadsPosted
Re: Question on identifying cable-modem activity December 13, 2007, 3:45 pm
Re: How Sticky Are CableModem AUPs? August 29, 2006, 5:58 pm
Re: How Sticky Are CableModem AUPs? August 29, 2006, 10:18 pm
Re: How Sticky Are CableModem AUPs? September 7, 2006, 4:11 am
Re: How Sticky Are CableModem AUPs? September 20, 2006, 5:37 pm
Cable Modem Activity August 9, 2007, 10:47 pm
Constant activity on router / cable modem - ARP??? December 23, 2005, 1:07 am
Technical Question ??? June 23, 2005, 7:07 am
SB5100 Question June 24, 2005, 5:17 pm
Rca cable question August 4, 2005, 4:52 pm

other useful resources:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Telecommunications Industry Association
Electronic and Software Security Products and Services
International Telecommunication Union

Custom CGI Perl and PHP programming by 1-Script.com

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
The site map in XML format XML site map