Worlds Dumbest Script Kiddie



  • I very nearly spilled hot coffee all over the nearest l33t h4xor when I read this IRC log...

     

    http://www.webforumz.com/webforumz-cafe/15441-worlds-most-dumb-hacker.htm 



  • This was posted a while back....



  • @versatilia said:

    I very nearly spilled hot coffee all over the nearest l33t h4xor when I read this IRC log...

     

    http://www.webforumz.com/webforumz-cafe/15441-worlds-most-dumb-hacker.htm 

    I't little known, but all 127.x.x.x IP addresses behave just like 127.0.0.1. (try it: disconnect your network cable and ping 127.81.3.166) So next time you want to fool a script kiddy, tell him your IP is 127.98.5.122 . They probably know by now that 127.0.0.1 is their own PC, but this little secret might be new to them...



  • I'll give a cookie to whoever manages to hack foo.marttila.de.



  • From all the way back in 2001:

     

     



  • I've actually seen quite a few "WaReZ FtP SiTeZ" which contained nothing but links to domains which resolve to loopback, and for the "rEaL 1337 hAxOrZ", some "sEkReT iP c0dEz" which can be used to "aKsEsS pRiVaTe FtPz" (Variants of 127.0.0.1). Some also had instructions on how to get on the "FtPz" (Basically instructions on how to open your windows C: drive as a share), which of course also told you to delete all the files you leeched afterwards.



  • 127.0.0.0 is not loopback, so not ALL 127.x.x.x address are loopback.



  • Umm... what? Of course the entire 127 block is defined as loopback, just not necessarily implemented as such! Cut&paste from RFC 3330:

    127.0.0.0/8 - This block is assigned for use as the Internet host
    loopback address. A datagram sent by a higher level protocol to an
    address anywhere within this block should loop back inside the host.
    This is ordinarily implemented using only 127.0.0.1/32 for loopback,
    but no addresses within this block should ever appear on any network
    anywhere [RFC1700, page 5].



  • Didn't recheck, but as I remember it, I see no reason why that should supersede the general principle that the first and last adresses of a network are network address and broadcast address.

    Therefore, 127.0.0.0 is the address of the network the loopback interface is connected to, and 127.255.255.255 is broadcast address on that same network (at least, is supposed to be). That should make 127.255.255.255 somewhat loopback too, but not 127.0.0.0

    Hey, guess I'll recheck later.



  • @thelvin said:

    Didn't recheck, but as I remember it, I see no reason why that should supersede the general principle that the first and last adresses of a network are network address and broadcast address.

    Therefore, 127.0.0.0 is the address of the network the loopback interface is connected to, and 127.255.255.255 is broadcast address on that same network (at least, is supposed to be). That should make 127.255.255.255 somewhat loopback too, but not 127.0.0.0

    Hey, guess I'll recheck later.



    On Vista here:
    ping 127.0.0.0 gives a "General failure."
    ping 127.255.255.255 gives a "Request timed out."



  • @XIU said:

    @thelvin said:

    Didn't recheck, but as I remember it, I see no reason why that should supersede the general principle that the first and last adresses of a network are network address and broadcast address.

    Therefore, 127.0.0.0 is the address of the network the loopback interface is connected to, and 127.255.255.255 is broadcast address on that same network (at least, is supposed to be). That should make 127.255.255.255 somewhat loopback too, but not 127.0.0.0

    Hey, guess I'll recheck later.



    On Vista here:
    ping 127.0.0.0 gives a "General failure."
    ping 127.255.255.255 gives a "Request timed out."

    Linux:

    [erich@localhost]$ ping 127.0.0.0
    Do you want to ping broadcast? Then -b
    [erich@localhost]$ ping 127.255.255.255
    Do you want to ping broadcast? Then -b

     

     



  • @ammoQ said:

    Linux:

    [erich@localhost]$ ping 127.0.0.0
    Do you want to ping broadcast? Then -b
    [erich@localhost]$ ping 127.255.255.255
    Do you want to ping broadcast? Then -b

    XP Pro SP2:

    127.0.0.0 gives "Destination specified is invalid"

    127.255.255.255 gives "Request timed out" 



  • @ammoQ said:

    @XIU said:
    @thelvin said:

    Didn't recheck, but as I remember it, I see no reason why that should supersede the general principle that the first and last adresses of a network are network address and broadcast address.

    Therefore, 127.0.0.0 is the address of the network the loopback interface is connected to, and 127.255.255.255 is broadcast address on that same network (at least, is supposed to be). That should make 127.255.255.255 somewhat loopback too, but not 127.0.0.0

    Hey, guess I'll recheck later.



    On Vista here:
    ping 127.0.0.0 gives a "General failure."
    ping 127.255.255.255 gives a "Request timed out."

    Linux:

    [erich@localhost]$ ping 127.0.0.0
    Do you want to ping broadcast? Then -b
    [erich@localhost]$ ping 127.255.255.255
    Do you want to ping broadcast? Then -b

     

     

    Another Linux data point...

     

     [millert@localhost ~]$ ping -b 127.0.0.0
    WARNING: pinging broadcast address
    PING 127.0.0.0 (127.0.0.0) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.172 ms
    64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.127 ms
    64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.127 ms

     

     PING 127.42.42.42 (127.42.42.42) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 127.42.42.42: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.139 ms
    64 bytes from 127.42.42.42: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.131 ms
    64 bytes from 127.42.42.42: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.139 ms
    64 bytes from 127.42.42.42: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.130 ms
    64 bytes from 127.42.42.42: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.135 ms
    64 bytes from 127.42.42.42: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.175 ms



  • This log is almost older than time, it seems like, but it makes me laugh every time I read it :D


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.