[CentOS] Loss of Ethernet adaptor

Fri Jun 6 13:45:28 UTC 2014
m.roth at 5-cent.us <m.roth at 5-cent.us>

James B. Byrne wrote:
> At ~07:40 (UTC-4:00) this morning our gateway host lost its WAN Ethernet
> adaptor.  Subsequent to recovery, which required a reboot, the following
> entries were find in /var/log/messages:
>
> Jun  6 07:39:50 gway02 kernel: PING_FLOOD: IN=eth0 OUT=
> MAC=00:25:90:61:74:c0:00
> :24:14:2b:f2:80:08:00 SRC=74.205.112.125 DST=216.185.71.33 LEN=64 TOS=0x00
> PREC=
> 0x00 TTL=50 ID=30954 PROTO=ICMP TYPE=8 CODE=0 ID=25496 SEQ=0
> Jun  6 07:39:53 gway02 kernel: PROBE_BLACKIST: IN=eth0 OUT=eth1
> SRC=122.235.101.24

Well, let's start with you being probed/attacked from China: whois
122.235.101.24
<snip>
inetnum:        122.235.0.0 - 122.235.127.255
netname:        CHINANET-ZJ-HZ
country:        CN
descr:          CHINANET-ZJ Hangzhou node network
descr:          Zhejiang Telecom
<...>
role:           CHINANET-ZJ Hangzhou
address:        No.352 Tiyuchang Road,Hangzhou,Zhejiang.310003
country:        CN
phone:          +86-571-85157929
fax-no:         +86-571-85102776
e-mail:         anti_spam at mail.hz.zj.cn
remarks:        send spam reports to anti_spam at mail.hz.zj.cn
remarks:        and abuse reports to anti_spam at mail.hz.zj.cn

> DST=216.185.71.249 LEN=52 TOS=0x08 PREC=0x20 TTL=45 ID=26123 DF
> PROTO=TCP SPT
> =54197 DPT=445 WINDOW=8192 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0
> Jun  6 07:40:49 gway02 kernel: PROBE_BLACKIST: IN=eth0 OUT=eth1
> SRC=183.179.211.126

And whois reports the puppy above is not only from Hong Kong, but
remarks:        -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
remarks:        This object can only be updated by APNIC hostmasters.
remarks:        To update this object, please contact APNIC
remarks:        hostmasters and include your organisation's account
remarks:        name in the subject line.
remarks:        -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

which suggests that the IP or range or domain is an ex....
<snip>
So, next question is, is the card working again? If so, then this is an
attack I've not heard of, that affects what's this, layer 0?

       mark