The result of pinging all the Internet IP addresses | Security Art Work

In the previous post we considered the theoretical cost and feasibility of scanning all Internet IP addresses and it resulted to be very low. Therefore, we decided to conduct a little experiment: see if it was possible to scan the entire Internet, of course without doing anything harmful.

While the action may not be completely harmless (some may have IDS complaning), we have tried to do the experiment as innocuous as possible. In this sense, the safest action we thought was to launch a ping (ICMP echo) to each and every one of the Internet IP addresses. Although we have sent just a single packet per IP, we messed the scans to prevent a network receiving a high number of consecutive packets.

To do so we prepared two threads, in which work I have had the invaluable help of Nacho López, an experienced C programmer. The source code of ping could have been a good source of inspiration also:

Envia_echo-icmp ()
Recibe_echo_icmp ()

The process works in stateless mode: one thread sends the packets blindly, and the second one simply writes down the response packets received, so the connections do not consume any amount of memory.

The increased complexity came from the disk storage resources; it was necessary to adjust well and program the threads considering the disk performance, so the results received were not lost. After 10 hours, we got the following results:

Ping overall results answered: 284,401,158 IP addresses responded to the ping, i.e. 7% of systems. Graphically:

If we group the results in /8 networks we see the following percentages:

Grafically:

We need to keep in mind that we have scanned the entire address space without deleting reserved private addresses or networks. Obviously we see that the reserved addresses do not answer, which fits with what IANA says about the reserved networks.

We have also grouped the number of pongs that each /24 (class C) network has answered, so we can see the density level of IP addresses in these networks: From many C class networks did we receive 20 pongs?

Grafically:

We can see that many networks do not answer anything, mainly because they are reserved networks. Also, there are blocks with many IPs answering.

We have also performed the analysis on the least significant byte of the IP address, taking into account that we have treated them as if they were all normal IP addresses. It is clear that IP addresses finishing in .0 and .255 reply to the ping to a lesser amount. On the other hand we can also see that the IP ending in .1 is the one most answering the pings, because it usually corresponds to the router, and from there to inside the traffic is usually filtered. This can be seen by comparing the X% with the average. We see also some stripes corresponding to networks /25, /26, /27, etc.

Grafically:

Obviously from the number of answers it is not possible to draw conclusions about the density of IP population, as they may be conveniently filtered.

The % of IP addresses answering to ping seems reasonable, given that it is logical that the external equipment answers to this protocol to aid troubleshooting. It is also normal that many others do not answer, but in any case IPv4 does not appear to be so saturated as usually it is said.

This experiment is a proof of concept of how easy it is to make a global action against all Internet, with almost no cost, short time and basic knowledge. We can see that it would be possible to scan a TCP port, or even do some intrusion attack globally (always stateless), for which any UDP attack could be very effective (as it did with slammer). In any case these actions are and would be considered as attacks, so as expected we will not go further and evolve this project.

Probed that IPv4 is really small, we have another argument to answer the usual question: Why would somebody want to attack me? With IPv6, the attack vector is many orders of magnitude higher, preventing scans “so brute”.

Curiously, we did not have any counter response, or received hostile activity in response. However, we were receiving traffic from a server that sent us the pong for hours continuously and repeatedly (DUP!), we think that due to a IP error that we could not determine.

Although the experiment has been the most innocuous and harmless we could thought about, during the experiment we have received some complaints from organizations related to the the scan. However, taking into account the number of “attacked” sites, the complaints have been few and the hosting provider that received the pings acted in any case time communicating the complaint after the end of the experiment, which shows that such a global attack would be really unstoppable.

With the extracted data more interesting analysis can be done, that we leave for next entries, such as the issue with network and broadcast addresses (.0 and .255). I hope you liked the experiment, and in any case I apologize if I annoyed you with my ping.