(DEAD) Old code I used to fuzz attack the original Mongrel.
Ruby C
Switch branches/tags
Nothing to show
Fetching latest commit…
Cannot retrieve the latest commit at this time.
Permalink
Failed to load latest commit information.
examples
ext
lib/rfuzz
resources
test
tools
COPYING
LICENSE
README
Rakefile

README

= RFuzz HTTP Destroyer 

RFuzz is the start of a Ruby based HTTP thrasher, destroyer, fuzzer, and client
based on the Mongrel project's HTTP parser and the statistical analysis of
being very mean to a web server.

At the moment is has a working and fairly extensive HTTP 1.1 client and some
basic statistics math borrowed from the Mongrel project.

== RubyForge Project

The project is hosted at:

 http://rubyforge.org/projects/rfuzz/

Where you can file bugs and other things, as well as download gems manually.


== Motivation

The motivation for RFuzz comes from little scripts I've written during Mongrel
development to "fuzz" or attack the Mongrel code.

RFuzz will simply use the built-in ultra-correct HTTP client and a Ruby DSL to
let you write scripts that exploit servers, thrash them with random data, or
simply run simple test suites.

It may also perform analysis of performance data and work as a simply load or
pen testing tool.  This is only a secondary goal though since there's plenty of
good tools for that.

== Installing

You can install RFuzz by simply using RubyGems:

  sudo gem install rfuzz

It doesn't support windows unless you have build tools that can compile
modules against Ruby.  No, you don't get this with Ruby One Click.


== RFuzz HTTP Client

It also comes from not being satisfied with the stock net/http library.  While
this library is good for high-level HTTP access to resources, it is much too
abstract and protective to be used in a fuzzing tool.

In a tool such as RFuzz you need to have the following features in an HTTP
client library:

1. No protection from exceptions to analyze exactly what's happening.
2. Ability to "throttle" the client to simulate different kinds of request loads.
3. No threading or additional overhead to test the impact of threads, but thread safe.
4. Ability to encode the majority of the request as data elements for loading.
5. Fast and exact HTTP parser to validate the server's response is correct.
6. Tracks cookies between requests to keep session data going.

RFuzz::HttpClient supports all of these features already, with cookies being
the weakest right now.

=== Using The Client

The client is designed that you create an RFuzz::HttpClient object once with
all the common parameters and the host you want to talk with, and then you call
a series of methods on the client object that match the HTTP methods GET, POST,
PUT, DELETE, and HEAD.  You can add more methods if you like (see the documentation).

Here's a simple example:

  require 'rfuzz/client'

  cl = RFuzz::HttpClient.new("www.google.com", 80, :query => {"q" => "zed shaw"})
  
  resp = cl.get("/search")
  resp.http_body.grep(/zed/)
  => ["<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV=\"content-type\" CONTENT=\"text/html; 
       charset=ISO-8859-1\"><title>zed shaw - Google Search</title><style><!--\n"]
  
  resp = cl.get("/search", :query => {"q" => "frank"})
  => ["<html><head><meta HTTP-EQUIV=\"content-type\" CONTENT=\"text/html; 
      charset=ISO-8859-1\"><title>frank - Google Search</title><style><!--\n"]

Notice that we made a client that actually had a default :query to just search for 
my name (Zed Shaw) and then we only had to cl.get("/search").  In the second
query though we just set :query to something else (a search for "frank") and it
automatically overrides the parameters.  This makes it possible to set common 
parameters, cookies, and headers in blocks of requests to reduce repetition.

=== Client Limitations

The client handles chunked encoding inside the parser but the code for it is
still quite nasty.  I'll be attacking that and cleaning it up very soon.
Even with this it's able to efficiently parse chunked encodings without
many problems (but could be better).

It can't also parse cookies properly yet, so the above example kind of works, but the
cookie isn't returned right.

== Randomness Generator

RFuzz features a RandomGenerator class that uses the ArcFour random number 
generation algorithm to generate lots of random garbage very fast in various
formats.  RFuzz will use this to send the garbage it needs to the application
in an attempt to find forms that can't handle nastiness, badly implemented 
servers, etc.  It's amazing how many bugs you actually can find by sending
junk to an application.

The types of randomness you can generate are:

* words -- RFuzz includes a simple word list, but you can add your own.
* base64 -- Arrays of base64 encoded junk.
* byte_array -- Arrays of just junk.
* uris -- Arrays of URIs composed of words strung together with /.
* ints -- Random integers (with an allowed maximum).
* floats -- Random floats.
* headers,queries -- Hashes of key=value where the keys and values can be any of the above.

The ArcFour fuzzrnd random generator is in a C extension so it's small and fast.
A big advantage of fuzzrnd is that it generates the same stream of random bytes
for the same input seeds.  This lets you set a seed and then if you find an 
error replay the same attack but still have random data.

An example of using RandomGenerator is:

  g = RFuzz::RandomGenerator.new(open("resources/words.txt").read.split("\n"))
  h = g.headers(2,4,type=:ints)
  => [{1398667391=>2615968266, 465122870=>2683411899, 2100652296=>4131806743, 
     158954822=>2544978312}, {3126281447=>2247028995, 269763016=>1444943723, 
     2401569363=>1661839605, 2811294153=>400252371}]

As you can see this produces 2 hashes consisting of 4 key=value pairs with integers in them.  You can quickly replace type=:ints with type=:words and get:

  => [{"Europeanizes"=>"Byronize's", "royalization's"=>"Americanizer's", 
     "celiorrhea"=>"unliteralized", "unvictimized"=>"doctrinize"}, 
     {"pouder"=>"unchloridized", "chattelize"=>"unmodernize", 
     "uncrystallizability"=>"uncenter", "Egyptianization's"=>"ostracization's"}]

Using the included dictionary of words.

= Fuzzing Sessions And Statistics

The main way that you'll use RFuzz is to use the RFuzz::Session class to
perform RFuzz runs and store the results in various .csv files for analysis
later.  RFuzz makes the stance that it shouldn't be used for analyzing the
data, but rather it should generate information that you can put through
a better tool.  Examples of such tools are R, gnuplot, ploticus, or a spreadsheet.

The Session class is initialized in a similar fashion to the HttpClient, except
you can't set the :notifier (it's used to collect statistics about the requests).
Once you have a Session object you call it's Session#run method to do a run
of a set of samples and then put your tests inside a block.

When a run is done it saves the results to two CSV files so you can analyze them.

Here's a small sample of how Session is used:

  require 'rfuzz/session'
  include RFuzz
  s = Session.new :host => "localhost", :port => 3000
  s.run 5, :save_as => ["runs.csv","counts.csv"] do |c,r|
    uris = r.uris(50,r.num(30))
    uris.each do |u| 
      s.count_errors(:words) do
        resp = c.get(u)
        s.count resp.http_status
      end
    end
  end

If you run this (having a server at localhost:3000) you'll find two 
files in the current directory:  runs.csv and counts.csv.  These files
might look like this:

  -- runs.csv --
  run,name,sum,sumsq,n,mean,sd,min,max
  0,request,0.517807,0.010310748693,50.0,0.01035614,0.0100491312529583,0.001729,0.074479
  1,request,0.48696,0.010552774434,50.0,0.0097392,0.0108892135376889,0.001667,0.081887
  2,request,0.322049,0.004898592637,50.0,0.00644098,0.00759199560893725,0.000806,0.057761
  3,request,0.271233,0.004324191489,50.0,0.00542466,0.00763028964494234,0.000828,0.057182
  4,request,0.27697,0.001659079814,50.0,0.0055394,0.00159611899203497,0.000791,0.010722

  -- counts.csv --
  run,404,200
  0,46,4
  1,41,9
  2,48,2
  3,42,8
  4,49,1

You can then easily load these two files into any tool you want to analyze
the results.

=== Counts vs. Samples vs. Runs

Something many people don't do correctly which RFuzz tries to implicitly 
enforce is that doing just one run isn't as useful as doing a set of
runs.  You might not be familiar with the terminology, so let's cover that
first.

* count -- Just a simple count of some variable during a run.
* sample -- A sample is the result of taking a measurement during a run.
* run -- This is a test that you perform and then collect counts and samples for.

In the above sample script, we are doing the following:

* 5 runs.
* That do GET requests for up to 50 randomly selected URIs.
* Counting errors, HTTP status codes.
* And gathers stats on the request timing (Session does this automatically).

If you were to structure this into a data structure it would like this:

  [
    ["run", "name", "sum", "sumsq", "n", "mean", "sd", "min", "max"],
    [0, :request, 0.605363, 0.0149, 50.0, 0.0121, 0.0124, 0.00851, 0.095579], 
    [1, :request, 0.520827, 0.0116, 50.0, 0.0104, 0.0112, 0.00189, 0.088004],
    ...
  ]

Taking a look at this, we have run 0, run 1, ... and then each "row" has a
set of satistics we've gathered on the HTTP request (shown as "name").  These
statistics are actually generated from the random 50 URI requests we built
with this set of code:

  uris = r.uris(50,r.num(30))

Which means that each row is the statistics collected as each request is made
from the 50 randomly generated URIs.  If I were to write this out it'd be:

1. Generate 50 random URIs.
2. Request URIs 1-50, record how long each one takes.
3. Average (with standard deviation) the times for each request.
4. Store this as one "run".
5. Repeat until all the runs are done.

By doing this you cut down on the amount of information you need to analyze
to figure out if a server is behaving correctly.  Instead of wading through
tons of data about each request, you just analyze the "meta-statistics" about
the runs.

=== Sample Runs Reduce Error

The reason for doing a series of runs and analyzing their standard deviation (sd)
and means is that it reduces the chance that one long run was just done at the
wrong time or in the wrong situation.  If you just ran a test once with the
same settings every time you might not find out until later that there was
some confounding element which made the test invalid.


== Source Code

You can also view http://www.zedshaw.com/projects/rfuzz/coverage/ for the rcov
generated coverage report which is also a decent source browser.