GFIRST 2011 Presentation Slides, Code, and Thoughts

I’m sitting in my hotel room after just finishing my last session at US-CERT GFIRST in Nashville, TN. This was my first time at GFIRST both as an attendee and presenter, and I really had a great time. Where I’m originally from in Kentucky isn’t too far from Nashville so I am familiar with the area and the venue choice, the Gaylord Opryland Hotel, is a beautiful facility and top-notch for this kind of conference. I wanted to take a moment to address where people can find the resources for my presentation as well as my thoughts on some of the presentations I had a chance to see and the conference as a whole.

My Presentation

Along with my friend and colleague Jason Smith, we presented a talk on Real World Security Scripting. At a bare minimum, we wanted to share some quick and dirty scripts we wrote to do some pretty neat things within our security operations center (SOC) at SPAWAR. At a higher level, we really hoped that we could encourage some people to get involved with low level BASH, Python, and PERL scripting to automate tasks within their SOC environment as well as increase capabilities of the SOC and its staff. We generated quite a bit of interest, and as a result it looks like several people were turned away because the room was filled to fire code capacity. Our sincere apologies to those who missed to talk. We got some really positive feedback from folks who did make it to the presentation.

As promised, we will be releasing our slides and source code for the presentation. The slides can be downloaded here. As for the source code, we are maintaining the distribution release on, which requires a DOD CAC or ECA certificate to access. I understand that a lot of government folks outside of DOD don’t have access to, so we are trying to find another place to host this code where we can control access to only people in the .gov or .mil space. In the meantime, if you would like to get copies of the code, please e-mail me at my mil address ( from your mil/gov address and I will get it over to you. We are hoping to get all of that bundled up by next week.


Presentations I Attended

Keynote Panel Discussion – “Unplug to Save”

I started the week on Tuesday by attending the opening ceremony in which there was a panel discussion between several leaders in the government cyber defense community. The panel included Winn Schwartau, Mark Bengel, Doris Gardner, John Linkous, and John Pray, Jr and was moderated by Bobbie Stempfley. If you aren’t familiar with those individuals I’ll leave the Googling to you :).


The discussion was centered on the concept of “unplug to save”, focusing on whether it was an acceptable solution to unplug an entity from the Internet in order to prevent a catastrophic event from occurring as a result of a cyber attack. The panel was split and brought up several good points about the interdepencies between certain aspects of government and national defense, namely citing the one that were unknown. Truth be told, sometimes we just don’t know the affect removing certain networks from the Internet would have. I’m of the opinion that in some cases hitting the kill switch is the best policy, but that is only in an extreme and I’m not sure who that authority should be put on. The panel also got into a discussion of the inherently flawed nature of the Internet and the need for an architecture redesign. That was all fine and dandy and I won’t disagree…but until some form of governing body takes on the task of redesigning the fundamental protocols of the Internet and it is taken seriously then this is just a pie in the sky dream.


The only thing that really irked me during the discussion was when one of the panelist mentioned how we could “solve the cyber problem” by hiring the types of hackers who can’t get clearances. It would seem to be that doing such a thing would be a prime way to generate more Bradley Manning-esque cases. Granted, Manning wasn’t a computer security expert by any means, but imagine what someone with his kind of access could do with a bit of hacking knowledge. I’d just asoon we make cyber jobs within the government more attractive to young professionals so that they stay on the straight and narrow instead of the USG resorting to hiring criminals.



Internet Blockades

This talk was presented by Dr. Earl Zmijewski from Renesys and was one of the talks I enjoyed the most. He described several types of Internet censoring, blocking, and filtering techniques used across the world citing recent examples of Egypy, Libya, North Korea, and of course, the great firewall of China. All of his examples had technical data to back them up which really left me with satisfied. Random fact – N. Korea only has 768 public IP addresses.



Using Differential Network Traffic Analysis to Find Non-Signature Threats

This talk was centered on the creation of metadata of layer 7 data on the network. This isn’t entirely a new concept, but its one that most people are just now keying in on. The general idea is that you can strip out only the layer 7 data from HTTP/DNS/EMail streams, index it, and store it so that you can perform analysis on it. The benefit here is that the amount of disk space required for storage of this type of data is much less than storing full PCAP, allowing for more long term analytics. The talk was presented by David Cavuto from Narus, who did describe a few useful analytics I hadn’t though of. For example, collecting the length of HTTP request URIs and performing a standard deviation of those to look for outliers. This could potentially find incredibly long or incredibly short URIs that might be generated by malicious code.


Unfortuantely, being a vendor talk, Mr. Cavuto didn’t provide anything that would help people generate layer 7 metadata, but he did have a product he was selling that would do it. Fortunately, I have some code that will generate this type of metadata from PCAP. I’m going to button that up and release it here at some point…for free 🙂



Getting Ahead of Targeted and Zero-Day Malware Using Multiple Concurrent Detection Methodologies

This was, by far, my favorite presentaiton of the week. It was given by Eddie Schwartz, the new CSO at RSA. The talk was centered around investing time in the right areas of analysis. Namely, looking across the data sources that matter and not relying on the IDS to do all the work. Once Mr. Schwartz releases his slides I would recommend checking them out. He is a man who understands intrusion detection and how to make it effective. My favorite part of his talk was something he said a couple of times: Yes, doing it this way is hard. Suck it up. It gets easier.



They Are In Your Network, Now What?

This talk was presented by Joel Esler of Sourcefire. Joel is a really smart guy and a great presenter and he didn’t disappoint. My big take away from this one was his discussion of Razorback, which I really think is going to be one of the next big things in intrusion detection. I think a lot of the crowd missed the point on this. There were a lot of complaints because of the amount of legwork required to integrate the tool, but I think most of those people were overlooking the early stage the tool was in and the potential impact of the community released nuggets and detection plugins. I played with Razorback when it was first released and look forward to digging into it again once some of the setup and configuration pains are eased. I’ve already thought of quite a few nuggets that I could possibly write for it.



Analysis Pipeline: Real-time Flow Processing

I’m a huge fan of SiLK for netflow collection and analysis so I was excited to hear Daniel Ruef from CERT|SEI talk about Analysis Pipeline, a component that adds some cool flexibility to SiLK. Overall, I was really impressed with the capability and am looking forward to playing with the next version when it comes out in a couple of months. I always say that if you aren’t collecting netflow you are missing out on some great data, and SiLK is a great way to start collecting and parsing netflow for free. If you are already using SiLK, please do yourself a favor and look into the free add-on Analysis Pipeline.



Advanced Command and Control Channels

I thought this was an awesome overview of traditional and more advanced C2 channels that malware use. I don’t think anything here was really new, but the way the presentation was broken down was very intuitive and the examples that were given were rock solid. This was given by Neal Keating, a cyber intel analyst with the Department of State.



Final Thoughts

I really enjoyed the conference and honestly consider it one of the best and most relevant conferences for folks in cyber security within the gov/mil space. My only major complaint was that a few vendors managed to sneak their way into speaking and basically giving product sales pitches rather than technical talks. I’m hoping that feedback will make it back to the US-CERT folks and more effort will go into preventing that from happening in the future. I hate showing up to a talk that I hope to learn something from and being drilled with sales junk about products I don’t want. Yes, I’m looking at you General Dynamics and Netezza.


Overall, the staff did a great job of organizing and I’d be happy to have the opportunity to attend and speak at GFIRST 2012 in Atlanta next year.



TL;DR – Real World Security Scripting Presentation Slides – – Please e-mail me for full code.


My Review of SANS FOR610: Reverse Engineering Malware

I had the opportunity to take the SANS FOR610: Reverse Engineering Malware course in Orlando a couple of weeks ago and I wanted to write about my experience with the course. It’s no secret that I’m a big proponent of SANS. I’ve taken SEC 503 and SEC 504 at live events and I also mentor both courses here locally in Charleston. I wanted to take FOR610 as my next course because malware analysis is something I’ve not done a significant amount of. I’ve done a fair amount of behavioral analysis but very little code analysis at the assembly level and the course syllabus appeared to be heavy on that subject so it seemed like a natural fit to help fill in some of my knowledge gaps.


The course in Orlando was taught by Lenny Zeltser. Lenny is the primary author of the materials, and he also runs a great blog over at that I’ve followed for quite some time. I’ve been to a lot of different training courses and have also provided courses myself so I’ve seen plenty of bad instructors and good instructors. One of the things I find most challenging when teaching is taking highly complex subject matter and breaking it down in such a way that it is understandable. Being able to do this effectively is one of my primary criteria for defining a good instructor. That said, Lenny is perhaps one of the best teachers I’ve had. He took all of the highly complex concepts and broke them down in such a way that they were understandable at some level for every one in the class. He provided clear guidance and assistance during the lab portions of the class and I don’t remember a single question that was asked that he didn’t have an immediate answer for. His depth of knowledge on the subject was very apparent and appreciated.


The course really has two distinct sides to it: behavioral analysis and code analysis. Depending on your background, you may find this course very difficult at times and easier at others. I have written several programs in languages including Python, PHP, and C as a function of my primary job role, so I understand programming concepts, but I’m not a professional programmer by any stretch. That being the case, I had a harder time with the code analysis portions of the course. If I didn’t have any programming experience, I think I would have been completely lost on more than a few occasions. On the other side of the coin, I had no problems whatsoever with the behavioral analysis instruction and labs, but I could tell that several other people in the class did. From what I gathered by talking to people and looking at name badges, roughly 65-85% of the folks in my class were programmers of some sort. The course is touted as not requiring any previous programming experience, but I think to get the full benefit from the class, you should at least be familiar with core programming concepts, preferably in an object oriented language.

Course Content

The course was 5 days long and covered a variety of topics. I’ve outline some of those here along with the new skills I gained or enhanced as a result of what we learned.

Day 1

The first half of the first day was devoted to the setup of the virtual malware analysis lab used in the course. This is done in such a way so that the virtual lab can be used after you leave the class to do real world malware analysis in your organization using the virtual infrastructure. The second half of day one focused on using the lab for behavioral analysis.

New Skills I Gained: Knowledge of new malware analysis tools.

Day 2

This day built upon our knowledge of behavioral analysis and introduced new concepts related to that. We were introduced to dissecting packed executables and Javascript and Flash malware.

New Skills I Gained: Automated unpacking of packed files. Tools for dissection and extraction of malicious code in Flash objects.

Day 3

This day was devoted to code analysis. We were introduced to assembly and spent a great deal of time looking at commonly identifiable assembly patterns used in malware. This was one of the most useful parts of the class for me. We also looked a bit at anti-disassembling techniques that malware authors use.

New Skills I Gained: Enhanced understanding of assembly. A plethora of anomalies to look for in assembly level code analysis of malware. Patching code at the assembly level to get a desired outcome.

Day 4

The fourth day focused on analysis of malware that was designed to prevent itself from being analyzed. We looked at packers and learned how to manually step through malware code to unpack it for analysis. The day ended with an detailed and highly valuable look into deobfuscating malware in browser scripts.

New Skills I Gained: Detailed understanding of assembly for malware analysis. Manual extraction of unpacked code from packed executables.

Day 5

The final day of the course was another one of the most useful parts of the course for me. This first half of this day focused on analysis of malicious Microsoft Office files and malicious PDFs. After lunch, we covered shellcode analysis and memory analysis.

New Skills I Gained: Tools and procedures for extracting malicious code from MS Office files and PDFs. Better understanding of PDF file structure. Extraction of malware running in memory.


The labs were an integral part of the course. In the labs we analyzed real malware samples in our virtual analysis lab. I’m incredibly happy that we looked at REAL code from REAL attackers rather than simple malware created in a lab for the purpose of the course. Doing things this way we got to see how attackers will often take shortcuts or write bad code that we have to sort through rather than just dissecting cookie cutter malware with no imperfections. The labs served their purpose, helping reinforce new concepts in a practical manner. During the course, everyone had their laptops open and two virtual machines running at all times as we would dive into them for exercises very frequently.

Although I was very pleased with the labs in some ways, I am critical of them for a few other reasons. Prior to the class, you are provided some instructions on how to setup a single Windows based VM that is destined to be infected with malware repeatedly throughout the class. In addition, the instructions said we would be given a version of Remnux, the reverse engineering malware Linux distribution created by Lenny, to use during the class when we got there. I got this all up and running without any problems, but I was pretty upset when I got to the class to find out that there was quite a bit more setup to do. As a matter of fact, almost the entire first half of the first day of instruction was taken up by additional lab configuration. We were given a CD that contained a variety of tools that were to be installed on our Windows VM. I think all in all, we had to install about 25 different tools. Several people asked why these weren’t provided prior to the class and we were told it was so that we would take more ownership over our malware analysis labs and could ask questions. Although I can respect the comments in support of this, I think providing these tools prior to the class along with the other instructions would allow for better use of time. At lunch the first day I felt a bit cheated as my company had paid for an expensive course where I was just sitting around installing software. Providing this software prior to the course and having people come prepared would have allowed for a whole half day of additional instruction which would have been incredibly valuable.

The other primary issue I had with the labs was the format in which they were laid out. In most of the labs, Lenny would teach us a concept and then step through the process on his own system. Then he would turn us loose on our systems to work on the same example he just walked through. Although somewhat helpful, it wasn’t entirely effective since we had just seen him do the same example we were working through. I would contrast this with the lab format in the SEC 503: Intrusion Detection In-Depth course. In that course, students are given a workbook with lab exercises. The instructor there would teach a concept, go through a lab on screen, and then turn students to the workbook and give them some time to work through similar, but different examples. This format provided a great deal more value because we had to do quite a bit more thinking to get through the examples on our own, rather than just recreating what the instructor did.

Summing It Up

Overall, my experience with FOR 610 was very valuable and I’m thrilled I got the chance to take the course. I walked away with a lot of new skills and am able to provide a lot of value to my organization as a result. I now feel completely comfortable performing code analysis of malicious binaries. I also learned more assembly than I ever thought I would and feel like I could even write some simple programs in assembly should I choose to punish myself in that manner. I also gained a greater understanding of lower level operating system components which will prove useful in several cases. Make no mistake, this is a very difficult course, which is why ways numbered it so high. It is the highest level forensics course they teach, and it will challenge you. However, if you are up to it, there is a lot to be learned here, and I have no doubt that it is the best malware analysis course you will find.

You can read more about this course at

Collecting Threat Intelligence

One of the more important skills in intrusion detection and analysis is the ability to evaluate an IP address or domain name in order to build an intelligence profile on that host. Gathering this intelligence can help guide you to making more informed decisions regarding the remote hosts that are communicating with your network in order to determine if they are of a malicious or hostile nature. I recently wrote a two-part article on collecting threat intelligence for which describe some methods that can be used to collect threat intelligence on a host or network.

Collecting Threat Intelligence (Part 1)

Collecting Threat Intelligence (Part 2)

The 10 Commandments of Intrusion Analysis

I’ve been actively involved in the training and development of intrusion detection analysts for a few years now which includes being a SANS Mentor for SEC 503: Intrusion Detection In-Depth. One thing I find myself constantly doing is trying to evolve my philosophy on effective intrusion detection. While doing this, some themes arise that tend to stay consistent no matter how that philosophy changes. Through that, I’ve written up something I call the “10 Commandments of Intrusion Analysis” which highlight some of those themes that seem to be at the core of what I try to instill in the analysts I train and in my own analysis. They don’t really command you to anything, but there are 10 of them, so the name kind of fits. These may not fit you or your organizational goals or personal style, but they work for me!

1. Analysts, Analysts, Analysts!

The most important thing an analyst can have ingrained into them in their importance. An analyst is the first line of defense. The analyst is sitting in the crows nest watching for the icebergs. It is the analyst who can keep attacks from happening and can stop attacks from getting worse. Most security incidents begin with an analyst providing a tip based upon an IDS alert and end with an analyst putting in new signatures and developing new tools based up on intelligence gained from a declared incident. The analyst is the beginning and the end in information security. The alpha and omega. Okay, maybe that’s a bit dramatic, but the importance of an intrusion analyst can’t be understated.

2. Unless you created the packet yourself, there are no absolutes.

Analysis happens in a world of assumptions and its important to remember that. Most of the decisions you will make are centered around a packet or a log entry and then honed based upon intelligence gathered through research. The fact is that the analyst isn’t the one who generated the traffic, so every decision you will make is based upon an assumption. Don’t worry though; there is nothing wrong with that. Ask your friendly neighborhood chemist or physicist. Most of their work is based upon assumptions and they have great success. The takeaway here is that there are no absolutes. Is that IP address REALLY a known legitimate host? Does that domain REALLY belong to XYZ company? Is that DNS server REALLY supposed to be talking to that database server? There are no absolutes, merely assumptions, and because of that remember that assumptions can change. Always question yourself and stay on your toes.

3. Be mindful of how far abstracted from the data you actually are.

An analyst depends on data to perform their function. This data can come in the form of a PCAP file, an IIS log file, or SYSLOG file. Since most of your time will be spent using various tools to interact with data it’s crucial to be mindful of how that tool interacts with the data. Did you know that if you run Tcpdump without specifying otherwise, it will only capture the first 68 bytes of data in a packet? How about that Wireshark displays sequence and acknowledgement numbers within TCP packets in a relative manner by default? Tools are made by people and sometimes “features” can cloud data and prevent proper analysis. I think both of the features I described earlier are great, but I’m also mindful that they exist so I can see all of the packet data available or view the real sequence and acknowledgement numbers when needed. In a job where reliance upon data is critical, you can’t afford to not understand exactly how tools interact with that data.

4. Two sets of eyes are always better than one.

There is a reason authors have editors, policemen have partners, and there are two guys sitting in every nuclear silo. No matter how much experience you have and how good you are you will always miss things. This is to be expected because different people come from different backgrounds. I work with the government so the first thing I look at when examining network traffic is the source and destination country. I’ve worked with people who have systems administration backgrounds and as a result, will look at the port number of the traffic first. I’ve even worked with people who have a number crunching background who will look at the packet size first. This demonstrates that our experiences shape our tactics a bit differently. This means that the numbers guy might see something that the sysadmin didn’t see or that the government guy might have insight that the numbers guy didn’t. Whenever possible it’s always a good idea to have a second set of eyes look at the issue you are facing.

5. Never invite an attacker to dance.

This is something I’ve believed since the first day I ever fired up a Snort sensor, but IDS guru Mike Poor phrased it best while I was attending one of his SANS classes when he said that you should never invite an attacker to dance. As an analyst its very tempting to want to investigate a hostile IP address a bit beyond conventional means. Trust me, there have been many occasions where I’ve been tempted to port scan a hostile that kept sending me painfully obviously crafted UDP packets. Even more so, any time someone attempts to DOS a network I’m responsible for defending, I wish nothing more than to be able to unleash the full fury of a /8 network on their poor unsuspecting DSL connection. The problem with this is that 99% of the time we don’t know who or what we are dealing with. Although you may just be seeing scanning activity, the host that is originating the traffic could be operated by a large group or even a military division of another country. Even something as simple as a ping could tip off an attacker that you know they exist, prompting them to change their tactics, change source hosts, or even amplify their efforts. You don’t know who you are dealing with, what their motivation is, and what there capabilities are, so you should never invite them to dance.

6. Context!

One word can drastically change the dynamic of your monitoring and detection capabilities. In order to be effective you must have context into the network you are defending. Network diagrams, listings of servers and their roles, breakdowns of IP address allocations, and more can be your best friend. Basically any and everything that can be used to document the assets within the network, how they function, and how they relate to other assets are beneficial in running down anomalous events. Depending upon your role in the organization you may not be in a position to obtain these things and if they don’t already exist you are going to have a heck of a time getting the systems folks to put in the leg work to create them. However, as difficult as this may be, its an effort that’s worth pursuing. Whether you have to present your case to the CIO or just buy your network engineers a case of their favorite adult beverage its ultimately worth the effort.

7. Packets, in a word, are good.

The ultimate argument in life is whether or not people are inherently good or inherently evil.  This same argument can be had for packets as well. You can either be the analyst that believes all packets are inherently evil or the analyst that believes all packets are inherently good. I’ve noticed that most analysts typically start their career as for the former and quickly progress the later. That’s because its simply not feasible to approach every single piece of traffic as something that could be a potential root level compromise. If you do this, you’ll eventually get fired because you spent your entire day running down a single alert or you’ll just get burnt out. There is something to be said for being thorough but the fact of the matter is that most of the traffic that occurs on a network isn’t going to be evil, and as such, packets should be treated innocent until proven guilty.

8. Analysis is no more about tcpdump than astronomy is about a telescope.

Whenever I interview someone for any analyst position that’s above entry level I always ask them to describe how they would investigate a typical IDS alert. I get frustrated when someone gives answers along the lines of “I use  Tcpdump, Wireshark, Network Miner, Netwitness, Arcsight, Xeyes, etc” with no further clarification. Although their are processes and sciences in intrusion analysis, intrusion analysis itself is not a process or a science, but rather an art. If this wasn’t the case then it wouldn’t even be necessary to have humans in the loop when it comes to intrusion detection. An effective analyst has to understand that while different tools may be the most important part of the job, those things are merely pieces of the puzzle. Just like an astronomer’s telescope is just another tool in his arsenal that allows him to figure out what makes the planets orbit the sun, Wireshark is just another tool in an analysts arsenal that allows him to figure out what makes a packet bypass a firewall rule. Start with the science, add in a few tools and processes, stay cognizant of the big picture, keep an attention to detail, and eventually the combination of all of those things and the experience you gain over time will help you develop your own analysis philosophy. It’s at that point you have taken your analysis to the level of an art, and made it so that your worthy enough to not be replaced by a machine.

9. Sometimes, we lose.

No matter how hard you try there will come a point in which the network you are defending gets successfully attacked and compromised. In the modern security landscape its inevitable and there isn’t a lot you can do about it. In these times its likely that the analyst will take the heat over the incident. Because of this, you need to be prepared when it happens. An incident won’t be remembered for how an intrusion occurred, but rather how it was responded to, the amount of downtime that occurred, the amount of information that was lost, and ultimately the amount of money it costs the organization. What recommendations can you make to management to ensure a similar incident doesn’t occur again? What can you show your superiors to explain why the attack wasn’t detected? What shortcomings do your tools have? These are questions that can’t fully be answered until an intrusion has occurred and you have the context of an attack, but you can definitely consider the questions now and have a plan for how your information will be presented to key figures. You will get caught off guard and you will be blind sided, but its important that you don’t appear as such and you keep your game face on. This can make the difference between a promotion and a pink slip.

10. Dig deeper.

At the end of the day you have to have something to rest your laurels on and that has to be the fact that you’ve done your due diligence and that you’ve given your best. My “motto” per se when it comes to intrusion analysis is “Dig Deeper”. A defender has to control 65,535 ports. An attacker has to compromise one. A defender has to protect 10,000 users. An attacker has to deceive one. A defender has to examine millions of packets. An attacker has to hide a malicious payload in one. What can you do to increase your visibility into the data? What proficiency can you develop that gives you that edge against the attacker? You have a hunch that there is more than meets the eye, so what can you do to dig deeper?

Sanitizing PCAP Files for Public Distrubution

It happens pretty often that I’ll come across an interesting PCAP file that I want to share with others. Unfortunately, divulging these packet captures can give away certain sensitive information such as an organizations internal IP range, IP addresses of sensitive company assets, MAC addresses of critical hardware that could identify the product vendors, and more.

Fortunately, there is a tool which helps alleviate some of these issues. The tool is called Tcprewrite and is actually a part of the Tcpreplay suite. Tcpreplay is used to send packets from a PCAP back across the wire, but the suite actually contains a few other useful tools.Tcprewrite itself can be used to add and modify packet fields within PCAP files. For example, if you wanted to replace the layer two addressing information within a PCAP so that all of the packets have a specified source and destination MAC address you could use the following syntax:

tcprewrite --enet-dmac=00:55:22:AF:C6:37 --enet-smac=00:44:66:FC:29:AF --infile=input.pcap --outfile=output.pcap

Tcprewrite can do neat things at layer four as well, including remapping ports used in sessions. The following example will remap all port 80 traffic to port 8080.

tcprewrite --portmap=80:8080 --infile=input.pcap --outfile=output.pcap

The examples shown above were taken directly from the tcprewrite wiki page ( where you can find quite a few other usage examples.

The real value of tcprewrite, and the reason for this article, is its ability to randomize the addressing information in a PCAP file. This is done with the following syntax:

tcprewrite --seed=423 --infile=input.pcap --outfile=output.pcap

In this line, the seed option is used in the randomization of the addresses. This will replace all of the IP addresses in the IP headers of the packets and will also modify any ARP packets in the traffic accordingly.

From what I’ve been able to determine this option doesn’t randomize and rewrite and MAC addresses, which is a bit of a problem since MAC addresses can give away the vendor of a piece of hardware. The last thing I want is the entire world knowing that I use Cisco/Juniper/Enterasys/Etc based external firewalls. The ability to rewrite MAC addresses is there but its not random. What you can do in this case is to split a PCAP file into two separate files representing each direction of traffic. This can be done with tcpdump or tcpprep, which is a part of the tcprewrite suite as well. Using tcprewrite you can split the traffic like this:

tcpprep --auto=bridge --pcap=input.pcap --cachefile=input.cache

From there you can use syntax similar to what was shown above to replace the MAC addresses. This isn’t randomized so you will basically have to make something up. At the very least I’d recommend replacing the OUI section of the MACs. That syntax would look something like this:

tcprewrite --enet-dmac=00:44:66:FC:29:AF,00:55:22:AF:C6:37 --enet-smac=00:66:AA:D1:32:C2,00:22:55:AC:DE:AC --cachefile=input.cache --infile=input.pcap --outfile=output.pcap

It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to write a python script that uses tcpprep and tcprewrite to automate the randomization of MAC addresses as well.

You can download tcprewrite as part of the tcpreplay suite at or just apt-get/yum install tcpreply. The tool is Unix only (or you can use Cygwin if you are tied to Windows).