TT1TTONE

Thank you very much guys for all your help! It's up and running, have been testing various thing (very basic stuff), it has been really fun. Quite surprised of Windows Firewall though, never thought it really worked. I've already got my stuff, but thank you anyways :) And I wouldn't like to imagine how much shipping would cost if you would send me one of those all the way from NZ...

OK, and AFAIK; the Meterpreter for instance - is not like a worm that will spread to non targeted computers even IF they would be in the same subnet, making it safe to play around with?

Thank you very much! Brilliant sum, as it reminds me of those parts that I had forgot :) And thanks to all others who have contributed to the thread aswell! Forgot to thank you in my previous post. So now when I've my "clean" computers on a subnet (192.168.0.X) and the VMs on another (192.168.2.X), would I be safe enough to play around with BackTrack, NMAP, Metasploit and what not on the "dirty" subnet without having to worry about harming the clean one?

So the host acts as the NAT which can be compared to what my router is doing (Internet <-> home network), I can understand that part. Except for the VM-host, right? Since that computer logically is in both subnets, if I've understood it correctly. The subnet masks of both networks are 255.255.255.0, isn't that how it's supposed to be in this case? I understand the underlined part as i think that it's pretty logical, but how can I confirm whether or not the router is forwarding broadcasts from the visualized network with or without that the host interferes? Well that is what I'm trying to avoid in this case, so it's its opposite that I should consider now I believe. That pretty much confirms what I thought, so I guess that this is what I'll try to setup on VMware :) Believe it or not, but I actually got a A on this when we read about it in school back in the days

I didn't really understand what you meant with "see the VM's"? The lack of configuration that can be done in VMware Player tires me... 192.168.0.1 [Router] / | |-192.168.0.X [Bunch of "clean" devices ++ the host] | |-192.168.2.43 [Where the victim VM is up] Now, the VM can ping the router, and some but not all of the "clean" devices and the host can ping the VM aswell. But whenever I try to ping the VM from a device on the other subnet, I get a reply from a what looks like an class-A IP-adress: C:\Users\Thomas&gt;ping 192.168.2.128 Pinging 192.168.2.128 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 82.XXX.17X.1X5: TTL expired in transit. Reply from 82.XXX.17X.1X5: TTL expired in transit. Reply from 82.XXX.17X.1X5: TTL expired in transit. Reply from 82.XXX.17X.1X5: TTL expired in transit. What's going on?

OK, sounds better than I thought then. So this is the furthest I can go in order to separate the dirty and the good, without going as far as physically dividing them?

I know that this might sound like that I'm stupid, but I don't get where I should get to choose more specific options regarding the NATing? In VMware that is. Nevermind that... So now I've set up so that the VM gets an IP-adress (192.168.3.X) while the clean and non-experimental devices is in the range of 192.168.0.0-255. BUT, there is a major problem; I can ping across the subnets...

Thanks alot, much appreciated! :D

Anyone who can point me to the right direction? I've been trying to understand the differences between the various network connections that VMware supports, which are bridged networking, network address translation (NAT), and host-only networking, but don't understand which one that would do what I wanted to do (putting the VMs in their own network so that I don't target wrong devices on the LAN).

Initially, I will go with just 2 VMs, one running BackTrack and the other running Windows XP or Windows 7. I'm not so sure but I believe that since BackTrack basically is a Linux-dist it shouldn't be too hungry on resources? And the victim OS will not be running anything too demanding after all. Internet access would be needed for the host only, so that I can access info, tools, exploits, updates etc. But I would prefer if I somehow could put the two guests in their own "LAN".

I'll have to save that until I got some more time, but it definitely sounds like the way to go when I feel for advancing beyond the basics So I've got myself a decent computer with a Core 2 Duo @ 2,3 GHz and 4GB of RAM some days ago, but I have yet to install a (host) OS and a good virtualization software. Thought of Windows 7 and VMware, how does that sound? Oh, and I've got a D-Link 655 as a router at home, how would I go on if I would want to isolate the above mentioned computer from the rest of the network, but yet be able to connect through it wirelessly?

Sufficient for hosting the 2 virtual machines.

I do have some older(!) computers but I'm talking about 10 years old ones. I might buy a second hand laptop with a decent processor and double its RAM. I do think about that. Would a laptop with Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2,0GHz and 4GB of RAM be sufficient?

Hi! My interest for pen-testing or computer security in general keeps growing for each day. For a long time I've thought about setting up a computer with 2 guest OSes that would be in their own network if possible, - one of them being the attacker and the other being the victim. It has been kinda hard to realize this mostly because of the lack of a computer with decent hardware that is needed for virtualization, and because I don't have the money to spend on a new computer at the moment. Now, I've a pretty good main computer that I use for "normal" things (banking, storing personal images/videos, playing games, etc) and since my desire to start experimenting with pen-testing has become so big, I've actually started thinking about using that computer for hosting the earlier mentioned VMs. Is this stupid, as I've personal stuff on that computer that I absolutely wouldn't want to lose or contaminate with something nasty? To make things even worse, the computer mentioned is full-disk encrypted (Truecrypt), and needs to stay so. As Truecrypt's official forum doesn't allow members registered with certain e-mails to post or start any threads, I've failed to direct this question to their community. But I doubt that you wouldn't know more than them so I ask you guys instead; Is there any risk that the safety that is maintained by the encryption gets compromised as it runs VMs that maybe leads to data leaks or so? The pen-testing would be conducted using Back-Track (mainly NMAP, Metasploit and SET) on the attacker-side, and Windows XP SP2/SP3 on the victim-side. Thanks in advance, TT1TTONE

Thank you very much Infiltrator for your inputs! Does what you wrote apply to DNS-spoofing as well, or does it come with more/less/other risks? Even though that I know that they differ from each other (ARP poisoning and DNS-spoofing, that is) , I just want to make sure that I don't miss something important. And once again - thank you very much for your nice answers!