This message ordinarily occurs if your lab hits its maximum time limit. I believe this particular lab will run up to 2 hours.
Have you tried refreshing and clicking Start Lab? Does a new lab session spin up?
Quoted “five minutes” by the lab, it’s been 35. I don’t have unlimited time to try and run these. This is the fourth week in a row where a lab I have tried to load has taken over half an hour to load, giving me no time to actually complete the labs.
Lab I’m trying to run: “Next-Gen Firewalls: 1.2 Guided Exercise”
Browser: Microsoft Edge, Version 134.0.3124.93 (Official build) (64-bit)
OS: Windows 11, 23H2 build 22631.5039
Reloading the page when it’s stuck on “Finishing up building your lab environment… 100%” doesn’t change anything because it just starts over from 0%. My computer is more than sufficient to run these labs on its own hardware if I could just download them and run them in VMWare Workstation, because something has to be done about these loading times.
Hey there - I’ll flag this to our engineering team to see if they can see any issues specific to your launch attempts.
Can you confirm if other labs are also failing to load? Or is it just this one?
- The original lab didn’t load after 60 minutes, which is all the time I had to work on labs for today.
- The lab immediately after “Next-Gen Firewalls: 1.3 Challenge Exercise”, did load with a much more abrupt loading speed jumping from “3 minutes” to fully loaded.
- A randomly selected lab “Dynamic Analysis Paralysis” also loaded having jumped from about 3 minutes to fully loaded.
Hopefully this information is helpful.
Thanks! Both lessons in Next-Gen Firewalls (Guided Exercise and Challenge Exercise) use the same environment, so if you were able to load the lab in the Challenge Exercise, you should be able to go back to the Guided Exercise, click Start, and the same lab will come up in a few seconds.
If any lab is taking longer than 5 minutes to load, I would just restart it (Machines tab > Restart Lab).
CISSP 1.2 not loading either. At this point, someone just give me the answers so I can review on my own. I don’t have time for this.
To confirm, are you referring to the Data Masking lab? I just tested it and it seemed to load fine. If you find that a lab is failing to load - ie stalling at 100% for longer than 5 minutes - I would recommend clicking Restart Lab to get a fresh session. It may also help to launch another lab for comparison.
So if a lab gets stuck at resolving router IP with ARP would you also restart it? I think it’s not going to get past that point ever, it’s been about half an hour…
Which lab is this, and do you have a screenshot?
It’s Network Reconnaissance, I finally managed to get in yesterday night & now I’ve got some weirdness in the challenge bit. I got 5 machines from the first scan (masscan) ending in 0.3, 0.5, 0.10, 0.200, 1.101, moved the number up/down till it was accepted (really nok), & I can’t seem to be getting the right answer for question no. 3 as the only file I saw was robots.txt & your system does not like it.
I’m pleased to have access to whatever tools get installed on kali linux without setting up a system myself, but I find the VM-s a bit awkard:
- VM loading seems to be tricky
- Ubuntu wants to upgrade & I have to dismiss a dialog window every time i’m logged in
- closing the Terminal window that spawns the Kali root shell may result in some crashes (?!?)
- maximizing the VM window seems impossible on my laptop.
Just in case, I’m using Google Chrome on a Mac OS X 12.7.6 & I’ll have no alternative to this particular setup during the following weeks.
Update 2 hours later:
I managed to pass the challenge basically by not following the instructions ad litteram. I’m not sure when, how & why the instructions were written but if most people are like me they’d expect the instructions to be correct. Maybe they meant to work in a VM & meanwhile the lab content has been moved to a container? I doubt they were meant to be misleading.
Thanks for flagging! We’ll have the instructor take a look.
In the meantime, on your observation that you found 5 hosts, but Question 1 is expecting a different answer than 5
I can confirm that while the .10 host does indeed exist, it’s not in scope for your scan in Task 1, so it’s not expected to count towards the total host count.
Task 1 specifically calls for running masscan to identify hosts that have one of the top 100 ports open. The .10 host exists, but at least in my testing, it’s only running ports 8080 and 50,000 - neither of which are included in the top100.conf file, so it wouldn’t show up as part of Task 1.
Just finished the rest of the Challenge, and it seems to be working as expected.
Regarding Task 3 - the instructions are essentially as follows:
- Find the DNS server
- Run an Nmap scan using --dns-server (replaceing with the appropriate IP address.
- Okay, now you should have domain name, including one that references staging. That’s the one you care about. We’re going to run scans on this one, but to be thorough, we will want to see if this domain resolves to any other IP addresses besides the one we already know.
- Use the command in the lab guide to add the nameserver IP to etc/resolv.conf
- Now scan the domain again using the http-enum script. Do you find any files? The answer is no, but as you read the results, do you see any other IP addresses for this domain that Nmap specifically flags as “not scanned”? (you should)
- Scan this IP address with the http-enum script. Do you get any interesting files? You should!
Ok, maybe I got to discovering the extra host with the wrong command after getting stuck too many times. That would account for the higher number.
Can somebody help me? I want to submit my answer after applying all the instructions to obtain the 50 max point. How can i submit it
If you are referring to 4.2 Lab: Audit a Web Server…
The answer is not 50.
The point of this lab is not to just run the scripts. All the scripts will run.
The point is to study the output and determine if the security requirement is met. The only way 50 points would be awarded is if ALL the security requirements were met. This is not the case.