DDoS Defense Archive

Security firm Radware claims to have spotted evidence online that suggests hactivist group Anonymous is gearing up to target denial-of-service attacks on the websites of British companies BT and GlaxoSmithKline during the Olympics, and maybe do much more.

The Radware Emergency Response Team has identified postings on Pastebin that suggest that Anonymous intends to attack London-based global network-services provider BT and pharmaceuticals and healthcare provider company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Both companies happen to have roles to play associated with the London-based Olympics — GSK is providing drug-testing and associated medical input, while BT is supporting numerous Olympics-related projects. Radware says its evidence is information posted by someone claiming to be tied to the shadowy group Anonymous.

Anonymous uses a few tools to attack its targets, and one of them is the High Orbit Ion Cannon (HOIC), a weapon that’s been out for about six months, says Carl Herberger, vice president of security solutions at Radware. He says there’s now attack information contained in what’s called a “HOIC booster” posted online and advertised as coming from Anonymous to attack both BT and GSK. He acknowledges, though, this “could be anybody.”

The HOIC tool provides you with the ability to use scripted code, Herberger says, noting it allows for opening up many connections from a single machine, and hence represents a more powerful attack tool from the older, known “Low Orbit Ion Cannon” attack tools, which couldn’t do this. The HOIC booster information that’s posted essentially represents something along the lines of “ordnance” that can be loaded into the HOIC to hit a target.

While the Pastebin information related to HOIC may in the end may be of no consequence, Herberger says there were a series of attacks on sites in India in the past in which this type of information was posted in advance, and the attacks did occur. Radware is putting out this information in what it regards as an advanced warning to help companies prepare.

For fast DDoS protection click here.

Source: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/073012-anonymous-bt-gsk-261281.html

Botnet operators are changing their methods for conducting distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks.

A customer study from security firm Prolexic found that over the last quarter, DDoS attacks used less bandwidth and took place over shorter durations of time. Additionally, botnet operators were more aggressive with the time they did spend, increasing packet-per-second volume by 63 per cent.

Researchers believe that the trend indicates a tendency for botnet operators to be more cautious with their attacks, conducting shorter operations in order to reduce the risk of detection and the possible loss of their networks.

“As perpetrators realise their DDoS attacks are being blocked by a mitigation provider, they are moving on to easier targets sooner than in the past,” the company said in the report.

Despite being more cautious in their activity, botnet herders showed no sign of letting up. The study found that DDoS attacks were on the rise across all sectors of the business space. The report found that the total number of reported attacks had doubled over the same period in 2011.

The survey found that attacks on the routing and transport layers of infrastructure components accounted for 81 per cent of attacks, while application layer attacks were down on the quarter.

Prolexic researchers believe that the trend indicates a growth in the popularity of DDoS attacks and easier management and infection tools.

“This indicates the technical barrier to entry has been significantly lowered for malicious actors who seek to participate in denial of service attacks through improved accessibility to no-cost and simple, yet powerful tools,” the company said.

Source: http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2191368/ddos-attacks-becoming-shorter-and-more-intense-as-botnet-operators-get-cautious

Late last month, two members of the hacker group LulzSec pleaded guilty to launching distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks against entities ranging from the state of Arizona to Nintendo to the CIA. Yet despite extensive media coverage of such attacks, chief information security officers are still surprised when their companies get hit.

This is not an unforeseeable lightning bolt from the blue, people. The cyber world is full of anonymous arsonists, and too many businesses are operating without a fire department on call. A few sprinklers won’t cut it when things flare out of control. Firewalls and intrusion-prevention system appliances are no substitute for specialized DDoS backup when an attack escalates.

Proactively securing a mitigation service can be a good insurance policy–in fact, it’s better than insurance, which pays off only after damage is done. That’s because mitigation services are designed to prevent destruction from occurring in the first place. Not only can a mitigation service act as a deterrent–many attackers will move on to easier prey when they see an initial DDoS attack fail–but these providers have the capacity and expertise to rapidly scale DDoS countermeasures against coordinated, professional attacks. That can mean keeping your website online even under heavy bombardment.

Big And Small Companies At Risk

Denial-of-service attacks used to be something that happened to other people, those with high online visibility. Not anymore. “We’ve seen very small companies come to us and they can’t figure out why they’re under attack,” says Chris Richter, VP of security products and services at Savvis. They ask, “‘What have we done?'”

Blame the proliferation of prepackaged DDoS toolkits, such as the Low Orbit Ion Cannon and Dirt Jumper, for the fact that no one’s safe. Like any brute-force tactic, DDoS relies on the fact that any attack, even the most rudimentary, repeated with sufficient volume and frequency, can effectively shut down a network or website. Botnets often span thousands or millions of systems worldwide; Akamai, for example, provides a real-time attack heat map. In early July, attack rates were almost 30% above normal, with hot spots in Delaware and Italy. Geographic dispersion, coupled with network traffic crafted to look like legitimate connections from normal users, makes DDoS attacks both extremely effective and difficult to defeat if you’re not an expert with the right tools.

There are three main distributed denial-of-service categories:

>> Volumetric attacks overwhelm WAN circuits with tens of gigabits per second of meaningless traffic–so-called ICMP or UDP floods.

>> Layer 3 attacks abuse TCP. For example, SYN floods overload network equipment by starting but never completing thousands of TCP sessions using forged sender addresses. SYN floods can be in excess of 1 million packets per second, largely in response to the wider deployment of hardware countermeasures on firewalls and other security appliances, says Neal Quinn, COO of DDoS mitigation specialist Prolexic.

>> Layer 7 floods use HTTP GET or POST requests to overload application and Web servers. From the attacker’s perspective, L7 exploits aren’t anonymous. The attacking client’s identity (IP address) is exposed because a TCP handshake must be completed. Attackers who use this approach consider the risk outweighed by the technique’s effectiveness at much lower volumes and the traffic’s stealthy nature. Requests are designed to look like normal Web traffic, factors that make L7 attacks hard to detect.

Our InformationWeek 2012 Strategic Security Survey shows that the increasing sophistication of threats is the most-cited reason for worry among respondents who say their orgs are more vulnerable now than in 2011, and L7 attacks are certainly sophisticated. They’re also getting more common: Mark Teolis, founder and CEO of DOSarrest, a DDoS mitigation service, says 85% of the attacks his company sees have a Layer 7 component. Attackers leveraging L7 are often developers; they may do some reconnaissance on a website, looking for page requests that aren’t cacheable and are very CPU-intensive–things like filling a shopping cart, searching a database, or posting a complex form.

Teolis says that a mere 2 to 3 Mbps increase in specially crafted L7 traffic can be crippling. “We’ve had gaming sites tell us they can handle 30,000 customers, but if 100 hit this one thing, it’ll bring down the entire site,” he says.

Layer 7 attacks are tough to defeat not only because the incremental traffic is minimal, but because it mimics normal user behavior. Teolis has seen attacks where an individual bot may hit a site only once or twice an hour–but there are 20,000 bots involved. Conventional network security appliances just can’t handle that kind of scenario. And meanwhile, legitimate customers can’t reach your site.

Why Us?

The motivations for a DDoS attack are as varied as the perpetrators. For many, it’s just business, with targets strategically chosen by cyber criminals. Others are political–a prime example is LulzSec hitting the Arizona Department of Public Safety to protest the state’s strict immigration law, SB 1070. And for some, it’s just sport.

Given this randomness, it’s impossible to predict the need for professional distributed denial-of-service mitigation. For example, Teolis says one of DOSarrest‘s customers was the Dog Whisperer, that guru of man’s best friend. “If Cesar Millan can get attacked, anyone is fair game,” he says.

Purchasing mitigation services requires the same kind of budgeting as any form of IT security: What you spend on controls should be proportional to the value of the data or website. So, while any organization with an online presence is at some risk, those with financial or reputational assets that could be seriously damaged by going dark should take DDoS mitigation most seriously.

Everyone should take these preparatory steps.

>> Do online reconnaissance: Follow what’s being said about your company online, particularly on public social networks, and look for chatter that might hint at extortion or hacktivism. Subscribe to security threat assessment reports covering the latest DDoS techniques and incidents. Prolexic is one source for threat advisories; US-CERT also has overviews, like this one on Anonymous.

>> Heed threat mitigation recommendations: DDoS threat reports typically include details about the attack signature and recommended mitigation steps. For example, a recent Prolexic report on the High Orbit Ion Cannon identifies specific attack signatures, in this case HTTP requests, and content filter rules to block them. For L3/L4 attacks, incorporate these rules into your firewall; do likewise for L7 attacks if your firewall supports application-layer filtering.

>> Have a communications strategy: Know what you’ll tell employees, customers, and the media should you be the victim of an attack. Don’t wait to make statements up on the fly.

>> Have an emergency mitigation backup plan: Although most DDoS mitigation services operate on a monthly subscription basis, if you haven’t signed up and an attack overwhelms your defenses, at least know who you’re gonna call. Quinn and Teolis say their services can be operational and filtering DDoS traffic within minutes, though of course it will cost you.

What To Look For In DDoS Mitigation

At the risk of oversimplification, DDoS mitigation services are fundamentally remote network traffic filters. Once your system detects an attack affecting your network or servers, you redirect traffic to the service; the service filters out the junk and passes legitimate packets to their original destinations. In this sense, it’s like a cloud-based spam filter for websites.

This traffic redirection, so-called on-ramping, is typically done via DNS. The mitigation provider creates a virtual IP address, the customer makes a DNS A record (hostname) change pointing to the remote VIPA, traffic flows through the mitigation provider’s filters, and the provider forwards only legitimate traffic on to the original site. Those facing attacks on multiple systems can divert entire subnets using Border Gateway Protocol advertisements, using Generic Routing Encapsulation tunneling to direct traffic to the mitigation provider. Advertising a new route to an entire address block protects an entire group of machines and, says Quinn, has the advantage of being asymmetrical, in that the mitigation service is used only for inbound traffic.

The most important DDoS mitigation features are breadth of attack coverage, speed of service initiation (traffic on-ramping), and traffic capacity. Given the increasing popularity of application-layer attacks, any service should include both L3/4 and L7 mitigation technology. Services may segment features into proactive, before-the-attack monitoring and reactive, during-the-incident mitigation.

Customers with monthly subscriptions should demand typical and maximum mitigation times–measured in minutes, not hours–backed up by a service-level agreement with teeth. Even those procuring emergency mitigation services should expect fairly rapid response. Most DDoS specialists staff operations centers 24/7.

With DDoS mitigation, procrastination can be expensive. For those 70% of customers who first turn to DOSarrest in an emergency, the setup fee for the first month is around $3,500 to $4,000, depending on the complexity of the site. In contrast, an average monthly cost on a subscription basis is $700 per public-facing IP address.

Filtered bandwidth is another way to differentiate between services. Some, like Prolexic, adopt an all-you-can-eat pricing model. For a flat fee per server, customers can use the service as often as they need with as much bandwidth as required. Others, like DOSarrest, keep the “use as often as you like” model but include only a certain amount of clean bandwidth (10 Mbps in its case) in the base subscription, charging extra for higher-bandwidth tiers. Teolis says 10 Mbps is sufficient for at least 90% of his company’s customers.

A few services use a pricing model akin to an attorney’s retainer, with a low monthly subscription but hefty fees for each DDoS incident. Richter says Savvis is moving to this model, saying that customers want usage-based pricing that resembles other cloud services. Prolexic’s Quinn counters that this pricing structure leads to unpredictable bills.

Bottom line, there’s a DDoS service to suit your tolerance for risk and budgetary volatility.

Optional services available from some providers include postattack analysis and forensics (what happened, from where, and by whom) and access to a managed network reputation database that tracks active botnets and sites linked to fraudulent or criminal activity, a feature that facilitates automated blacklisting to help prevent attacks in the first place.

Aside from looking at service features, evaluate each company’s technical expertise and track record. DDoS mitigation specialists, for whom this is a core business (or perhaps their only business) arguably have more experience and focus than Internet service providers or managed security providers for which DDoS mitigation is just a sideline. Not surprisingly, Quinn, whose company was among the first to offer DDoS mitigation as a service, suggests customers should make vendors show evidence that DDoS mitigation is something they do regularly, not as a rare occurrence.

Make sure the service has highly qualified staff dedicated to the task. Ask whether the provider has experts available 24/7 and how long it will take to access someone with the technical ability and authority to work on your problem.

Unfortunately there’s no rule of thumb for measuring the DDoS mitigation return on investment; it’s really a case-by-case calculation based on the financial value of the site being attacked. It relies on factors such as the cost in lost revenue or organizational reputation for every minute of downtime. Quinn cites a common analyst cost estimate, which Cisco also uses in its product marketing, of $30 million for a 24-hour outage at a large e-commerce site.

There’s a cruel asymmetry to DDoS attacks: They can cost thousands to mitigate, inflict millions in damage, and yet attackers can launch them on the cheap. A small botnet can be rented for as little as $600 a month, meaning a serious, sustained attack against multiple targets can be pulled off for $5,000 or $10,000.

With damages potentially two or three orders of magnitude higher than the DDoS mitigation costs, many organizations are finding mitigation a worthwhile investment. In fact, three-quarters of DOSarrest‘s customers don’t wait for a DDoS attack to flip the switch, but permanently filter all of their traffic through the service. That makes sense, particularly if it’s a high-value or high-visibility site, if your traffic fits within the cap, or if you’re using an uncapped service like Prolexic. These services use the same sorts of colocation hosting centers where companies would typically house public-facing websites, and they do geographically distributed load balancing and traffic routing to multiple data centers. That makes the risk of downtime on the provider’s end minimal. And this approach could actually reduce WAN costs since it filters junk before it ever touches your systems.

Recommendations

If a mitigation service is too expensive, there are things IT can do to lower the exposure and limit the damage from DDoS attacks (discussed more in depth in our full report):

1. Fortify your edge network: Ensure that firewall and IDS systems have DoS features turned on, including things like dropping spoofed or malformed packets, setting SYN, ICMP, and UDP flood drop thresholds, limiting connections per server and client, and dynamically filtering and automatically blocking (at least for a short time) clients sending bad packets.

2. Develop a whitelist of known good external systems: These include business partner gateways, ISP links and cloud providers. This ensures that stringent edge filtering, whether done on your firewall or by a DDoS service, lets good traffic through.

3. Perform regular audits and reviews of your edge devices: Look for anomalies like bandwidth spikes. This works best if the data is centrally collected and analyzed across every device in your network.

4. Understand how to identify DDoS traffic: Research attack signatures and have someone on your network team who knows how to use a packet sniffer to discriminate between legitimate and DDoS traffic.

5. Prepare DNS: Lower the DNS TTL for public-facing Web servers, since these are most likely to be attacked. If you need to protect an entire server subnet, have a plan to readvertise BGP routes to a mitigation service.

6. Keep public Web servers off your enterprise ISP link: With Web servers being the most common DDoS target, Michael Davis, CEO of Savid Technologies and a regular InformationWeek contributor, recommends Web hosting with a vendor that doesn’t share your pipes. “Your website may be down, but at least the rest of your business is up,” says Davis.

7. Practice good server and application security hygiene: Layer 7 attacks exploit operating system and application security flaws, often using buffer overflows to inject attack code into SQL databases or Web servers, so keep systems patched.

For DDoS protection please click here.

Source: Darkreading

Anita Sarkeesian wanted to make a web series about how women are portrayed in video games. She asked the world for $US6000. Some of the people who thought that was interesting and worth doing have given her just shy of $US159,000.

Some of the people who thought it was not worth doing have defaced her Wikipedia page, written vile things to her on YouTube and… well, that’s what she already told us about in mid-June. But, wait, there’s more, as Sarkeesian explains in a new post on the Feminist Frequency blog:

In addition to the aggressive actions against me that I’ve already shared, the harassers launched DDoS attacks on my site, attempted to hack into my email and other social media accounts and reported my Twitter and YouTube accounts as “terrorism”, “hate speech” or “spam”. They also attempted to “dox” and distribute my personal contact info including address and phone number on various websites and forums (including hate sites).

Tropes Vs Women: Video Games is the name of the project. It’ll be a video series. It hasn’t even been made yet. That hasn’t stopped the trolling. I guess I should quote the mission statement of Sarkeesian’s project, though that implies that there is some mission statement out there that she could have had that would have merited this reaction — and that the only reason this reaction is condemnatory is because Sarkeesian’s mission statement doesn’t seem to merit the attacks sent her way.

Here’s the beginning of her Tropes Vs. Women: Video Games mission statement, to the extent that it even matters:

I love playing video games but I’m regularly disappointed in the limited and limiting ways women are represented. This video project will explore, analyse and deconstruct some of the most common tropes and stereotypes of female characters in games. The series will highlight the larger recurring patterns and conventions used within the gaming industry rather than just focusing on the worst offenders. I’m going to need your help to make it happen!

World-ending stuff, huh?

It’s not always that easy to be a woman in the world of gaming, but this is ridiculous.

Sarkeesian writes: “After struggling with whether or not to make the extent of the attacks public I’ve decided that it’s ultimately important to shed light on this type of abuse because online harassment and bullying are at epidemic levels across the internet.”

Agreed. It’s absurd. There are far smarter and funnier ways to disagree.

Source: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/07/exposing-the-hate-one-woman-gets-for-examining-video-games/

Cybercriminal gangs wielding hoards of malware-infected zombie machines are primarily using them for massive spam campaigns aimed at pushing pharmaceuticals, herbal remedies and porn, but they are also often rented out for more nefarious purposes, say experts who monitor them.

Botnets can be used to conduct distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDoS), leveraging the power of infected systems to disrupt and wipe out websites. Botnets often spread malware, and are the main engine behind phishing campaigns or the fuel behind powerful clickjacking campaigns. What started as an amateur activity on Internet Relay Chat (IRC) networks — using the power of people connected to IRC to knock victims offline — quickly became a for-profit venture associated with cybercriminal fraud activities, said Joe Stewart, director of malware research at Dell SecureWorks. “Now we see you’ve got governments and hacktivists getting into the game for reasons that aren’t really just money related, Stewart said.”

Stewart and other security experts say many enterprises have zombie machines running on their networks without even realizing it. Rather than being aimed to disrupt systems, the malware is being remotely controlled to seek an enterprise’s most prized possession: intellectual property.

“They’re highly focused on companies and governments,” Stewart said. “Anything you can imagine that somebody might steal in the virtual world, somebody has a botnet that is probably doing it.”

Stewart and other security experts say many businesses are far too reliant on automated systems; big security appliances such as intrusion prevention and detection systems designed to monitor network traffic. They’re calling for enterprises to instead hire skilled IT security pros to proactively monitor those systems and investigate issues. The approach, they say, improves the security systems already deployed in most enterprises by addressing and isolating issues before they become a serious problem.

The good news is some of the malware associated with widely known botnets can be detected using most traditional security appliances and endpoint security software, including antivirus. But a much more serious threat is targeted attacks – particularly those hurled at enterprise employees – that use malware combined with techniques that are designed to evade detection. Once an endpoint machine is infected by stealthy malware, a Trojan embeds itself and then attempts to reach out to cybercriminals for orders. Enterprise network monitoring tools can detect the nefarious traffic and block some of it, but over the years, cybercriminals have become savvy at tunneling communications using strong encryption algorithms, timing communication drops for odd hours when systems aren’t being fully monitored or sending out tiny communication packets that assimilate with normal network traffic.

“You can hope your corporate antivirus [detects botnet infections] at the gateway or on the desktop, but we know from testing that those capabilities don’t have the highest rates of detection,” Stewart said. “If you move into the network realm you can pick up a lot of this activity because it doesn’t change its network fingerprint very often.”

Botnet size doesn’t matter
Stewart said the most powerful botnets are not necessarily the largest. The Flame malware toolkit for example, contained a botnet of less than 200 infected machines in Iran, yet it wielded a powerful arsenal for those behind it. The limited scope of the attack, believed to be a nation-state driven cyberespionage operation, enabled the botnet operators to stealthily eavesdrop on their victims, steal data and capture video for years.

By contrast, Stewart said larger botnets give cybercriminals the advantage of leveraging the computing power of infected computers to spread malware and other malicious activities. They can be used to amplify a denial-of-service attack to take down a website or quickly spread malware and steal account credentials.

The Zeus and SpyEye malware families make up massive botnets that have, for years, wreaked havoc on the financial industry. The botnets spread quickly due to the business model put in place by the cybercriminals behind the malware. Using automated attack toolkits, the cybercriminals set up an affiliate network, rewarding other cybercriminals for infecting machines. Zeus gained notoriety in 2006. The malware can be coded to spoof websites, steal account credentials and drain bank accounts. Security firms have tried to knock out portions of the botnets by disrupting the command-and-control servers associated with them, but despite those efforts, cybercriminals have built-in mechanisms to bring them back online. The most recent effort came from Microsoft, which used legal action to wipe out Zeus botnet servers in the United States.

Detection: The human factor
There is no technology better than a skilled IT pro assigned to look for anomalies on the corporate network, said Johannes Ullrich, chief research officer at the SANS Institute. Skilled system administrators should be inspecting network traffic and system logs, applying creative thought in the process of flagging potential problems for further investigation, Ullrich said.  Packet analyzers and other filtering tools can help network security pros determine if suspicious traffic is malicious in nature.

“A lot of enterprises still rely on old, signature-based antivirus,” Ullrich said. “Particularly with [targeted] attacks and these kinds of botnets it depends on individuals at this point.”

The trend at many enterprises has been to outsource network monitoring activities, but Ullrich said that in his experience, outsourced security monitoring usually fails at detecting the targeted attacks and botnet infections that matter the most. Outsourced services follow a checklist and process a specific number of requests per hour, Ullrich said, adding that outsourced services would be better if they played a role in assisting a system administrator to “find the next new thing versus yesterday’s bot.”

“They don’t really understand the business and that’s why some enterprises are going through the expensive process of bringing it back in-house,” he said.

Endpoint security combined with network-based security such as host intrusion prevention (HIPS) technology and other reputation and filtering systems can help mitigate malware infections, said Mike Rothman, analyst and president of Phoenix, Ariz.-based security research firm Securosis LLC.  The firm recently concluded its malware detection series that focused on why detection is so challenging. Network security appliances can provide context on application and user behavior, but it requires adjusting and tuning to avoid a serious impact to end users, Rothman said in a blog post describing the firm’s research series.  The same goes for Web filtering and reputation-based. “Find a balance that is sufficiently secure but not too disruptive, navigating the constraints of device ownership and control, and workable across device locations and network connectivity scenarios,” Rothman wrote.

Source: http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/news/2240159014/Botnet-infections-in-the-enterprise-have-experts-advocating-less-automation