Defend Against DDoS Archive

There is a direct correlation between cryptocurrency and DDoS attacks. As the price of cryptocurrency dropped in 2018, leading to decreased profits from cryptomining, hackers on the black market began to divert prime botnet resources to DDoS attack activities, which increased month by month.

correlation DDoS attacks cryptomining

DDoS attacks in 2018

In NSFOCUS’ 2018 DDoS Attack Landscape report, NSFOCUS analyzed the threat landscape after a landmark year of technological growth related to cloud computing, big data, artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), and Industry 4.0.

Key findings include:

  • Attackers were more inclined to launch DDoS attacks when the short-term benefits from cryptomining activities declined in 2018.
  • In 2018, DDoS attacks kept expanding in size as DDoS-as-a-Service experienced a fast growth.
  • Of all internet attack types, 25% of attackers were recidivists responsible for 40% of all attack events. The proportion of recidivists in DDoS attacks decreased in 2018, making up about 7% of DDoS attackers that launched 12% of attack events.
  • Cloud services/IDCs, gaming, and e-commerce were the top three industries targeted by attackers.
  • The total number of DDoS attacks in 2018 reached 148,000, down 28.4% from 2017, driven by effective protections against reflection attacks, which decreased considerably.
  • In 2018, the most frequently seen attacks were SYN flood, UDP flood, ACK flood, HTTP flood, and HTTPS flood attacks, which all together accounted for 96% of all DDoS attacks.
  • Of all DDoS attacks, 13% used a combination of multiple attack methods. The other 87% were single-vector attacks.

correlation DDoS attacks cryptomining

“The fluctuation of Bitcoin prices has a direct bearing on DDoS attack traffic,” said Richard Zhao, COO at NSFOCUS.

“This, along with other report findings, can help us better predict and prepare for DDoS attacks. Attackers are after profits and as we watch bitcoin fluctuate, we will continue to see this correlation pop up. DDoS attacks have never stopped since making their debut – analyzing trends in this report helps companies keep up with the fluid attack and threat landscape.”

Source: https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2019/04/15/correlation-ddos-attacks-cryptomining/

Service availability is a key component of the user experience. Customers expect services to be constantly available and fast-responding, and any downtime can result in disappointed users, abandoned shopping carts, and lost customers.

Consequently, DDoS attacks are increasing in complexity, size and duration. Radware’s 2018 Global Application and Network Security Report found that over the course of a year, sophisticated DDoS attacks, such as burst attacks, increased by 15%, HTTPS floods grew by 20%, and over 64% of customers were hit by application-layer (L7) DDoS attacks.

Some Attacks are a Two-Way Street

As DDoS attacks become more complex, organizations require more elaborate protections to mitigate such attacks. However, in order to guarantee complete protection, many types of attacks – particularly the more sophisticated ones – require visibility into both inbound and outbound channels.

Some examples of such attacks include:

Out of State Protocol Attacks: Some DDoS attacks exploit weaknesses in protocol communication processes, such as TCP’s three-way handshake sequence, to create ‘out-of-state’ connection requests, thereby drawing-out connection requests in order to exhaust server resources. While some attacks of this type, such as a SYN flood, can be stopped by examining the inbound channel only, others require visibility into the outbound channel, as well.

An example of this is an ACK flood, whereby attackers continuously send forged TCP ACK packets towards the victim host. The target host then tries to associate the ACK reply to an existing TCP connection, and if none such exists, it will drop the packet. However, this process consumes server resources, and large numbers of such requests can deplete system resources. In order to correctly identify and mitigate such attacks, defenses need visibility to both inbound SYN and outbound SYN/ACK replies, so that they can verify whether the ACK packet is associated with any legitimate connection request.

Reflection/Amplification Attacks: Such attacks exploit asymmetric responses between the connection requests and replies of certain protocols or applications. Again, some types of such attacks require visibility into both the inbound and outbound traffic channels.

An example of such attack is a large-file outbound pipe saturation attack. In such attacks, the attackers identify a very large file on the target network, and send a connection request to fetch it. The connection request itself can be only a few bytes in size, but the ensuing reply could be extremely large. Large amounts of such requests can clog-up the outbound pipe.

Another example are memcached amplification attacks. Although such attacks are most frequently used to overwhelm a third-party target via reflection, they can also be used to saturate the outbound channel of the targeted network.

Scanning Attacks: Large-scale network scanning attempts are not just a security risk, but also frequently bear the hallmark of a DDoS attack, flooding the network with malicious traffic. Such scan attempts are based on sending large numbers of connection requests to host ports, and seeing which ports answer back (thereby indicating that they are open). However, this also leads to high volumes of error responses by closed ports. Mitigation of such attacks requires visibility into return traffic in order to identify the error response rate relative to actual traffic, in order for defenses to conclude that an attack is taking place.

Server Cracking: Similar to scanning attacks, server cracking attacks involve sending large amounts of requests in order to brute-force system passwords. Similarly, this leads to a high error reply rate, which requires visibility into both the inbound and outbound channels in order to identify the attack.

Stateful Application-Layer DDoS Attacks: Certain types of application-layer (L7) DDoS attacks exploit known protocol weaknesses or order to create large amounts of spoofed requests which exhaust server resources. Mitigating such attacks requires state-aware bi-directional visibility in order to identify attack patterns, so that the relevant attack signature can be applied to block it. Examples of such attacks are low-and-slow and application-layer (L7) SYN floods, which draw-out HTTP and TCP connections in order to continuously consume server resources.

Two-Way Attacks Require Bi-Directional Defenses

As online service availability becomes ever-more important, hackers are coming up with more sophisticated attacks than ever in order to overwhelm defenses. Many such attack vectors – frequently the more sophisticated and potent ones – either target or take advantages of the outbound communication channel.

Therefore, in order for organizations to fully protect themselves, they must deploy protections that allow bi-directional inspection of traffic in order to identify and neutralize such threats.

Source: https://securityboulevard.com/2019/03/ddos-protection-requires-looking-both-ways/

Cyber-attacks could cost the UK economy over £1bn every year according to new data by research firm Netscout.

The research shows that in 2018, businesses experienced a downtime average of 67 minutes per attack, and each successful attack costed over £140,000, which worked out at an average cost of £2,140 per minute.

“Our research reveals that the average enterprise has 22 security tools in place – and – anecdotally we know that some have far more,” said Darren Anstee, CTO, Security at Netscout.

“Businesses have invested in new tools and technologies to deal with new threats, but this hasn’t resulted in a reduction in risk.

“A complex security stack can lead to an inconsistent picture of what is really going on, slowing down operational processes and reducing the effectiveness of security personnel, whilst creating gaps for attackers to exploit.

“As a result, companies are waking up to the fact that they need a well-integrated security stack and a consistent view across their virtual, physical and cloud resources.”

The findings also revealed that the threefold YoY increase in the number of DDoS attacks against SaaS services, from 13% to 41%.

“In leaning on outsourced security professionals, businesses are identifying the short-falls of their internal processes and capabilities and are moving to address risk in the only way they can.” added Anstee.

“There is nothing wrong with this strategy, as long as businesses are clear that they still own the underlying risk.”

Netscout found that 61% of respondents stating that security concerns are creating a barrier to cloud adoption.

For Service Providers, cloud-based services were increasingly targeted by DDoS attacks, up from 25% in 2016 to 47% in 2018.

The report also revealed that in 2018, 60% of service providers witnessed attacks traversing their networks that were targeting governments, up from 37% last year, and the size of the attacks exploded to a record-breaking 1.7Tbps, with the targets and techniques continuously evolving.

In addition to that, in 2018, the average global cost of one hour of downtime associated with internet service outages caused by DDoS attacks was $221,836.80.

Germany had the highest downtime costs, at $351,995, while Japan paid the least for an hour of network downtime at $123,026.

Source: https://data-economy.com/the-cost-of-ddos-cyber-attacks-on-the-uk-economy-may-exceed-1bn-per-annum-report/

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, March 19, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — DOSarrest Internet Security announced today that they have released a new service offering called DOSarrest Traffic Analyzer (DTA). This new service allows subscribers to send their Netflow, Sflow or Jflow network data from their routers and switches to DOSarrest’s Big Data cluster, then login to their portal and graphically see what types and volumes of traffic are flowing in and out of their networks in almost real-time. Using this traffic intelligence, network operators can pinpoint the cause of any congestion, create their own ACLs to white-list or black-list any malicious networks. It gives engineers the intelligence they need to understand how their network is being used and for what purpose.

Some of the real-time graphical and historical information available in the dashboard is

Top 10 Source Countries
Top 10 Source Networks
Top 10 Source ASNs
Top 10 Source Netblocks
Top 10 Destination IPs
Top 10 Destination IPs
Top 10 Protocols and Ports

DOSarrest CTO, Jag Bains states, “I have been running Internet backbones for over 20 years and having something that is this cost effective has always been a problem, most solutions require expensive hardware and licensing or extensive software development. Setup is easy with DTA, just add 1 line to the router config and you’re done.”

This new service can also be combined with DOSarrest’s existing DDoS protection for network infrastructure service, where customers, using the same dashboard can automatically stop any DDoS attack on a customer’s data center or corporate network.

CEO Mark Teolis adds, “This service is really in its infancy, we are already working on version 2 and we plan on releasing a new version every 90 days thereafter. Once the network flow information is in the big data platform, there’s so much that can be done to extract network intelligence, it’s almost impossible to predict today what and how it can help network operators going forward. We are starting to test with some machine learning models to see what it can do.”

About DOSarrest Internet Security:
DOSarrest founded in 2007 in Vancouver, B.C., Canada specializes in fully managed cloud based Internet security services including DDoS protection services, Data Center Defender (DCD), Web Application Firewall (WAF), DDoS Attack testing, as well as cloud based global load balancing.

More information at http://www.DOSarrest.com

Source: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dosarrest-launches-new-cloud-based-network-traffic-analyzer-service-300814472.html

Distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks are a particularly pernicious form of cyberattack where the bad actor seeks to take down a web site or even an entire corporate network by flooding it with malicious traffic.

DDoS attacks have been around for years – and many cybersecurity vendors have risen to the challenge, bringing increasingly sophisticated DDoS mitigation technologies to market.

The bad actors’ response is woefully predictable: increasingly advanced approaches to DDoS, leading to an escalating cat-and-mouse game, as enterprises and governments seek to stay ahead of the deluge of bad traffic hitting their networks.

Bring in the Bots

DDoS attackers use numerous Internet protocols, from the HTTP at the core of the web to simpler, lower-level protocols that do little more than request a brief acknowledgement from a server as part of an ongoing interaction. Request too many acknowledgements at one time, however, and the server can bog down.

At the next level of sophistication, hackers send such malicious requests from a ‘spoofed’ IP address, fooling the target server into sending a response to a different server, which is the true target. In this way, hackers dupe unwitting organizations into playing a role in the attack, while the victim only sees traffic from presumably trustworthy sites or services, thus amplifying the effect of an attack by a factor of one hundred or more.

DDoS attacks, however, have reached an even higher level of sophistication, as hackers are now able to compromise millions of computers, smartphones, and even Internet of Things (IoT) devices like security cameras and baby monitors, recruiting these devices into botnets that can launch increasingly massive, unpredictable attacks on global targets.

 

To make matters even worse, DDoS technology is simple and inexpensive to purchase on the Dark Web – leading to a black market for increasingly innovative DDoS malware. “There has been increased innovation in DDoS attack tools and techniques,” according to the NETSCOUT Threat Intelligence Report. “The availability of such improved tools has lowered the barrier of entry, making it easier for a broader spectrum of attackers to launch a DDoS attack.”

Size Matters

The simplest mitigation is for an enterprise or government agency to have on-premises equipment with sufficient capacity to absorb DDoS traffic, filtering out the malicious messages while allowing legitimate requests through, a process the industry calls scrubbing.

However, with the increasing sizes of the attacks, such a do-it-yourself approach rapidly becomes too expensive. “The increase in the impact and complexity of attacks continues unabated,” says Marc Wilczek, COO of Link11. “When faced with DDoS bandwidths well over 100 Gbps and multi-vector attacks, traditional IT security mechanisms are easily overwhelmed, and unprotected companies risk serious business disruption, loss of revenue and even fines.”

To place 100 gigabits per second (Gbps) into context, the fastest enterprise local-area ‘gigabit Ethernet’ networks generally run at one Gbps, and the fastest home Internet service will run around 100 megabits per second (Mbps) or a bit higher, which equals one tenth as much bandwidth as one Gbps.

Volumetric DDoS attacks – that is, attacks that consist of the sheer volume of traffic – can well exceed 100 Gbps. According to James Willett, VP technology at DDoS mitigation vendor Neustar, his company has mitigated attacks in excess of 460 Gbps. The largest attacks on record have exceeded 1,700 Gbps.

However, such volumetric attacks are easy to detect – and thus mitigation vendors with high mitigation capacities like Neustar’s 10+ Terabit per second (10,000+ Gbps) globally-distributed platform are able to deal with them in a straightforward fashion.

To respond to this mitigation capability, bad actors are mounting more complex attacks that typically involve enough volume to take down average Internet connections, but do so with intermittent bursts of diverse types of traffic over longer periods of time. “One of our clients is a gaming company,” Willett explains. “This client experienced an attack that lasted six days across numerous network protocols. It was an intermittent attack that generated 91 alerts for new attacks. The attacker was probing different network segments, but also using different attack vectors looking for weakness.”

Some attacks take even longer. “The longest DDoS attack in 2016 lasted 292 hours according to Kaspersky Lab’s research, or about 12 days,” according toRuss Madley, cybersecurity specialist at SecureData Europe, formerly head of B2B at Kapersky Lab. “Most online businesses can ill-afford to have their ‘doors closed’ for even an hour, let alone for 292 hours, as criminals take advantage of their poor defences.”

Multifaceted DDoS Mitigation

When a Neustar on-demand customer detects an incoming DDoS attack, it redirects its network traffic to the Neustar network, which scrubs it and returns the bona fide traffic back to the customer’s network.

This mitigation technique requires a level of sophistication commensurate to the attacker’s. “An attacker’s goal is to mimic legitimate traffic as closely as possible, so that it’s harder to figure out what to filter,” Willett explains. “Neustar tweaks and adjusts filtering in real-time, often looking inside the packets to identify patterns of good or bad traffic to help with filtering.”

Understanding what to filter is almost as important as what not to filter. “We use tools like ThousandEyes to determine whether we are scrubbing too much, which impacts clean traffic, or under-scrubbing, which allows too much dirty traffic,” Willett continues. “We also use ThousandEyes and our own monitoring toolsets to monitor clean traffic tunnels at key points in the infrastructure after scrubbing to ensure availability.”

Neustar’s approach is similar to other DDoS mitigation vendors in the market, including Radware, NETSCOUT Arbor (which NETSCOUT acquired in 2015), Akamai Prolexic (acquired in 2014), and F5.

Regardless of the vendor, however, proper configuration is essential. “For DDoS mitigation to continue working properly it needs to be perfectly configured to the specific network it is protecting,” according to The State of DDoS Protection Report by MazeBolt Technologies. “The problem is that enterprise networks are constantly changing with servers and services added to networks to meet new demands. In order to ensure that DDoS mitigation is perfectly configured, enterprises need to match each network change with a respective fine-tuning of their DDoS mitigation posture.”

Industry analysts are also quick to sound a warning around the complexity of DDoS mitigation. “For bad traffic to be diverted to a scrubbing centre in a seamless action to reduce any downtime, organisations need to have seamless integration between cloud and on-premise solutions, implemented in front of an infrastructure’s network to help mitigate an attack before it reaches core network assets and data,” says Sherrel Roche, senior market analyst at IDC.

Gartner IT +0.32% also offers words of caution. “To implement multiple denial-of-service defence measures at different layers would go beyond purchasing a single security product or signing up with a single service provider,” warns Gartner senior research analyst Rajpreet Kaur.

Who are the Bad Actors?

Unless you’re in the business of creating and selling malware on the Dark Web, the path to profit for a DDoS attacker is murkier than, say, cryptojacking or ransomware.

The key question: what’s in it for them? “The DDoS landscape is driven by a range of actors, from malware authors to opportunistic entities offering services for hire. They are a busy group, constantly developing new technologies and enabling new services while utilizing known vulnerabilities, pre-existing botnets, and well-understood attack techniques,” continues the NETSCOUT Threat Intelligence Report.

At the core of such threats: nation-states. “State-sponsored activity has developed to the point where campaigns and frameworks are discovered regularly for a broad tier of nations,” the NETSCOUT report continues. “Our findings include campaigns attributed to Iran, North Korea, Vietnam, and India, beyond the actors commonly associated with China and Russia.”

Kaspersky Lab also has an opinion. “We expect the profitability of DDoS attacks to continue to grow,” Madley adds. “As a result, [we] will see them increasingly used to extort, disrupt and mask other more intrusive attacks on businesses.”

In addition, the situation is likely to get worse. “When cybercriminals do not achieve their goals of earning money by launching simple DDoS attacks, they have two options,” says Alexey Kiselev, business development manager on the Kaspersky DDoS Protection team. “They can reconfigure the capacities required for DDoS attacks towards other sources of revenue, such as cryptomining, or malefactors who orchestrate DDoS attacks have to improve their technical skills.”

Kiselev concludes: “Given this, we can anticipate that DDoS attacks will evolve in 2019 and it will become harder for companies to detect them and stay protected.”

DDoS attacks, therefore, may not be the quickest route to profitability for bad actors, but given the importance of this attack technique to nation-state cyberwar adversaries, we can expect continued innovation on the part of the hackers. Enterprises and government agencies cannot afford to relax their efforts to combat such attacks.

Source:https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbloomberg/2019/02/12/are-hackers-winning-the-denial-of-service-wars/#4b701bc228ea