Kaspersky identified a significant increase in DDoS attacks year-on-year.
According to cybersecurity firm Kaspersky, it’s been a busy year for cybercriminals who favour DDoS as their method of attack.
The Russian firm’s DDoS protection tool reportedly blocked 44 percent more attacks in Q4 2019 than in the same period the previous year.
Sundays were also busier than ever, highlighting the ever present nature of the threat posed by cybercrime. More than a quarter (28 percent) of all attacks happened on weekends, and the share of attacks performed on Sundays grew by 2.5 percent (to 13 percent overall).
Despite DDoS attacks growing year-on-year, they haven’t risen dramatically quarter-on-quarter. There was a “marginal” 8 percent increase between Q3 and Q4 2019, Kaspersky says.
A more notable rise (27 percent) was spotted in so-called smart DDoS attacks, which focus on the application layer and are usually carried out by skilled attackers.
“Despite the significant growth in general, the season turned out to be quieter than expected,” said Alexey Kiselev, Business Development Manager on the Kaspersky DDoS Protection team.
“Attackers can still find a way to spoil your leisure time, as cybercrime is not an ordinary nine-to-five job, so it is important to ensure that your DDoS prevention solution can automatically protect your web assets.”
Various implementations of HTTP/2, the latest version of the HTTP network protocol, have been found vulnerable to multiple security vulnerabilities affecting the most popular web server software, including Apache, Microsoft’s IIS, and NGINX.
Launched in May 2015, HTTP/2 has been designed for better security and improved online experience by speeding up page loads. Today, over hundreds of millions of websites, or some 40 percent of all the sites on the Internet, are running using HTTP/2 protocol.
A total of eight high-severity HTTP/2 vulnerabilities, seven discovered by Jonathan Looney of Netflix and one by Piotr Sikora of Google, exist due to resource exhaustion when handling malicious input, allowing a client to overload server’s queue management code.
The vulnerabilities can be exploited to launch Denial of Service (DoS) attacks against millions of online services and websites that are running on a web server with the vulnerable implementation of HTTP/2, knocking them offline for everyone.
The attack scenario, in layman’s terms, is that a malicious client asks a targeted vulnerable server to do something which generates a response, but then the client refuses to read the response, forcing it to consume excessive memory and CPU while processing requests.
“These flaws allow a small number of low bandwidth malicious sessions to prevent connection participants from doing additional work. These attacks are likely to exhaust resources such that other connections or processes on the same machine may also be impacted or crash,” Netflix explains in an advisory released Tuesday.
Most of the below-listed vulnerabilities work at the HTTP/2 transport layer:
“Some are efficient enough that a single end-system could potentially cause havoc on multiple servers. Other attacks are less efficient; however, even less efficient attacks can open the door for DDoS attacks which are difficult to detect and block,” the advisory states.
However, it should be noted that the vulnerabilities can only be used to cause a DoS condition and do not allow attackers to compromise the confidentiality or integrity of the data contained within the vulnerable servers.
Netflix security team, who teamed up with Google and CERT Coordination Center to disclose the reported HTTP/2 flaws, discovered seven out of eight vulnerabilities in several HTTP/2 server implementations in May 2019 and responsibly reported them to each of the affected vendors and maintainers.
According to CERT, affected vendors include NGINX, Apache, H2O, Nghttp2, Microsoft (IIS), Cloudflare, Akamai, Apple (SwiftNIO), Amazon, Facebook (Proxygen), Node.js, and Envoy proxy, many of which have already released security patches and advisories.
Popular chat service Discord experienced issues today due to network problems at Cloudflare and a wider internet issue. The app was inaccessible for its millions of users, and even Discord’s website and status pages were struggling. Discord’s problems could be traced to an outage at Cloudflare, a content delivery network. Cloudflare started experiencing issues at 7:43AM ET, and this caused Discord, Feedly, Crunchyroll, and many other sites that rely on its services to have partial outages.
Cloudflare says it’s working on a “possible route leak” affecting some of its network, but services like Discord have been inaccessible for nearly 45 minutes now. “Discord is affected by the general internet outage,” says a Discord statement on the company’s status site. “Hang tight. Pet your cats.”
“This leak is impacting many internet services including Cloudflare,” says a Cloudflare spokesperson. “We are continuing to work with the network provider that created this route leak to remove it.” Cloudflare doesn’t name the network involved, but Verizon is also experiencing widespread issues across the East Coast of the US this morning. Cloudflare notes that “the network responsible for the route leak has now fixed the issue,” so services should start to return to normal shortly.
Cloudfare explained the outage in an additional statement, commenting that “Earlier today, a widespread BGP routing leak affected a number of Internet services and a portion of traffic to Cloudflare. All of Cloudflare’s systems continued to run normally, but traffic wasn’t getting to us for a portion of our domains. At this point, the network outage has been fixed and traffic levels are returning to normal.”
American tech firm Cloudflare is providing cybersecurity services to at least seven designated foreign terrorist organizations and militant groups, HuffPost has learned.
The San Francisco-based web giant is one of the world’s largest content delivery networks and boasts of serving more traffic than Twitter, Amazon, Apple, Instagram, Bing and Wikipedia combined. Founded in 2009, it claims to power nearly 10 percent of Internet requests globally and has been widelycriticized for refusing to regulate access to its services.
Among Cloudflare’s millions of customers are several groups that are on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations, including al-Shabab, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, al-Quds Brigades, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Hamas — as well as the Taliban, which, like the other groups, is sanctioned by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). These organizations own and operate active websites that are protected by Cloudflare, according to fournational security and counterextremism experts who reviewed the sites at HuffPost’s request.
In the United States, it’s a crime to knowingly provide tangible or intangible “material support” — including communications equipment — to a designated foreign terrorist organization or to provideservice to an OFAC-sanctioned entity without special permission. Cloudflare, which is not authorized by the OFAC to do business with such organizations, has been informed on multiple occasions, dating back to at least 2012, that it is shielding terrorist groups behind its network, and it continues to do so.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation and other free speech advocates have long been critical of material support laws. The foundation described them as tools the government has used to “chill First Amendment protected activities” such as providing “expert advice and assistance” ― including training for peacefully resolving conflicts ― to designated foreign terrorist organizations. Many of the designated groups, the EFF has argued, also provide humanitarian assistance to their constituents.
But so far, free speech advocates’ arguments haven’t carried the day — which means that Cloudflare still could be breaking the law.
‘We Try To Be Neutral’
“We try to be neutral and not insert ourselves too much as the arbiter of what’s allowed to be online,” said Cloudflare’s general counsel, Doug Kramer. However, he added, “we are very aware of our obligations under the sanctions laws. We think about this hard, and we’ve got a policy in place to stay in compliance with those laws.” He declined to comment directly on the list of websites HuffPost provided to Cloudflare, citing privacy concerns.
Cloudflare secures and optimizes websites; it is not a domain host. Although Cloudflare doesn’t host websites, its services are essential to the survival of controversial pages, which would otherwise be vulnerable to vigilante hacker campaigns known as distributed denial-of-service attacks. As the tech firm puts it, “The size and scale of the attacks that can now easily be launched online make it such that if you don’t have a network like Cloudflare in front of your content, and you upset anyone, you will be knocked offline.”
Some of the terrorist sites that HuffPost identified on its server have been used to spread anti-state propaganda, claims of responsibility for terrorist attacks, false information and messages glorifying violence against Americans and civilians. But none of that really matters: Even if al-Shabab were posting cat videos, it would still be a crime to provide material support to the group.
“This is not a content-based issue,” said Benjamin Wittes, the editor in chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “[Cloudflare] can be as pure-free-speech people as they want — they have an arguable position that it’s not their job to decide what speech is worthy and what speech is not — but there is a law, a criminal statute, that says that you are not allowed to give services to designated foreign terrorist organizations. Full stop.”
Intermediary websites are shielded from liability for illicit third-party content on their platforms, thanks to the U.S. Communications Decency Act (meaning, for example, that Twitter cannot be held legally accountable for a libelous tweet). This immunity is irrelevant with regard to the material support statute of the USA Patriot Act, which pertains strictly to the provision of a service or resource, not to any offending content, explained Wittes. In this case, Cloudflare’s accountability would not be a question of whether it should be monitoring its users or their content but, in part, whether the company is aware that it is serving terrorist organizations.
“If and when you know or reasonably should know, then you’re in legal jeopardy if you continue to provide services,” said University of Texas law professor Bobby Chesney.
There is a law — a criminal statute — that says that you are not allowed to give services to designated foreign terrorist organizations. Full stop.Benjamin Wittes, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution
Cloudflare’s services range in price from completely free to north of $3,000 per month for advanced cybersecurity. (Kramer declined to say if the sanctioned entities HuffPost identified are paying customers. Material support law applies to both free and paid services.) Its reverse proxy service reroutes visitors away from websites’ IP addresses, concealing their domain hosts and giving them a sense of anonymity. This feature has made Cloudflare especially appealing to neo-Nazis, white supremacists, pedophiles, conspiracy theorists — and terrorists.
Cloudflare has knowingly serviced terrorist-affiliated websites for years.In 2012, Reuters confronted Cloudflare about websites behind its network that were affiliated with al-Quds Brigades and Hamas. Prince argued that Cloudflare’s services did not constitute material support of terrorism. “We’re not sending money, or helping people arm themselves,” he said at the time. “We’re not selling bullets. We’re selling flak jackets.”
That analogy bears little relevance. “Material support,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, refers to “any property, tangible or intangible, or service,” excluding medicine and religious materials. Contrary to Prince’s suggestion, it applies to more than money and weapons. A New York man who provided satellite television services to Hezbollah was sentenced in 2009 to 69 months in prison for material support of terrorism. And although the definition is broad, “it really covers anything of value,” Chesney said. “It’s meant to be like a full-fledged embargo.”
In 2013, after journalist James Cook learned Cloudflare was securing a website affiliated with al Qaeda, he wrote an article arguing that the web giant was turning “a blind eye to terrorism.” Prince published his responses to Cook’s questions about serving terrorist groups in a Q&A-style blog post titled “Cloudflare and Free Speech.”
Cook asked what safeguards Cloudflare had in place to ensure it was not supporting illegal terrorist activity; Prince listed none. Cook inquired whether Cloudflare would investigate the website he had identified; Prince suggested it would not. The site is still online and is still secured by Cloudflare.
“A website is speech. It is not a bomb,” Prince wrote in his post. “We do not believe that ‘investigating’ the speech that flows through our network is appropriate. In fact, we think doing so would be creepy.”
Creepy or not, if a company receives a tip that it has customers who are sanctioned terrorists or has reason to believe that could be the case, it should absolutely investigate so as not to risk breaking the law, experts said. (Kramer noted Prince’s remarks are “from six years ago” and said Cloudflare does take such tips seriously.)
“This is a criminal statute that we’re talking about, so companies bear a risk by putting their heads in the sand,” said Georgetown Law professor Mary McCord, a former head of the Justice Department’s national security division. “A company has got to spend money, resources [and have] lawyers to make sure it’s not running afoul of the law. The risk it takes if it doesn’t is a criminal prosecution.”
President Donald Trump’s administration also urges due diligence. “We encourage service providers to follow the lead of the big social media companies, whose terms of service and community standards expressly enable them to voluntarily address terrorist content on their platforms, while exploring ways to more expeditiously tackle such content,” a White House official told HuffPost.
The international hacktivist group Anonymous accused Cloudflare of serving dozens of ISIS-affiliated websites in 2015, which Prince shrugged off as “armchair analysis” by “15-year-old kids in Guy Fawkes masks.” In media interviews, he maintained that serving a terrorist entity is not akin to an endorsement and said only a few of the sites on Anonymous’ list belonged to ISIS. Prince hinted that government authorities had ordered Cloudflare to keep certain controversial pages online. The FBI, Justice Department, State Department, Treasury Department and White House declined to comment on that assertion.
Last year, Cloudflare disclosed that the FBI subpoenaed the company to hand over information about one of its customers for national security purposes. The FBI, which also uses Cloudflare’s services, rescinded the subpoena and withdrew its request for information after Cloudflare threatened to sue. Neither Cloudflare nor the FBI would comment on this matter.
Over the past two years, the Counter Extremism Project, a nonpartisan international policy organization, has sent Cloudflare four detailed letters identifying a total of seven terrorist-operated websites on its server. HuffPost has viewed these letters, which explicitly address concerns about material support of terrorism, and Kramer acknowledged that Cloudflare received them.
“We’ve never received a response from [Cloudflare],” said Joshua Fisher-Birch, a content review specialist at the Counter Extremism Project. Five of the seven flagged websites remain online behind Cloudflare today, more than a year after they were brought to the firm’s attention.
“I think they’re doubling down on free speech absolutism at all costs,” he added. “In this case, that means they’re going to allow terrorist and extremist organizations to use their services and to possibly spread propaganda, try to recruit or even finance on their websites.”
‘Assholes’ vs. Terrorists
Kramer said he was not able to comment in detail on specific cases in which outside actors such as journalists and Anonymous informed Cloudflare about possible terrorist organizations using its services, but he noted that Cloudflare works with government agencies to comply with its legal obligations.
“Our policy is that if we receive new information that raises a flag or a concern about a potentially sanctioned party, then we’ll follow up to figure out whether or not that’s something that we need to take action on,” he said. “Part of the challenge is really to determine which of those are legitimate inquiries and which of those … are trying to manipulate the complaint process to take down people with whom they disagree.”
Cloudflare was flooded with such complaints in August 2017, when activists pleaded with the firm to terminate its services for the Daily Stormer, a prominent neo-Nazi website that was harassing the family of a woman who had recently been killed in violence surrounding a neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Prince initially refused to drop the Daily Stormer, but as public outrage intensified, he reluctantly pulled the plug. “The people behind the Daily Stormer are assholes and I’d had enough,” he later said in an email to his team. The rationale behind that decision raised questions among Cloudflare’s staff, according to Wired.
“There were a lot of people who were like, ‘I came to this company because I wanted to help build a better internet … but there are some really awful things currently on the web, and it’s because of us that they’re up there,’” one employee said. Another wondered why Cloudflare would consider shutting down Nazis but not terrorists.
Every employee at your organisation should be prepared to deal with right to be forgotten requests.
It’s estimated that 75% of employees will exercise their right to erasure now GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) has come into effect. However, less than half of organisations believe that they would be able to handle a ‘right to be forgotten’ (RTBF) request without any impact on day-to-day business.
These findings highlight the underlying issues we’re seeing in the post-GDPR era and how the new regulations put businesses at risk of being non-compliant. What is also worrying, is that there are wider repercussions for organisations not being prepared to handle RTBF requests.
No matter how well business is conducted, there is always the possibility of someone who holds a grudge against the company and wants to cause disruption to daily operations. One way to do this, without resorting to a standard cyber-attack, is through inundating an organisation with RTBF requests. Especially when the company struggles to complete one request, this can drain a company’s resources and grind the business to a halt. In addition to this, failing to comply with the requests in a timely manner can result in a non-compliance issue – a double whammy.
An unfortunate consequence of the new GDPR regulations is that the right to erasure is free to submit, meaning it is more likely customers or those with a grudge will request to have their data removed. There are two ways this can be requested. The first is a simple opt-out, to remove the name – usually an email address – from marketing campaigns. The other is a more time consuming, complex discovery and removal of all applicable data. It is this second type of request where there is a potential for hacktivists, be-grudged customers, or other cyber-attackers to weaponise the regulation requirement.
One RTBF request is relatively easy to handle – as long as the company knows where its data is stored of course – and the organisation actually has a month to complete the request from the day it was received. However, if a company is inundated with requests coming in on the same or consecutive days, it becomes difficult to manage and has the potential to heavily impact daily operations. This kind of attack is comparable to Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks – for example the attack on the UK National Lottery last year which saw its entire online and mobile capabilities knocked out for hours because cyber criminals flooded the site with traffic – with companies becoming overloaded with so many requests that it has to stop their services entirely.
When preparing for a flood of RTBF requests, it is essential that all organisations have a plan in place that streamlines processes for discovery and deletion of customer data, making it as easy as possible to complete multiple requests simultaneously.
Don’t let your weakest link be your downfall
The first thing to consider is whether or not the workforce is actually aware of what to do should a RTBF request come in (let alone hundreds). Educating all employees on what to do should a request be made – including who in the company to notify and how to respond to the request – is essential in guaranteeing an organisation is prepared. It will mean that any RTBF request is dealt with both correctly and in a timely manner. The process must also have clearly defined responsibilities and actions able to be audited. For companies with a DPO (Data Protection Officer) or someone who fulfils that role, this is the place to begin this process.
Discovering data is the best defence
The key to efficiency in responding to RTBF requests is discovering the data. This means the team responsible for the completion of requests is fully aware of where all the data for the organisation is stored. Therefore, a complete list of where the data can be found – and how to find it – is crucial. While data in structured storage such as a database or email is relatively simple to locate and action, it is the unstructured data, such as reports and files, which is difficult to find and is the biggest culprit of draining time and resources.
Running a ‘data discovery’ exercise is invaluable in helping organisations achieve an awareness of where data is located, as it finds data on every system and device from laptops and workstations to servers and cloud drives. Only when you know where all critical data is located, can a team assess its ability to delete it and, where applicable, remove all traces of a customer. Repeating the exercise will highlight any gaps and help indicate where additional tools may be required to address the request. Data-At-Rest scanning is frequently found as one part of a Data Loss Prevention (DLP) solution.
Stray data – a ticking time bomb
Knowing where data is stored within the organisation isn’t the end of the journey however. The constant sharing of information with partners and suppliers also has to be taken into account – and for this, understanding the data flow into and out of the company is important. Shared responsibility clauses within GDPR rules means that all partners involved with critical data are liable should a breach happen or a RTBF request cannot be completed. If critical data sitting with a partner is not tracked by the company that received the RTBF request, it makes it impossible to truly complete it and the organisation could face fines of up to 20 million EUR (or 4% of their global turnover). Therefore, it’s even more important to know how and where critical data is moving at all times, minimising the sharing of information to only those who really need to know.
While there is no silver bullet to prevent stray data, there are a number of technologies which can help to control the data which is sent both in and out of a company. Implementing automated solutions, such as Adaptive Redaction and document sanitisation, will ensure that no recipient receives unauthorised critical data. This will build a level of confidence around the security of critical data for both the organisation and the customer.
With the proper processes and technologies in place, dealing with RTBF requests is a straightforward process, whether it is a legitimate request, or an attempt by hacktivists or disgruntled customers to wreak havoc on an organisation. Streamlining data discovery processes and controlling the data flowing in and out of the company will be integral in allowing a business to complete a RTBF request and ultimately defend the organisation against a malicious use of GDPR.