Category Archives: DDoS News

Why DDoS attacks show no signs of slowing down

Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks caused substantial damage to organisations across APAC and the world in the past year. According to Neustar’s recent ‘Worldwide DDoS Attacks and Cyber Insights Research Report’, 84 percent organisations surveyed globally were hit by a DDoS attack in the last 12 months, with 86 percent of those organisations were hit multiple times. The code used to cause these large outages was published openly, and soon after all sorts of attacks and variants of the original code were causing havoc around the world. Detection is too slow DDoS attacks are not only occurring more frequently but are also getting more difficult to detect. Within APAC, more than half of organisations on average are taking at least three hours to detect an attack and nearly as many took another three hours to respond once an attack was detected. Alarmingly, slow detection and response can lead to huge damages financially. Around half of all organisations stand to lose an average of $100,000 per hour of peak downtime during an attack. To exacerbate this, 40 percent of organisations hit were notified by their customers of the attacks. Investment is increasing The worrying figures above help explain why 90 percent of organisations are increasing their investments in DDoS defences, compared to the previous 12 months – up from 76 percent last year- despite the fact that 99 percent already have some form of protection in place. The threats faced today, and those anticipated in the future, are clearly forcing organisations to completely reconsider the ways they are currently protecting themselves. Mitigating against DDOS attacks Effectively mitigating DDoS attacks has become crucial for organisations that want to avoid damaging financial and reputational loss. In order to combat attacks, organisations need to adequately understand the threat, quantify the risk and then create a mitigation plan that corresponds to their needs. Whether it’s a large or small scale DDoS attack, to keep up with the growing threat, companies will need newer, adaptable, and scalable defences that include new technology and methodologies. Developing a mitigation plan Paying the cost for a DDoS mitigation that exceeds their requirements is like over insuring your car – you are paying a premium for a service that does not match your level of risk/potential loss. Similarly, implementing a DDoS mitigation that does not cover the risk will likely lead to additional costs, resulting from greater organisational impact and additional emergency response activities. Once the severity of the risk is understood, there are three key critical elements of producing a good mitigation plan that must be enacted: detection, response and rehearsal. Detecting an attack Fortunately, there are several technologies out there that can be used to monitor both the physical and cloud-based environment. An example is how organisations can use Netflow monitoring on border routers to detect a volumetric attack, or provide this data to a third-party for analysis and detection. They can also look at using appliances to conduct automatic detection and response, again managed internally or by a third-party. In a cloud environment, organisations can choose between a vast array of cloud monitoring tools that allow them to identify degradation and performance, CPU utilisation and latency, giving an indication as accurate as possible of when an attack occurs. Responding to an attack The response plan to the attack must be scaled to the organisation’s risk exposure and technology infrastructure. For instance, an organisation operating in the cloud with a moderate risk exposure might decide on a cloud based solution, pay-on-occurrence model. On the other hand, a financial services company that operates its own infrastructure will be exposed to more substantial financial and reputational risk. Such a company would ideally look for a hybrid solution that would provide the best time to mitigate, low latency and near immediate failover to cloud mitigation for large volumetric attacks. Rehearsal of your mitigation plan Regardless of the protection method being deployed, it’s good practice to rehearse it periodically. Periodic testing can not only eliminate gaps or issues in responding to a DDoS attack, but can also prepare the responsible owners to perform their required actions when an actual event occurs. In summary, DDoS attacks aren’t showing any signs of slowing down anytime soon. The threats associated with DDoS attacks cannot be understated or underestimated. Moreover, by quantifying the risk to the organisation and implementing a right-sized mitigation solution, organisations can effectively and efficiently mitigate the risk of DDoS attacks. Source: https://securitybrief.com.au/story/why-ddos-attacks-show-no-signs-slowing-down/

Link:
Why DDoS attacks show no signs of slowing down

Kids these days: the 16-year-old behind 1.7 million DDoS attacks

Teenagers have typically not been known as the most motivated demographic, napping through classes and slouching through shifts at McDonald’s. While yelling at a 16-year-old four times just to get him to unload the dishwasher is annoying, consider the other end of the spectrum: the ambitious 16-year-old who earned over $500,000 USD by building a DDoS stresser responsible for 1.7 million attacks, causing millions of dollars in damages. It’s cool Brayden, you can unload the dishwasher later. Dirty dealings A successful distributed denial of service or DDoS attack is one in which a website or online service is overwhelmed by malicious traffic or requests, pushing the site or service offline so it’s unavailable to its users. DDoS attacks have been big news the last few years. Big news to website owners who have had users frustrated by downtime, to business owners who have suffered reputation damage and monetary losses, to the public at large who have been unable to use websites and services big and small because of these attacks, and big news to the media itself who have been devoting headlines to the ever-growing scourge of attacks. One of the main reasons for the increase in attacks has been DDoS for hire servers, otherwise known as booters or stressers. For as little as a few dollars, anyone with an internet connection can buy access to a service that allows them to aim a DDoS attack at the targets of their choosing. Stressers are so named because they masquerade as a legitimate tool, one that stresses a server to test its reliability. This is where Adam Mudd comes in. In the Mudd When Adam Mudd was just 16 years old he went to work on the computer in his bedroom and created what he called the Titanium Stresser. Mudd himself carried out 594 distributed denial of service attacks, including an attack against his former college, but those nearly 600 attacks were but a drop in the bucket compared to how busy his stresser got when he opened it up as a DDoS for hire service. In just over two years the Titanium Stresser racked up 112,000 registered users who launched 1.7 million DDoS attacks against 660,000 IP addresses. There were obviously many repeat targets amongst those 660,000 IP addresses, perhaps most notably the company behind the online game RuneScape which was hit 25,000 times and led to the company spending roughly $10 million in mitigation efforts. Other notable targets of the Titanium Stresser included Sony, Xbox Live, Microsoft and Team Speak. Mudd reportedly earned over $500,000 from his stresser service. It all came to an end for Mudd in March of 2015 when the police arrived at his parents’ house. Mudd refused to unlock his computer until his father intervened. He has since pleaded guilty to three charges under the United Kingdom Computer Misuse Act, and one charge of money laundering. He was sentenced to 24 months in jail. The big picture Mudd was nothing more than a teenager in the bedroom of his parents’ house, yet his stresser service caused millions of dollars in quantitative damages and untold further damages when it comes to lost productivity, lost user loyalty and lost revenue in both the short and long term. There are Adam Mudds all over the world, many more experienced, running stresser services that are just as successful as the Titanium Stresser and even more so. Further, while Mudd’s arrest and conviction is a success for law enforcement, he joins a list of recent DDoS-related arrests that include members of the famed Lizard Squad, owners of the vDos botnet, and three dozen patrons of stresser services. Hackforums, the biggest hacking forums in the world, also recently banned DDoS for hire services. All seemingly good things. Yet the number of DDoS attacks being perpetrated hasn’t gone down. When the FBI or Interpol shuts down a stresser service, another stresser service simply scoops up its customers. The lesson here has to be that DDoS attacks can be perpetrated by anyone and aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. With stresser services so affordable and accessible, almost every website on the internet is a potential target, and potentially a repeat target. Without professional DDoS protection, websites will be left picking up the pieces and paying exorbitant sums in order to do so. Source: http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/in-business/kids-days-16-year-old-behind-1-7-million-ddos-attacks/

See the original post:
Kids these days: the 16-year-old behind 1.7 million DDoS attacks

Libertarian Site Suffers DDoS Attack After Supporting Google Worker

Quillette Magazine, a small but respected libertarian publication based in Australia, suffered a DDoS attack Tuesday after publishing an article supportive of James Damore, the fired Google memo writer. The attack, which crashed the site for a day, came after Quillette published the opinion of four scientists on the Google memo. The scientists found that the conservative Google employee’s views on gender differences were supported by substantial scientific evidence. The Google memo’s “key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, culture,” wrote Geoffrey Miller, a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of New Mexico, explaining that the memo “is consistent with the scientific state of the art on sex differences.” “Among commentators who claim the memo’s empirical facts are wrong, I haven’t read a single one who understand sexual selection theory, animal behavior, and sex differences research,” Miller added. Deborah Soh, who has a PhD in sexual neuroscience and works as a Toronto-based science writer, concurred with Miller. “Sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong.” “This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at,” Soh said. Unfortunately, liberal-hacker-activists couldn’t handle the truth, and Quillette’s website took an arrow to the knee. Claire Lehmann, the founder of Quillette, told PJ Media that her website was especially susceptible to attack. While there are many programs that can be used to protect against DDoS attacks (which are when hackers flood websites with traffic to crash it), Claire said she didn’t have any. “I’m a small site and my technical skills are not at a high level, so I was unaware that I should have had these protections. Apparently they are fairly standard,” she told PJ Media. Her site, which has received endorsements from well-known figures such as Charles Murray and Richard Dawkins, has a history of publishing science-based journalism, but this is the first time they’ve suffered a DDoS attack, Lehman says. (Disclosure: I’ve written a few articles on higher education for them. Small world.) Lehmann, whose site has been dedicated to supporting alternative viewpoints since it launched in 2016, said her work is crucial to helping people see the truth behind things. “It’s important to hear alternative viewpoints so that we can work out what is the truth, and not merely consensus,” Lehmann said. “Over the past few years, both academic and media institutions have become highly conformist. And we know that groupthink leads to blindspots, which makes us unable to see what is actually true.” Source: https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/08/09/libertarian-site-suffers-ddos-attack-after-supporting-google-worker/

View the original here:
Libertarian Site Suffers DDoS Attack After Supporting Google Worker

The IoT Botnet Wars: How to Harden Linux Devices from DoS Attacks

While fighting botnets like Mirai and BrickerBot with another botnet, Hajime, may help prevent denial-of-service attacks on the IoT, the best defense is a basic system security-hardening plan. An ongoing battle being waged is leveraging insecure Linux-based Internet of Things (IoT) devices. BrickerBot (see “Beware BrickerBot, the IoT Killer”) is a recent malware strain attacking connected devices and causing them to “brick,” making an electronic device completely useless in a permanent denial-of-service (PDoS) attack. It may be a case of grey hat hacking and a direct response to the Mirai botnet distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack that enslaved IoT devices. The Mirai botnet consisted of connected printers, IP cameras, residential gateways, and baby monitors that flooded DNS servers. Mirai was behind the largest DDoS attack of its kind ever in October 2016, with an estimated throughput of 1.2 terabits per second. It leveraged these enslaved devices to bring down large portions of the internet, including services such as Netflix, GitHub, HBO, Amazon, Reddit, Twitter, and DIRECTV. BrickerBot’s goal appears to counter Mirai’s: Bricking insecure Linux devices so that malware such as Mirai can’t subjugate these devices in another DDoS attack. An internet service provider in Southern California, Sierra Tel, experienced widespread outages due to this battle. Its Zyxel modems were victim to BrickerBot and another malware, possibly Mirai. It took nearly two weeks to replace all customers’ modems. This was the same modem model that Mirai infected and took out a German ISP’s network, an outage that affected a population size larger than San Francisco. Hajime is another Mirai-like worm that has been spreading during the past several months with similar goals as BrickerBot: Thwarting malware such as Mirai in exploiting poorly secured IoT devices to do their bidding. Hajime accesses devices by scanning the internet and trying a set of default credentials, and then injecting a malicious program. However, Hajime tries to harden the security of these devices by blocking four ports that Mirai is known to attack (23, 7547, 5555, 5358) to deflect further subjugation for DDoS attacks or even Bitcoin mining. Unfortunately, once the Hajime-infected device reboots, it returns to its vulnerable state with these ports open. Thus, Hajime is merely a temporary band-aid. The only real cure is to deploy a software update with new credentials. Leading computer-security expert Gene Spafford said “The only true secure system is one that is powered off, cast in a block of concrete, and sealed in a lead-lined room with armed guards—and even then I have my doubts.” While this may be true, basic security hardening would have helped protect against many of the attacks from malware targeting Linux devices. We will cover some basic system-hardening concepts in the context of these attacks, including closing unused open network ports , intrusion detection systems , enforcing password complexity and policies , removing unnecessary services , and frequent software updates to fix bugs and patch security vulnerabilities. Basic Security Would Deflect Malicious Mirai Malware The Mirai malware caused major outages across the internet by attacking DNS provider Dyn’s servers. The malware infected vulnerable devices by using open Telnet ports to target ARM, MIPS, PPC, and x86 devices that run on Linux. It scanned the internet for the IP address of IoT devices and identified vulnerable ones by using a table of more than 60 common factory credentials. As the malware is stored in memory, the device remains infected until it’s rebooted. Even if the device is rebooted, it can be re-infected in minutes unless the login credentials are changed immediately. Once the device is infected by Mirai, it tries to remove any competing malware and sits idle long enough as a way to avoid detection from security tools. After an extended period, it contacts its Command and Control server for further instruction. Enforcing complex password policies instead of keeping published factory-default credentials would have helped prevent Mirai from enslaving these devices. The challenge of securing consumer-facing IoT is that manufacturers are relying on consumers to change the password from a factory-default login, which typically requires the process of logging into the admin panel and manually changing the password. Will Dormann, senior vulnerability analyst at the CERT Coordination Center, says “Instead of hard-coding credentials or setting default usernames and passwords that many users will never change, hardware makers should require users to pick a strong password when setting up the device.” The ability to deploy software updates is another mandatory capability to fix bugs and patch known security vulnerabilities. In the software-development book Code Complete , author Steve McConnell states that there are 1-25 bugs and vulnerabilities per 1,000 lines of code, where the variable is determined by the practices of the team. Consumer electronics, such as many of the devices listed on Krebs (see figure) , are at the high end of the scale due to the higher focus on features and time-to-market with little security oversight. Many of these devices are already running on thin margins, so having an over-the-air (OTA) update capability with minimal development effort by the manufacturer is an important consideration. These are the known infected devices by Mirai published on Krebs on Security. “When it comes to software updates, automatic updates are good,” says Dormann. “Simple updates that notify the user and require intervention are okay. Updates that require the user to dig around to find and install manually are next to worthless. Devices that don’t have updates at all are completely worthless.” The software update process itself is complex with many security considerations to take into account to protect against things like man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks. There is also the danger of a device bricking because it loses power mid-update or has intermittent network connectivity. For this reason, updates need to be atomic, meaning the update fully completes or not at all (no partial updates)—even in cases of power loss at any time during the update process. Manufacturers have open-source options available to deploy software updates to devices. SWUpdate is a well-known and flexible open-source Linux update agent, while Mender.io (disclaimer: the open-source project I am involved with) provides an end-to-end solution (both agent and management server) to deploy OTA updates fleet-wide. Software updates for IoT has become a hot topic, even getting the attention of the U.S. government and Congress. And Bill Woods from the Atlantic Council international think tank noted that two billion IoT devices currently out there have a 12-year-old secure-shell (SSH) flaw that enables them to be turned into a botnet. Vigilante Hacking In the early 2000s, the Blaster worm was spreading on computers running operating systems such as Windows XP and Windows 2000. DDoS attacks were launched in 2003, causing damages totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. The Welchia worm was a response to Blaster, which exploited a vulnerability in Microsoft’s remote procedure call (RPC) service much like Blaster. However, after infecting a system, it would instead delete Blaster if it existed there, and then tried to download and install security patches from Microsoft that would prevent further infection. Similar to Welchia, Hajime is going head-to-head with Mirai and its malicious variants to minimize the damage they can do. Hajime appears to be a much more advanced botnet, taking steps to camouflage its processes and files, making detection of it much more difficult. And it’s much more refined in cycling through credentials as it parses through information to identify the device manufacturer and uses their combinations by default. For example, when it attacked the MikroTik router, Hajime attempted to log in initially with the factory-default according to MikroTik documentation, and reduced the number of invalid passwords as it tried to reduce the chances of being blacklisted. Hajime closes known network ports that Mirai exploits to secure those devices—a strategy that device manufacturers should use: Closing unnecessary ports reduce their attack surface. Intrusion detection systems (IDS) are also helpful in monitoring unusual network activity. There are two types of network IDS: Signature detection and Anomaly detection. Many open-source solutions are available; Snort and Suricata are popular options. BrickerBot is the first malware of its kind whose goal is to cause a PDoS by bricking devices not fully secure, with the seeming goal of removing them as potential victims of malware that will enslave them for DDoS attacks. There have been multiple versions of BrickerBot, and the suspected author of it claims to have bricked over 2 million devices. BrickerBot 1 targets devices running Linux with BusyBox and an exposed Telnet service. They usually have an older version of Dropbear SSH, and most were identified as Ubiquiti network devices running outdated firmware. BrickerBot 2 targets Linux-based devices more widely using a similar tactic of leveraging an exposed Telnet service with a default or hard-coded password. The most secure software is one that is not installed. All services and applications running on your device should have a fundamental reason to be there. Adding unnecessary features increases the attack surface of your device and will, by definition, make it less secure. Applying Basic Security Principles Will Help Some fundamental system hardening can be the deciding factor on whether a device will be an actor in a DDoS attack or bricked. The results of vigilante hacking, like that of Hajime and BrickerBot, to combat the Mirai-driven DDoS attacks has generated much debate. There are arguments on both sides, with many insisting the amount of warnings on the lack of IoT security has fallen on deaf ears to manufacturers and consumers. And they argue that malware such as BrickerBot is a drastic but necessary measure to hit them where it hurts, and in the process, disable insecure devices from being a part of another DDoS attack. There have been discussions online about a scenario where a consumer would be under warranty from the manufacturer if their devices do get bricked. The cost to the manufacturer to replace it would be too high to ignore security, forcing them to take security much more seriously. A common counter-argument of vigilante hacking is “Why should the consumers be punished? Where is the line someone can cross to anonymously take the law into their own hands?” There is neither accountability nor certainty that the authors of BrickerBot or Hajime are completely well-meaning, or if there’s something nefarious the public has yet to discover. They also use the same techniques that black hats use, potentially leading to a proliferation of more malicious hackers. Another potential scenario is a vigilante malware can brick a device that may potentially kill someone despite it being far from the original intent. Something as simple as an IoT refrigerator can be hacked and bricked without the owner’s knowledge. Subsequently, a person could proceed to unknowingly eat spoiled food that may cause illness and even death. And we know there are much more health-sensitive devices than a refrigerator being connected, such as connected cars, insulin pumps, heart implant devices, and much more. In fact, the FDA recently became involved with Abbott Labs and its new acquisition, St. Jude Medical. St. Jude Medical devices had vulnerable software that allowed unauthorized external control, which could run down the battery or deliver a series of shocks at the wrong time (these devices included defibrillators and pacemakers). The latest correspondence indicates the FDA isn’t satisfied with parent company Abbott Labs’ response to the issue, despite St. Jude’s claims they had developed a software patch that could be applied to remove the vulnerability. While we briefly covered some basic security-hardening concepts, it’s not comprehensive. But these should be a start to conform to industry best practice for securing IoT systems. These steps would have helped to protect or at least mitigate the effects of the malware discussed. Although there’s no silver bullet and security can never be “perfect,” it’s clear that implementing existing solutions to cover basic security around credentials, open ports, and enabling automated software updates will have a massive impact. Source: http://www.electronicdesign.com/industrial-automation/iot-botnet-wars-how-harden-linux-devices-dos-attacks

Continue Reading:
The IoT Botnet Wars: How to Harden Linux Devices from DoS Attacks

Journalist Sues FCC For Hiding Details About Its Alleged, Phantom DDoS Attack

You might recall that when John Oliver did his latest piece on net neutrality, the FCC’s comment system ground to a halt under the load of viewers pissed to realize that the FCC is trying to kill popular consumer protections protecting them from buffoonery by the likes of Comcast. But the FCC then did something odd: it claimed that a DDoS attack, not HBO’s hit show, resulted in the website’s issues. A statement issued by the FCC proclaimed that extensive “analysis” by the FCC had led the agency to conclude that it had suffered the attack at roughly the same time Oliver’s program had ended: “Beginning on Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC was subject to multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDoS). These were deliberate attempts by external actors to bombard the FCC’s comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial cloud host. These actors were not attempting to file comments themselves; rather they made it difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC.” The problem: security experts saw no evidence that claim was true in publicly available logs, and saw none of the usual indicators preceding such an attack. And the FCC ever since has been bizarrely cagey, refusing to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting its claim. The FCC was subsequently prodded by several Senators as to the nature of the attack, but the FCC still refused to share any real data, despite agency boss Ajit Pai repeatedly, breathlessly insisting he would be a stalwart defender of transparency at the agency. And when Gizmodo recently filed a FOIA request for anything regarding the nature of the attack, the FCC first released seventeen pages of nonsense, before admitting it had no documented “analysis” proving an attack as previously claimed. When additional websites began to point out that the FCC’s behavior here was a little odd, the agency sent out a strangely-punchy press release lambasting news outlets for being “irresponsible.” So what’s really happening here? The unsubstantiated journalist guess du jour is that the FCC bizarrely made up a DDoS attack in a feeble attempt to downplay the “John Oliver effect” in the media. “We weren’t inundated by millions of people angry that we’re killing popular consumer protections solely to the benefit of Comcast,” this narrative suggests, “we were unfairly attacked!” The fact that there never actually was a DDoS attack would go a long way toward explaining the Trump FCC’s subsequent inability to provide any evidence supporting the claim, even under pressure from Congress. Hoping to flesh this theory out a bit, journalist Kevin Collier last week filed a lawsuit against the FCC (pdf) not only demanding more data on the agency’s supposed DDoS attack, but also urging the FCC to provide some insight on what it’s doing to address the wave of bogus, bot-produced anti-net neutrality comments flooding the agency’s website in recent months: “Collier said his records request was prompted by the FCC’s “weird and cagey” inclination to obscure details about the incident. “The fact that they gave Gizmodo such a runaround in its own request for internal ‘analysis’ of the attack just goes to show this,” he said. “I want to know the full story.” Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, told Gizmodo last week the FCC’s actions raised “legitimate questions about whether the agency is being truthful when it claims a DDoS attack knocked its commenting system offline.” Again, the refusal to address fraudulent anti-net neutrality comments being made at the FCC website (like the one made in my name), combined with the FCC’s bizarre, phantom DDoS attack, has many believing the FCC is actively engaged in an intentional, amateurish attempt to downplay the massive backlash to their assault on net neutrality. And while it’s entirely possible the FCC is just being non-transparent and generically stupid here, if it can be proved the agency actively lied about a DDoS attack then covered it up simply to downplay the immense unpopularity of its policies, the inevitable lawsuits against the agency in the wake of its final vote to kill the rules could get very interesting. Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170803/13582337915/journalist-sues-fcc-hiding-details-about-alleged-phantom-ddos-attack.shtml

Read More:
Journalist Sues FCC For Hiding Details About Its Alleged, Phantom DDoS Attack

‘App DDoS bombs’ that slam into expensive APIs worry Netflix

Attackers can look legit while hitting APIs that make the most work for an app Netflix has identified denial of service threat to microservices architectures that it’s labelled “application DDoS”.…

Continued here:
‘App DDoS bombs’ that slam into expensive APIs worry Netflix

Don’t ban the bots

I do a lot of DDoS related research online, which results in a lot of DDoS protection related spam/offers. A trend I have seen gaining popularity lately is “ ban the bots” . These emails contain a lot of emotionally charged language trying to persuade the reader that bots are destroying the internet, wasting your bandwidth and pillaging your website (and how for a modest monthly fee they can keep the digital invaders at bay). I couldn’t disagree more. For the most part I like bots. Bots save me a ton of work and allow me to the focus on tasks that are meaningful to me. The only reason that search engines, hotel booking sites, and social media sites operate so successfully (or at all) is because of bots. These advertisements do acknowledge there are some good bots out there, while stressing the need to block the bad bots. I thought I’d pull some numbers from traffic running through our system. I was pleasantly surprised, as a DDoS protection service I was expecting to see more malicious bots than legitimate but what I found was 85% of the bot traffic is classified as good : SES (which stands for Search Engine Spiders, but is a general list of the known good bots) which we don’t want to block, and XSE which contains alternate Spiders and bots that while legitimate can cause impact on some websites. The other 15% of traffic is from hosting companies, ISPs, and commercial traffic from unknown bots. This traffic is not automatically bad , but hidden somewhere in there are the malicious bots and scrapers which we do want to block. This is where the philosophy “ban the bots” makes things more complicated than it needs to be, because while it is a trivial matter to find and locate bots, it focuses you on the actor not the action. Don’t ban the bots, ban the malicious actions . If you design your web security to defend against malicious actions it shouldn’t matter whether they are from bots or not. At DOSarrest this is what we do, we create special features to focus on the malicious bot traffic and apply them to customer configurations and leave the good bots alone. In fact, I’ll go one step further: don’t ban the bots, help the bots. Because while I disagree with the conclusion the facts are not wrong, bots do consume more than a trivial amount of resources. By helping the bots find the content they are looking for you can reduce the impact on your site and possible improve your overall ranking. Your first goal is getting the bots to your content in as few requests as possible, and at the same time stopping the bots from crawling pages you don’t need (or want) to show up in search results. Most modern sites have dynamic, pop-up, hidden menus that require multiple javascript and CSS resources to properly render. They might look fantastic, but a bot isn’t interested in the aesthetics of your site, they are looking for content. A sitemap is a great tool for linking all the content you want to emphasize without a bot having to navigate through a bunch of complicated dynamic resources. Then there are the rest of the pages in your site, things that are useful to your users but not things that need to appear in the search rankings, login pages, feedback forms, etc. Use robots.txt file or ‘noindex’ meta tags to direct the bots not to bother with these pages. Your sitemap and robots.txt will help bots find the resources you want them to find, and avoid the ones you don’t. This will help lighten the load on your webserver, but won’t necessarily help your site ranking. The number one thing they are looking for is quality content. But searchbots also look for good performing sites. Too many errors or slow responses will negatively impact your ranking in a big way. The answer here is caching. Many bots, googlebot included, do full page downloads when indexing your site. They are looking for javascript and CSS files, images and PDFs, or whatever resources you’ve linked. Most of these resources are static and can be served up out of a CDN. Not only will this alleviate the load on your server, but the performance improvement will make all your quality content that much more appealing to the bots. Sean Power Security Solutions Architect DOSarrest Internet Security Source: https://www.dosarrest.com/ddos-blog/don-t-ban-the-bots/

Read More:
Don’t ban the bots

DDoS Attacks Could Disrupt Brexit Negotiations

IT security professionals are bracing for DDoS attacks of unprecedented frequency in the year ahead, and are already preparing for attacks that could disrupt the UK’s Brexit negotiations and cause outages worldwide. That’s according to a survey from Corero Network Security, which found that more than half (57%) of respondents believe that the Brexit negotiations will be affected by DDoS attacks, with hackers using DDoS to disrupt the negotiations themselves, or using the attacks merely as camouflage while they seek to steal confidential documents or data. The latter “hidden attack” scenario is on the radar of many, and it generally involves the use of smaller, low-volume DDoS attacks of less than 30 minutes in duration. As Corero found in its research, these Trojan-horse campaigns typically go un-mitigated by most legacy solutions, and are frequently used by hackers as a distraction mechanism for additional efforts, like data exfiltration. About 63% of respondents are worried about these hidden effects of these attacks on their networks— particularly with the GDPR deadline fast-approaching, where organizations could be fined up to 4% of global turnover in the event of a data breach. At the same time, worryingly, less than a third (30%) of IT security teams have enough visibility into their networks to mitigate attacks of less than 30 minutes. Meanwhile, many in the industry expect to see a significant escalation of DDoS attacks during the year ahead, with some (38%) predicting that there could even be worldwide Internet outages during 2017. As for who’s behind the growing wave of attacks, the perpetrators are generally financially motivated, IT pros said—despite continued discussions about nation-state attackers or political activism. Security teams believe that criminal extortionists are the most likely group to inflict a DDoS attack against their organizations, with 38% expecting attacks to be financially motivated. By contrast, just 11% believe that hostile nations would be behind a DDoS attack against their organization. This financial motivation explains why almost half of those surveyed (46%) expect to be targeted by a DDoS-related ransom demand over the next 12 months. Worryingly, 62% believe it is likely or possible that their leadership team would pay. “Despite continued advice that victims should not pay a ransom, a worrying number of security professionals seem to believe that their leadership teams would still consider making a payment in the event of an attack,” said Ashley Stephenson, CEO of Corero. “Corporations need to be proactive and invest in their cybersecurity defenses against DDoS and ransomware to protect themselves against such extortion.” The good news is that the vast majority of security teams (70%) are already taking steps to stay ahead of the threats, such as putting business continuity measures in place to allow their organizations to continue operating in the event of worldwide attacks. However, they also agree that some responsibility for DDoS protection lies with the ISPs; and about a quarter of those surveyed (25%) believe their ISP is primarily to blame for not mitigating DDoS attacks. At the end of 2016, the head of Britain’s new National Cyber Security Centre suggested that the UK’s ISPs could restrict the volume of DDoS attacks across their networks by rewriting internet standards around spoofing. Continued discussions on this topic have led nearly three-quarters of respondents (73%) to expect regulatory pressure to be applied against ISPs who are perceived to be not protecting their customers against DDoS threats. “While most in the IT security industry wouldn’t expect their ISP to automatically protect them against DDoS attacks, there is a growing trend to blame upstream providers for not being more proactive when it comes to DDoS defense,” said Stephenson. “To help their cause, ISPs could do more to position themselves as leading the charge against DDoS attacks, both in terms of protecting their own networks, and by offering more comprehensive solutions to their customers as a paid-for, managed service.” Source: https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/ddos-attacks-could-disrupt-brexit/

Read the original:
DDoS Attacks Could Disrupt Brexit Negotiations

An internet-connected fish tank let hackers into a casino’s network

A high-tech, internet-connected fish tank in a North American casino has been used to exfiltrate data from the company’s network. Smart drawing pads used in an architectural firm were part of a botnet used to mount DDoS attacks against websites around the world owned by entertainment companies, design companies, and government bodies. These are just some of the discoveries made by UK-based cyber defense Darktrace, but serve as perfect examples of how lax security when … More ?

Follow this link:
An internet-connected fish tank let hackers into a casino’s network

Can Cloud Storage save you from Ransomware Attacks?

Step by step, our personal and work lives are being transferred online and instantaneous connections, real-time cooperation, and free flowing information come at a price. Yes, cybercrime is hardly something new but the recent rise in global ransomware attacks are putting the question of online security into the spotlight and under scrutiny. The hackers are getting more and more inventive, and it’s becoming harder for the individual as well as companies to protect themselves. What can be done? Can cloud storage save us from ransomware? Cloud Storage vs. Ransomware Cloud created a revolution in data storage. It’s cost-effective, easy to access and typically very well guarded. The convenience is reflected in its widespread use. A report by RightScale found that 82% of companies were already using multi-cloud storage strategies. According to a report by Intuit, 78% of small businesses will fully rely on cloud services by 2020. This mass migration of business of all sizes to cloud space rendered it an extremely attractive target. Sadly, the NotPetya ransomware made it clear that ransomware has gone beyond local and physical storage, and can hit everywhere. Although being publicized as on one of the safest storage options, the cloud is not an exception to the threat. Let’s Be Realistic The best way to stay protected is to be realistic and keep informed about the capacity and power of the services on which you are relying. As such, cloud storage is not a magical bulletproof solution that will graciously save you from the ransomware. To be able to withstand ransomware and other types of attacks, cloud and collaboration services need to start implementing or strengthening solutions that allow for real-time visibility, greater control, data loss prevention, and so forth. If hackers are getting more creative, the levels of security need to follow and surpass them. How to Leverage Cloud Storage Despite the cold splash of reality, not all is lost. Cloud storage can be a valuable partner in crime or – better said – your partner in preventing crime. Scalability – Regardless of shortcomings, cloud services are still best equipped to act as a failsafe and protect you from ransomware today and in the future. Being flexible and scalable in essence, cloud services enable us to keep up with the changes and developments in the malware landscape. In other words, while the nature of the attack is unlikely to change, the delivery method will and cloud services have the agility to adjust aptly. Security Layers – In most cases, the layers of security over cloud are considerably better than of any other private server. Typically, clouds are a sophisticated combination of elaborate access controls and encrypted technology with the capacity to expand. Plus, many of them provide protection against DDoS attacks which makes them all the more useful. Backups – Due to reliability and resiliency, backing up your data with a cloud storage is far more efficient. When stored on local storage, frequent backups consume a lot of storage resources and negatively affect computer performance. With the cloud, backups of your information, data and documents can be frequent, and the streamlined failover process provides you with the comfortable safety of backup recovery. A recommended approach is to rely on several clouds simultaneously which provides a much more expansive protections without excessively high costs or unbearable complexity. How do you know cloud is worth your time? According to MarketsAndMarkets, the cloud security market will be valued at impressive $8.71 billion by 2019, so companies are ready to invest more and more to improve and strengthen the safety of the cloud environments from malicious attacks. Cloud storage, although not the ultimate weapon against ransomware attacks, is by far one of the most efficient ways to protect your information without excessive spending or applying overly complicated scenarios. It’s also most likely to scale and thus continue withstanding cybercrime in the future. Nonetheless, it is crucial you select your cloud service carefully as not all are equal. Source: http://www.dos-protection.co.uk/wp-admin/post-new.php

View the original here:
Can Cloud Storage save you from Ransomware Attacks?