Mirai is the name of the worm that has taken control of many IoT devices around the world and used them to mount DDoS attacks, the most high-profile of which was directed against US-based DNS provider Dyn and resulted in many websites and online services being inaccessible for hours on end. Its source code was leaked by the author, which lead to the creation of more botnets, and an increased fear that we’ll soon witness … More ?
Original post:
Hajime IoT worm infects devices to head off Mirai
Security researchers discovered a new reflection attack method using CLDAP that can be used to generate destructive but efficient DDoS campaigns. DDoS campaigns have been growing to enormous sizes and a new method of abusing CLDAP for reflection attacks could allow malicious actors to generate large amounts of DDoS traffic using fewer devices. Jose Arteaga and Wilber Majia, threat researchers for Akamai, identified attacks in the wild that used the Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol(CLDAP) to perform dangerous reflection attacks. “Since October 2016, Akamai has detected and mitigated a total of 50 CLDAP reflection attacks. Of those 50 attack events, 33 were single vector attacks using CLDAP reflection exclusively,” Arteaga and Majia wrote. “While the gaming industry is typically the most targeted industry for [DDoS] attacks, observed CLDAP attacks have mostly been targeting the software and technology industry along with six other industries.” The CLDAP reflection attack method was first discovered in October 2016 by Corero and at the time it was estimated to be capable of amplifying the initial response to 46 to 55 times the size, meaning far more efficient reflection attacks using fewer sources. The largest attack recorded by Akamai using CLDAP reflection as the sole vector saw one payload of 52 bytes amplified to as much as 70 times the attack data payload (3,662 bytes) and a peak bandwidth of 24Gbps and 2 million packets per second. This is much smaller than the peak bandwidths of more than 1Tbps seen with Mirai, but Jake Williams, founder of consulting firm Rendition InfoSec LLC in Augusta, Ga., said this amplification factor can allow “a user with low bandwidth [to] DDoS an organization with much higher bandwidth.” “CLDAP, like DNS DDoS, is an amplification DDoS. The attacker has relatively limited bandwidth. By sending a small message to the server and spoofing the source, the server responds to the victim with a much larger response,” Williams told SearchSecurity. “You can only effectively spoof the source of connectionless protocols, so CLDAP is obviously at risk.” Arteaga and Majia said enterprises could limit these kinds of reflection attacks fairly easily by blocking specific ports. “Similarly to many other reflection and amplification attack vectors, this is one that would not be possible if proper ingress filtering was in place,” Arteaga and Majia wrote in a blog post. “Potential hosts are discovered using internet scans, and filtering User Datagram Protocol destination port 389, to eliminate the discovery of another potential host fueling attacks.” Williams agreed that ingress filtering would help and noted that “CLDAP was officially retired from being on the IETF standards track in 2003” but enterprises using Active Directory need to be aware of the threat. “Active Directory supports CLDAP and that’s probably the biggest reason you’ll see a CLDAP server exposed to the internet,” Williams said. “Another reason might be email directory services, though I suspect that is much less common.” Source: http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/news/450416890/CLDAP-reflection-attacks-may-be-the-next-big-DDoS-technique
Read more here:
CLDAP reflection attacks may be the next big DDoS technique
Akamai researchers Jose Arteaga and Wilber Majia have identified a new Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP) reflection and amplification method. CLDAP query packet Akamai’s Security Intelligence Response Team (SIRT) has observed this attack vector producing DDoS attacks consistently exceeding 1 Gbps, comparable to DNS reflection attacks. CLDAP Unlike other reflection-based vectors, where compromised hosts may number in the millions, the observed CLDAP amplification factor has been able to produce significant attack bandwidth with significantly … More ?
More:
CLDAP reflection attacks generate up to 24 Gbps of traffic
Spanish police say he ran the Kelihos botnet, hacking information and installing malicious software.
See the original post:
Russian arrested in Spain ‘over mass hacking’
Spanish police say he ran the Kelihos botnet, hacking information and installing malicious software.
See the original post:
Russian arrested in Spain ‘over mass hacking’
It’s not a matter of if you’re going to be DDoS attacked, it’s a matter of when – many APAC organisations fail to understand the threat and quantify the risk – right-sizing and verifying the solution is a must. When an attack occurs, the mature organisation is prepared to effectively mitigate the attack – protecting themselves (and in turn their clients and partners) from unacceptable financial and reputational impact. Let us look at these three steps, understand, quantify and mitigate, in detail. 1.Understand the threat The threat imposed by DDoS attacks in APAC is more significant than global counterparts. A recent Neustar survey showed that 77 percent of organisations within APAC have been attacked at least once, compared to 73 percent globally. Organisations within the region are also getting attacked more frequently, with 83 percent of those attacked being attacked more than once, and 45 percent having been attacked more than six times. In addition, attack sizes are steadily growing. In 2015, the average attack size identified by Neustar was about 5GB per second. By September 2016, average attack sizes had reached up to 7GB per second – and this was prior to the Mirai driven – IoT fuelled attacks – like those on Krebs, OVH and Dyn. Given this, we should expect a considerable rise in the mean size of volumetric attacks during 2017. We’ve also seen a steady increase in the number of multi-vector attacks – which now equates to about 50 percent of all DDoS attacks. In a multi-vector attack – the criminals are potentially aiming to distract an organisation with the DDoS attack while they go after their main target. They use the DDoS attack to draw away the organisations defensive capacity while they plant ransomware, breach the network or steal valuable data. Within APAC, compared to the global average of 25 percent, network breaches associated with a multi-vector attack is sitting at 33 percent, according to Neustar’s own data. This begs the question, are APAC organisations deficient when it comes to perimeter protection? When dealing with an attack, speed is critical. But surprisingly, within APAC, on average almost half of all organisations take over three hours to detect an attack and an additional three hours to respond. This is significantly higher than the global average of 29 percent and 28 percent respectively. Worryingly, 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, half the attacked organisations were notified of the attack by a third party, inflicting additional potential reputational damage. 2.Quantify the risk If a person goes to insure their car, they’re not going to over or underinsure it. That is, they’re not going to pay a premium associated with a higher value car – if the car gets written-off, they’re only going to get the value of the car, not the extra value associated with the premium. Alternatively, if they are underinsured, they’re not going to get back the full value of the car – they will need to pay an additional amount to replace the car. When looking at a DDoS environment, it is a similar scenario. An organisation will want to make sure it understands the level of risk and apply the right mitigation and the right cost to protect that risk. Paying the cost for a DDoS mitigation that exceeds their requirements is like over insuring the 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. Risk management is critical – rightsizing is a must – organisations need to prepare and implement a sound mitigation plan. To understand the severity of the risk DDoS imposes, organisations must quantify both probability and impact – tangible and intangible – and know the risk appetite and technical environment of the organisation. Once this information is gathered and 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. 3.Mitigate the attack Detection; Timely detection is critical – slow detection greatly increases potential financial and reputational loss, and allows the attackers valuable time to initiate other attack vectors. Fortunately, there are several technologies out there that can be used to monitor both the physical and cloud-based environment. For example, 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. Organisations can also look at using appliances to conduct automatic detection and response, again managed internally or by a third-party. In a cloud environment, there are plenty of cloud monitoring tools out there that allow companies to identify degradation and performance, CPU utilisation and latency, giving them an indication of when an attack occurs. Response; There are many DDoS mitigation solutions available, allowing organisations to match the solution to their requirements. In selecting a mitigation solution, it is important to review a complete range of options, and align the selected solution to the organisation’s risk exposure and technology infrastructure. For example an organisation operating in the cloud with a moderate risk exposure, might opt for a cloud based solution, pay-on-occurrence model. While a financial services company, operating its own infrastructure and exposed to substantial financial and reputational risk, would look for a hybrid solution, providing the best time to mitigate, low latency and near immediate failover to cloud mitigation for large volumetric attacks. Rehearsing; Once a DDoS mitigation service is selected and implemented, the detection and mitigation plan must be document and verified through testing. The frequency of testing a mitigation plan should be dependent on the level of risk. If in a high-risk environment, a business might want to rehearse monthly or quarterly. In a lower-risk environment, the organisation might stretch it out to yearly or biannually. By understanding the threat, quantifying the risk to the organisation and implementing a right-sized mitigation solution organisations can effectively and efficiently mitigate the risk of DDoS attacks. A well implemented and tested plan will protect an organisation from both financial and reputational damage, discouraging attackers, leading the wolf from your door, leaving them hunting for a softer target. Source: http://www.cso.com.au/article/617417/identifying-three-steps-ddos-mitigation/
Read the original post:
Identifying the three steps of DDoS mitigation
It’s not a matter of if you’re going to be DDoS attacked, it’s a matter of when – many APAC organisations fail to understand the threat and quantify the risk – right-sizing and verifying the solution is a must. When an attack occurs, the mature organisation is prepared to effectively mitigate the attack – protecting themselves (and in turn their clients and partners) from unacceptable financial and reputational impact. Let us look at these three steps, understand, quantify and mitigate, in detail. 1.Understand the threat The threat imposed by DDoS attacks in APAC is more significant than global counterparts. A recent Neustar survey showed that 77 percent of organisations within APAC have been attacked at least once, compared to 73 percent globally. Organisations within the region are also getting attacked more frequently, with 83 percent of those attacked being attacked more than once, and 45 percent having been attacked more than six times. In addition, attack sizes are steadily growing. In 2015, the average attack size identified by Neustar was about 5GB per second. By September 2016, average attack sizes had reached up to 7GB per second – and this was prior to the Mirai driven – IoT fuelled attacks – like those on Krebs, OVH and Dyn. Given this, we should expect a considerable rise in the mean size of volumetric attacks during 2017. We’ve also seen a steady increase in the number of multi-vector attacks – which now equates to about 50 percent of all DDoS attacks. In a multi-vector attack – the criminals are potentially aiming to distract an organisation with the DDoS attack while they go after their main target. They use the DDoS attack to draw away the organisations defensive capacity while they plant ransomware, breach the network or steal valuable data. Within APAC, compared to the global average of 25 percent, network breaches associated with a multi-vector attack is sitting at 33 percent, according to Neustar’s own data. This begs the question, are APAC organisations deficient when it comes to perimeter protection? When dealing with an attack, speed is critical. But surprisingly, within APAC, on average almost half of all organisations take over three hours to detect an attack and an additional three hours to respond. This is significantly higher than the global average of 29 percent and 28 percent respectively. Worryingly, 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, half the attacked organisations were notified of the attack by a third party, inflicting additional potential reputational damage. 2.Quantify the risk If a person goes to insure their car, they’re not going to over or underinsure it. That is, they’re not going to pay a premium associated with a higher value car – if the car gets written-off, they’re only going to get the value of the car, not the extra value associated with the premium. Alternatively, if they are underinsured, they’re not going to get back the full value of the car – they will need to pay an additional amount to replace the car. When looking at a DDoS environment, it is a similar scenario. An organisation will want to make sure it understands the level of risk and apply the right mitigation and the right cost to protect that risk. Paying the cost for a DDoS mitigation that exceeds their requirements is like over insuring the 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. Risk management is critical – rightsizing is a must – organisations need to prepare and implement a sound mitigation plan. To understand the severity of the risk DDoS imposes, organisations must quantify both probability and impact – tangible and intangible – and know the risk appetite and technical environment of the organisation. Once this information is gathered and 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. 3.Mitigate the attack Detection; Timely detection is critical – slow detection greatly increases potential financial and reputational loss, and allows the attackers valuable time to initiate other attack vectors. Fortunately, there are several technologies out there that can be used to monitor both the physical and cloud-based environment. For example, 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. Organisations can also look at using appliances to conduct automatic detection and response, again managed internally or by a third-party. In a cloud environment, there are plenty of cloud monitoring tools out there that allow companies to identify degradation and performance, CPU utilisation and latency, giving them an indication of when an attack occurs. Response; There are many DDoS mitigation solutions available, allowing organisations to match the solution to their requirements. In selecting a mitigation solution, it is important to review a complete range of options, and align the selected solution to the organisation’s risk exposure and technology infrastructure. For example an organisation operating in the cloud with a moderate risk exposure, might opt for a cloud based solution, pay-on-occurrence model. While a financial services company, operating its own infrastructure and exposed to substantial financial and reputational risk, would look for a hybrid solution, providing the best time to mitigate, low latency and near immediate failover to cloud mitigation for large volumetric attacks. Rehearsing; Once a DDoS mitigation service is selected and implemented, the detection and mitigation plan must be document and verified through testing. The frequency of testing a mitigation plan should be dependent on the level of risk. If in a high-risk environment, a business might want to rehearse monthly or quarterly. In a lower-risk environment, the organisation might stretch it out to yearly or biannually. By understanding the threat, quantifying the risk to the organisation and implementing a right-sized mitigation solution organisations can effectively and efficiently mitigate the risk of DDoS attacks. A well implemented and tested plan will protect an organisation from both financial and reputational damage, discouraging attackers, leading the wolf from your door, leaving them hunting for a softer target. Source: http://www.cso.com.au/article/617417/identifying-three-steps-ddos-mitigation/
Read the original post:
Identifying the three steps of DDoS mitigation
Hacktivists pledge to take government, military and business websites offline in annual attacks. Since 2013, hackers and internet activists affiliated with the notorious Anonymous collective have targeted digital services as part of #OpIsrael, a campaign designed to take down the websites of government, military and financial services in the country. Taking place annually on 7 April, it first started in 2013 to coincide with a Holocaust memorial service. Anonymous-linked hackers take to Twitter and YouTube to tout their cybercrime plans – which includes defacements and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks as a retaliation against Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. On PasteBin, a list of targets for the 2017 series of attacks has been posted, naming potential victims as the government and parliament websites. In one YouTube video, links to alleged DDoS tools had been posted. These have the ability to send surges of malicious traffic at a website domain to take it offline. “We are coming back to punish you again for your crimes in the Palestinian territories as we do every year,” a statement being circulated by Anonymous-linked accounts online pledged. The statement said the hackers’ plan is to take down servers and the websites of the government, military, banks and unspecified public institutions. “We’ll erase you from cyberspace as we have every year,” it added, continuing: “[It] will be an electronic holocaust. “Elite cyber-squadrons from around the world will decide to unite in solidarity with the Palestinian people, against Israel, as one entity to disrupt and erase Israel from cyberspace. “To the government, as we always say, expect us.” Far from being shocked at the news of the attacks, both cybersecurity experts and government officials have brushed off the aggressive rhetoric from the hacking group. It is not believed that past attacks have caused any physical damage other than website outages. Dudu Mimran, a chief technology officer at Ben-Gurion University, told The Jerusalem Post on 5 April that the attacks may actually be used as “training” for the Israelis. “From a training perspective there is always a learning lessons from this kind of event,” he said. Mimran claimed the biggest threat that may come from #OpIsrael is that it keeps government and business officials distracted from other – potentially more serious attacks. “When it makes everyone busy it gives slack to more serious attackers,” he said. Nevertheless, he added that “Israel and many other Western countries – but Israel in particular – are always under attack and ultimately concluded: “It does not elevate any serious threat on Israel.” On the morning of 7 April, Anonymous tweets mounted. “#OpIsrael has begun,” one claimed. Anonymous has been linked to numerous cyberattacks in recent years, launching campaigns on targets including US president Donald Trump, the government of Thailand and Arms supplier Armscor. The group has no known leadership and remains a loose collective of hackers. Source: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/opisrael-anonymous-hackers-poised-execute-electronic-holocaust-cyberattacks-against-israel-1615926
View post:
#OpIsrael: Anonymous hackers poised to execute ‘electronic holocaust’ cyberattacks against Israel
New variant of ‘Tsunami’ is a disaster waiting to happen Hackers have brewed up a new variant of the IoT/Linux botnet “Tsunami” that exploits a year-old but as yet unresolved vulnerability.…
View article:
‘Amnesia’ IoT botnet feasts on year-old unpatched vulnerability
According to Trend Micro, The Internet of Things is opening up new opportunities for businesses as well as introducing a new era of convenience for consumers. However, in a blogpost, they warn of issues that can lead to the downfall of IoT and called for countries stiving to be a smart nation to be wary. More than 24 billion IoT devices will connect to each other and the internet by 2020, according to Business Insider, and that’s a conservative estimate. The Motley Fool noted that other tech giants are predicting anywhere from 50 billion to 200 billion IoT devices within the next three years. One thing is clear: The IoT is going to be big, and require a lot of management. After all, handling devices the wrong way could leave security gaps in your network. Hardware configurations could be the downfall of IoT, and it’s important for you to enable your systems appropriately. Systems at risk Most devices, including routers and printers, come with preset, easy passwords and inactivated security capabilities. A number of organizations may simply install this hardware without changing the standard authorizations, leaving significant holes that attackers can exploit. This type of situation is only magnified by the number of active IoT devices. After all, who wants to configure every sensor or create a firewall for their coffee maker? However, you must do exactly that to enable IoT without compromising security. IoT technology is still developing, and you must ask critical questions to understand how these devices handle your sensitive information. The Global Privacy Enforcement Network Privacy Sweep found that it wasn’t clear how IoT devices collected, used and disclosed information. Many companies also neglect to explain how user data would be secured or how to delete personal information. With so many entry points to your network, your system could be at risk if you don’t have definitive answers concerning their requirements and capabilities. “If you think your IoT devices aren’t at risk, you’re wrong.” Sitting targets for malicious attacks Unsecured IoT devices are gateways for hackers to stroll into your critical business systems and execute attacks on a larger scale. In fact, major internet services including Twitter, Spotify and Netflix were disrupted when an attacker leveraged IoT devices to deliver a series of massive DDoS attacks to Dyn. According to Fast Company, the hacker leveraged the digital traffic from internet-enabled hardware and sent the noise to the domain name service provider, disrupting its ability to translate addresses into IP networks. Hundreds of thousands of cameras, routers, DVRs and other household appliances were used to carry out this attack. Security experts had warned that such a situation could occur, serving as a reminder why hardware configurations are critical for business and user security. If you think your IoT devices aren’t at risk, you’re wrong. Attackers can use tools like Shodan to easily search for exposed cyber assets. Trend Micro noted this system can show a hacker any connected device’s IP address, application and firmware versions as well as other critical information to make it easier to compromise. This research also found web servers, webcams, wireless access points and routers were the most unsecured cyber assets in the top 10 most populous U.S. cities. Protecting your IoT devices Security capabilities across IoT devices will only continue to improve, but in the meantime, organizations must take steps to protect this hardware. The first step is to configure your equipment correctly to your business and set passwords that will be difficult for a hacker to guess. You should also leverage data breach systems to detect unusual behavior within your network as it occurs. This solution will help catch malicious access to your IoT devices, enabling you to act quickly to reinstate and improve security. Source: http://www.networksasia.net/article/why-hardware-configurations-could-be-downfall-iot.1491403560
Read this article:
Why hardware configurations could be the downfall of IoT