Tag Archives: stop-ddos

Are you Ready for These 26 Different Types of DDoS Attacks?

The scourge of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks has been a major concern for businesses and governments for more than two decades. First reported in 1996, this is a destructive and ever-evolving vector of cyber raids that knocks electronic networks offline by flooding them with the traffic they can’t handle. Not only is DDoS a way for hacktivists to manifest protest against Internet censorship and controversial political initiatives, but it’s also a goldmine of opportunities for achieving strictly nefarious goals. For instance, the latest tweak in this epidemic is what’s called “ransom DDoS,” a technique used to extort money from organizations in exchange for discontinuing a massive incursion. A big hurdle to thwarting the DDoS phenomenon is that it’s heterogeneous and spans a variety of different tactics. To begin with, there are three overarching categories of these attacks that form the backbone of this ecosystem: Volume-based (volumetric) attacks are the “classic” ones that congest a target network’s bandwidth with a hefty amount of traffic packets. Protocol attacks are aimed at exhausting server or firewall resources. Application layer (layer 7 DDoS) attacks zero in on specific web applications rather than the whole network. These ones are particularly hard to prevent and mitigate while being relatively easy to orchestrate. Furthermore, there are dozens of sub-types that fall into either one of the above generic groups but exhibit unique characteristics. Here’s a complete breakdown of the present-day DDoS attack methods. 1. SYN Flood This attack exploits the TCP three-way handshake, a technique used to establish any connection between a client, a host, and a server using the TCP protocol. Normally, a client submits a SYN (synchronize) message to the server to request a connection. When a SYN Flood attack is underway, criminals send a plethora of these messages from a spoofed IP address. As a result, the receiving server becomes incapable of processing and storing so many SYN packets and denies service to real clients. 2. LAND attack To perform a Local Area Network Denial (LAND) attack, a threat actor sends a fabricated SYN message in which the source and destination IP addresses are the same. When the server tries to respond to this message, it gets into a loop by recurrently generating replies to itself. This leads to an error scenario, and the target host may eventually crash. 3. SYN-ACK Flood The logic of this attack vector is to abuse the TCP communication stage where the server generates a SYN-ACK packet to acknowledge the client’s request. To execute this onslaught, crooks inundate the CPU and RAM resources of the server with a bevy of rogue SYN-ACK packets. 4. ACK & PUSH ACK Flood Once the TCP three-way handshake has resulted in establishing a connection between a host and a client, ACK or PUSH ACK packets are sent back and forth until the session is terminated. A server targeted by this type of a DDoS attack cannot identify the origin of falsified packets and wastes all of its processing capacity trying to determine how to handle them. 5. Fragmented ACK Flood This attack is a knockoff of the above-mentioned ACK & PUSH ACK Flood technique. It boils down to deluging a target network with a comparatively small number of fragmented ACK packets that have a maximum allowed size, usually 1500 bytes each. Network equipment such as routers ends up running out of resources trying to reassemble these packets. Furthermore, fragmented packets can slip below the radar of intrusion prevention systems (IPS) and firewalls. 6. Spoofed Session Flood (Fake Session Attack) In order to circumvent network protection tools, cybercriminals may forge a TCP session more efficiently by submitting a bogus SYN packet, a series of ACK packets, and at least one RST (reset) or FIN (connection termination) packet. This tactic allows crooks to get around defenses that only keep tabs on incoming traffic rather than analyzing return traffic. 7. UDP Flood As the name suggests, this DDoS attack leverages multiple User Datagram Protocol (UDP) packets. For the record, UDP connections lack a handshaking mechanism (unlike TCP), and therefore the IP address verification options are very limited. When this exploitation is in full swing, the volume of dummy packets exceeds the target server’s maximum capacity for processing and responding to requests. 8. DNS Flood This one is a variant of UDP Flood that specifically homes in on DNS servers. The malefactor generates a slew of fake DNS request packets resembling legitimate ones that appear to originate from a huge number of different IP addresses. DNS Flood is one of the hardest denial-of-service raids to prevent and recover from. 9. VoIP Flood This is a common form of UDP Flood that targets a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) server. The multitude of bogus VoIP requests sent from numerous IP addresses drain the victim server’s resources and knock it offline at the end of the day. 10. NTP Flood (NTP Amplification) Network Time Protocol (NTP), one of the oldest networking protocols tasked with clock synchronization between electronic systems, is at the core of another DDoS attack vector. The idea is to harness publicly-accessible NTP servers to overload a target network with a large number of UDP packets. 11. CHARGEN Flood Similarly to NTP, the Character Generator Protocol (CHARGEN) is an oldie whose emergence dates back to the 1980s. In spite of this, it is still being used on some connected devices such as printers and photocopiers. The attack comes down to sending tiny packets containing a victim server’s fabricated IP to devices with CHARGEN protocol enabled. In response, the Internet-facing devices submit UDP packets to the server, thus flooding it with redundant data. 12. SSDP Flood Malefactors can exploit networked devices running Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) services by executing a Simple Service Discovery Protocol (SSDP) reflection-based DDoS attack. On a side note, SSDP is embedded in the UPnP protocol framework. The attacker sends small UDP packets with a spoofed IP address of a target server to multiple devices running UPnP. As a result, the server is flooded with requests from these devices to the point where it goes offline. 13. SNMP Flood (SNMP Amplification) Tasked with harvesting and arranging data about connected devices, the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) can become a pivot of another attack method. Cybercriminals bombard a target server, switch, or router with numerous small packets coming from a fabricated IP address. As more and more “listening” devices reply to that spoofed address, the network cannot cope with the immense quantity of these incoming responses. 14. HTTP Flood When executing an HTTP Flood DDoS attack, an adversary sends ostensibly legitimate GET or POST requests to a server or web application, siphoning off most or all of its resources. This technique often involves botnets consisting of “zombie” computers previously contaminated with malware. 15. Recursive HTTP GET Flood To perpetrate this attack, a malicious actor requests an array of web pages from a server, inspects the replies, and iteratively requests every website item to exhaust the server’s resources. The exploitation looks like a series of legitimate queries and can be difficult to identify. 16. ICMP Flood Also referred to as Ping Flood, this incursion aims to inundate a server or other network device with numerous spoofed Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) echo requests or pings. Having received a certain number of ICMP pings, the network responds with the same number of reply packets. Since this capability to respond is finite, the network reaches its performance threshold and becomes unresponsive. 17. Misused Application Attack Instead of using spoofed IP addresses, this attack parasitizes legitimate client computers running resource-intensive applications such as P2P tools. Crooks reroute the traffic from these clients to the victim server to bring it down due to excessive processing load. This DDoS technique is hard to prevent as the traffic originates on real machines previously compromised by the attackers. 18. IP Null Attack This one is carried out by sending a slew of packets containing invalid IPv4 headers that are supposed to carry transport layer protocol details. The trick is that threat actors set this header value to null. Some servers cannot process these corrupt-looking packets properly and waste their resources trying to work out how to handle them. 19. Smurf Attack This one involves a malware strain called Smurf to inundate a computer network with ICMP ping requests carrying a spoofed IP address of the target. The receiving devices are configured to reply to the IP in question, which may produce a flood of pings the server can’t process. 20. Fraggle Attack This DDoS technique follows a logic similar to the Smurf Attack, except that it deluges the intended victim with numerous UDP packets rather than ICMP echo requests. 21. Ping of Death Attack To set this raid in motion, cybercrooks poison a victim network with unconventional ping packets whose size significantly exceeds the maximum allowed value (64 bytes). This inconsistency causes the computer system to allocate too many resources for reassembling the rogue packets. In the aftermath of this, the system may encounter a buffer overflow or even crash. 22. Slowloris This attack stands out from the crowd because it requires very low bandwidth and can be fulfilled using just one computer. It works by initiating multiple concurrent connections to a web server and keeping them open for a long period of time. The attacker sends partial requests and complements them with HTTP headers once a while to make sure they don’t reach a completion stage. As a result, the server’s capability to maintain simultaneous connections is drained and it can no longer process connections from legitimate clients. 23. Low Orbit Ion Cannon (LOIC) Originally designed as a network stress testing tool, LOIC can be weaponized in real-world DDoS attacks. Coded in C#, this open-source software deluges a server with a large number of packets (UPD, TCP, or HTTP) in an attempt to disrupt a target’s operation. This onslaught is usually backed by a botnet consisting of thousands of machines and coordinated by a single user. 24. High Orbit Ion Cannon (HOIC) HOIC is a publicly accessible application that superseded the above-mentioned LOIC program and has a much bigger disruptive potential than its precursor. It can be used to submit a plethora of GET and HTTP POST requests to a server concurrently, which ends up knocking a target website offline. HOIC can affect up to 256 different domains at the same time. 25. ReDoS ReDoS stands for “regular expression denial-of-service.” Its goal is to overburden a program’s regular expression implementation with instances of highly complex string search patterns. A malicious actor can trigger a regular expression processing scenario whose algorithmic complexity causes the target system to waste superfluous resources and slow down or crash. 26. Zero-Day DDoS This term denotes an attack that takes advantage of uncatalogued vulnerabilities in a web server or computer network. Unfortunately, such flaws are surfacing off and on, making the prevention a more challenging task. A Serious Threat Although distributed denial-of-service is an old school attack vector, it continues to be a serious threat to organizations. The monthly number of such attacks exceeds 400,000. To top it off, cybercriminals keep adding new DDoS mechanisms to their repertoire and security providers aren’t always prepared to tackle them. Another unnerving thing is that some techniques, including Low and High Orbit Ion Cannon, are open source and can be leveraged by wannabe criminals who lack tech skills. Such an attack may get out of hand and go way beyond the intended damage. To prevent DDoS attacks and minimize the impact, businesses should learn to proactively identify the red flags; have an appropriate response plan in place; make sure their security posture has no single point of failure, and continuously work on strengthening the network architecture. Source: https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/92327-are-you-ready-for-these-26-different-types-of-ddos-attacks

Read the original:
Are you Ready for These 26 Different Types of DDoS Attacks?

DDoS in the Time of COVID-19: Attacks and Raids

There is no escaping it. COVID-19 is dominating headlines and has impacted virtually every corner of the world. Like most people at this point, I’m 30 days into isolation and trying everything in my power to ignore the elephant in the room and the politics that go along with it. Unfortunately, or fortunately, cyber security is an essential business. As a result, those working in the field are not getting to experience any downtime during a quarantine. Many of us have been working around the clock, fighting off waves of attacks and helping other essential businesses adjust to a remote work force as the global environments change. Waves of Attacks Along the way we have learned a few things about how a modern society deals with a pandemic. Obviously, a global Shelter-in-Place resulted in an unanticipated surge in traffic. As lockdowns began in China and worked their way west, we began to see massive spikes in streaming and gaming services. These unanticipated surges in traffic required digital content providers to throttle or downgrade streaming services across Europe, to prevent networks from overloading. The COVID-19 pandemic also highlights the importance of service availability during a global crisis. Due to the forced digitalization of the work force and a global Shelter-in-Place, the world became heavily dependent on a number of digital services during isolation. Degradation or an outage impacting these services during the pandemic could quickly spark speculation and/or panic. For example, as COVID-19 began to take a toll on Australia’s economy, there became a rush of suddenly unemployed citizens needing to register for welfare services on MyGov, Australia’s government service portal. This natural spike in traffic ended up causing an outage on the morning of March 23 rd , requiring Government Services Minister Stuart Roberts to walk back his initial claims that the portal had suffered from a DDoS attack, naturally causing panic and speculation among those desperately seeking government assistance. In France, Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, the university hospital trust managing 39 public hospitals in the area, found itself a victim of a DDoS attack on March 22 nd , just as France begin to deal with a surge in COVID-19 related cases. The attack was reported to have only lasted an hour and did not cause any significant damage. The problem was, upon further review, in order to deal with the attack, there was a reduction in internet access. Typically, during any other day, this reduction would not have had an impact, but due to the pandemic and a remote, non-essential work force, employees outside of the hospital’s network were blocked from external access during this attack, resulting in the inability to access email, Skype or remote application. In addition to this attack, the Brno University Hospital in the Czech Republic was hit a week earlier with a cyber-attack that force the hospital to shut down their entire network, resulting in the cancellation of surgeries. And if that wasn’t enough, a food delivery service in Germany experienced a DDoS attack from an extortionist. Lieferando.de, also known as takeaway.com, is a takeaway food service that delivers from more than 15,000 restaurants in Germany. During this global pandemic, citizens of the world have become very dependent on take away food services as part of the effort to help flatten the curve. Unfortunately, an extortionist attempted to capitalize on this by launching a Ransom Denial of Service (RDoS) attack on Takeaway, demanding 2 BTC ($11,000) to stop the attack. As a result, some orders were able to be accepted but were never delivered, forcing Germans to find another option for the night. Taking Down Cyber Criminals It should come as no surprise that law enforcement agencies around the world are particularly interested in taking down those looking to profit from COVID-19. They are also interested in kicking down doors of those who are conducting DDoS attacks during the pandemic. On April 10 th , a 19-year-old from Breda, Netherlands, was arrested for conducting a DDoS attack on March 19 th against MijnOverheid.nl and Overhied.nl. Both of these websites are government-related and were providing Dutch citizens with important government information related to the pandemic. It’s truly unfortunate to see teenagers in the middle of a pandemic targeting critical infrastructure, preventing access to emergency regulations and advisories, but what did we expected? A cease-fire? In order to prevent additional DDoS attacks, a week prior to the Breda arrest, Dutch police shut down 15 stresser services. While these services were not listed, I can tell you, the raid was largely unnoticeable. Part of the problem can be found between the words of Jeroen Niessen, Dutch Police: “With preventive actions, we want to protect people as much as possible against DDoS attacks. By taking booters and their domain names offline, we make it difficult for cyber criminals. We have now put quite a few on black. If they pop up elsewhere, we will immediately work on it again. Our goal is to seize more and more booters…” If they pop up elsewhere, we will immediately work on it again…. But Are These Efforts Futile? In my opinion, it sounds like the police finally understand that raids are a losing battle without total commitment. If there’s one thing we learned from the 2019 raid of KV solution, a bulletproof hosting provider, it was that when one criminal falls, dozens are willing to replace them. For example, in 2018 the Department of Justice took down 15 stresser services as part of an effort to prevent DDoS attacks. The domain seized are listed below: anonsecurityteam.com booter.ninja bullstresser.net critical-boot.com defcon.pro defianceprotocol.com downthem.org layer7-stresser.xyz netstress.org quantumstress.net ragebooter.com request.rip str3ssed.me torsecurityteam.org vbooter.org The problem is, taking down a stresser service is pointless when there are so many criminals using public services and corporations to mask their identities. Until there is cooperation and commitment to removing the DDoS threat completely, it will always linger, rearing its nasty head in the worst moments. Due to the lack of commitment between the global law enforcement community and the security community, we are unable to see a meaningful impact in the DDoS landscape. It’s really not that difficult to find a stresser service today. In fact, you can find these criminals openly advertising their services on major search engines–no Tor browser or Darknet Market required. While search engines could simply de-index these services, they choose not to. Instead, they elect to profit from your misfortune. Below are a handful of sites found on popular search engine using the terms ‘booter’ or ‘stresser’: powerstresser.pro, freeboot.to, instant-stresser.to, meteor-security.to, layer7-security.to, stressthem.to, stress.to, stress.gg, booter.vip, bootstresser.com, bootyou.net, defconpro.net, str3ssed.co, ts3booter.net, vdos-s.co, webstresser.biz, hardstresser.com, havoc-security.pw, synstresser.to, dosninja.com, stresser.wtf, thunderstresser.me, ripstresser.rip, astrostress.com, botstress.to, dotn3t.org, nightmarestresser.to, silentstress.wtf, torstress.com, xyzbooter.net, databooter.to. A Temporary Solution After reviewing the list, Officer Jeroen Niessen’s statement becomes clearer. Whether or not these current websites are associated with the original criminal groups or cloned, multiple stressers with notorious names have been reappearing. In general, I think it’s fair to say that while raids are disrupting criminals, they have hardly put a dent in the overall activity or economy of the DDoS-as-a-Service industry. Takedowns only represent a temporary solution, and this has become clear during the pandemic. Unfortunately, the threat landscape continues to evolve during a pandemic. Criminals are clearly not taking time off. Worst of all, not only is the public cloud fully in scope for cybercriminals looking to compromise enterprise equipment, but due to the ongoing pandemic and the remote digitalization of the work force, remote software and digital services have come under fire from opportunist criminals. I think during this time of chaos and uncertainty we really need to reflect on our impact and ability to secure the digital workforce and ask ourselves, are we protecting criminals due to privacy concerns or is there more we could do to remove and eliminate the DDoS threat? Source: https://securityboulevard.com/2020/04/ddos-in-the-time-of-covid-19-attacks-and-raids/

Taken from:
DDoS in the Time of COVID-19: Attacks and Raids

Cyber Warfare Doesn’t Take a Break During Coronavirus Season

US Health Agencies Are Fending off DDoS Attacks and Disinformation Campaigns in the Midst of a Pandemic Unfettered by social distancing measures or economic concerns, cyber threat actors are taking full advantage of opportunities created by the coronavirus pandemic. United States health agencies are being tested by distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks and social media disinformation campaigns as they scramble to respond to an unprecedented viral outbreak, and these attacks are thought to be backed by a hostile foreign government. Federal health agency hit with DDoS attack A large-scale DDoS attack was directed at the U.S. Health and Human Services Department sometime around March 15. A spokesperson for the National Security Council stated that the attack did not do any substantial damage and that the networks are being “continuously monitored” to mitigate any future attempts. The DDoS attack involved millions of requests on the health agency’s servers over a period of several hours. A Health and Human Services spokesperson indicated that the government does not know who was behind the attack, but suspects a foreign government. The DDoS attack did not involve any network compromise, nor did it significantly slow down operations. The spokesperson indicated that the agency has put unspecified “extra protections” in place going forward. Fake texts and tweets part of organized disinformation campaign In addition to the DDoS attack, the National Security Council indicated that there is an ongoing disinformation campaign intended to sow fear and confusion in the American public that focuses on the health agencies. This is also believed to be backed by a foreign government. The agency warns about fake text messages that claim a mandatory national quarantine or lockdown is imminent. This disinformation campaign is also circulating widely on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, and usually involves someone claiming they heard about imminent National Guard mobilization for a lockdown from some sort of friend or family member with inside information. The most damaging aspect of the disinformation campaign was a hack that managed to penetrate emergency MMS and SMS text-messaging systems used in a number of different cities in the US, which occurred just after Italy opted to lock down the entire country. The attackers sent out a bogus “warning” message claiming that public and emergency services were about to be shut down due to the coronavirus. These messages did not initially get out to the general public on a large scale, but did make their way to various emergency services personnel in a number of major cities including Boston, Washington DC and New York City. There is no indication at present that a national quarantine or lockdown is being considered. Such a move would be logistically difficult and extremely unpopular politically. While President Trump has mentioned that the possibility has been discussed, he has also signaled a desire to avoid action of this sort by the federal government on several occasions. During his March 21 briefing, Trump indicated that the government is focusing on action in coronavirus “hot zones” and that a national shutdown was not being seriously considered at the time. Perpetrators, motives and methods The assumption that a foreign government is behind these cyber incidents is primarily based on the lack of any sort of profit motive behind shutting down health agency servers or spreading false rumors on social media. While the rumors could potentially be used to manipulate stock prices in an indirect way, it seems more likely that this is a coordinated effort given that the DDoS attack and the disinformation campaign emerged at about the same time. Anonymous officials told ABC News that they believe Russia or China are the most likely perpetrators. This would not at all be a surprising move by either of these American adversaries, but particularly not for Russia. Russian “troll farms” that use fake social media accounts to pose as Americans and stir up dissent and division have been making the news since the widespread interference in the 2016 election, but have likely been working for over a decade now. This sort of disinformation campaign is precisely their MO. Any state-sponsored threat actor is capable of using a botnet, but DDoS attacks against other countries have been the hallmark of two particular hacking groups in recent years: APT 28, aka Russia’s infamous “Fancy Bear” group, and APT 33 (Elfin Team) out of Iran. Greg Wendt, Executive Director of Appsian, points out that though these health agencies have been successfully able to mitigate DDoS attacks they may be ripe for more targeted and sophisticated breach attempts: ” … government institutions such as the HHS are key targets for cyberattacks, and given that the government has many applications and systems that were written and developed 35-40 years ago, the process to modernize and transform the critical nature of data is a lengthy one and not a process that can be successfully done overnight.” New challenges for both government and private industry The cyber challenges posed by the coronavirus outbreak are not limited to health agencies. Private industry and individuals can also expect online predators to attempt to take advantage of the situation. Thomas Hatch, CTO and Co-Founder at SaltStack, a Lehi, Utah-based provider of intelligent IT automation software, foresees an inevitable increase in attacks on certain business sectors: “Petty thieves will assume that classical attacks are going to be more effective because cyber defense staffing is likely distracted right now dealing with the influx of issues that come from a demand shift for specific services. Organized groups are likely empowered by the situation and will want to take advantage of it. They can attack specific services, particularly financial institutions because of the overall distracted nature of the defenders.” Leading security firm Crowdstrike is reporting a significant increase in activity in phishing campaigns concurrent with global implementation of coronavirus restrictions. Early examples that have been spotted in the wild have promised free vaccines or offers of charity relief. Some targeted attacks on health care organizations have claimed to be related to shipments of ventilators or personal protective equipment. Hackers are also commonly attempting to pose as a legitimate health agency such as the WHO or CDC. In addition to targeted cyber attacks, everyone should be on heightened alert for messages tied to disinformation campaigns being spread throughout all sorts of public forums online. Source: https://www.cpomagazine.com/cyber-security/cyber-warfare-doesnt-take-a-break-during-coronavirus-season-us-health-agencies-are-fending-off-ddos-attacks-and-disinformation-campaigns-in-the-midst-of-a-pandemic/

Read the original post:
Cyber Warfare Doesn’t Take a Break During Coronavirus Season

Ireland vulnerable to cybersecurity attack, says industry leader

The Government has been urged to appoint a cybersecurity “tsar” to ensure the State is adequately prepared to deal with potential attacks. The call by one of the State’s leading IT security experts comes amid growing concern Ireland could be caught off-guard by a cybersecurity attack, due to a lack of joined-up thinking on the issue and a failure to take threats seriously. Currently the response to cyber threats lies across a number of bodies, with the Department of Communications, An Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence among those involved. Brian Honan, an independent security consultant who has also served as a special adviser to Europol’s Cybercrime Centre (EC3), said a tsar with the authority and autonomy to ensure an effective cybersecurity strategy should be appointed as a matter of urgency. “We need a coherent and centralised approach to protecting our nation rather than having responsibilities for various aspects of cybersecurity spread throughout different departments and agencies,” he said. Mr Honan warned that cybersecurity was becoming more of an issue globally with data breaches, DDoS and ransomware attacks, financial scams and state-sponsored hacking incidents all on the rise. As well as domestic considerations, the State is also responsible for the security of services provided across the EU by multinational companies who have their European headquarters located here. Mr Honan said that, given this, a cybersecurity attack could not only cause widespread disruption for businesses and public agencies, but would also lead to serious reputational damage. “It is too critical for us as a nation, both from an economic and national security point of view, for [cybersecurity] to be left to individual government departments or businesses to look after,” said Mr Honan. Funding review Mr Honan’s comments come just weeks after a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General revealed that a dedicated cybersecurity unit established to protect government and industry networks has no strategic plan and requires a review of its funding. The National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), based in UCD, was established in 2011 with a view to “securing critical national infrastructure”. However, the C&AG report into its operations found an oversight body set up to monitor its performance had not met since 2015. Fianna Fáil has also recently urged the Government to take a more proactive approach to cybersecurity. Its defence spokesman, Jack Chambers, recently called for responsibility for the NCSC to be reassigned away from the Department of Communications. “The Department of Defence should take ownership and control of this so it can develop a proper whole-of-government response to the area of cybersecurity as it becomes a serious national threat. It would compromise foreign direct investment if our national infrastructure were to be seriously undermined and there were to be an attack,” Mr Chambers. Source: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/ireland-vulnerable-to-cybersecurity-attack-says-industry-leader-1.3666946

Continue Reading:
Ireland vulnerable to cybersecurity attack, says industry leader

Anonymous Attacks Spanish Government Sites

Hacktivist group Anonymous has been firing up its DDoS cannon again, this time aiming it at Spanish government websites, in support of Catalan independence. The group claimed to have taken offline the website of the constitutional court, which ruled the Catalonian referendum illegal last week. It also defaced the website of the Spanish Ministry of Public Works and Transport with a “Free Catalonia” message. A statement from the group had the following: “In the name of all the Catalan independence and democracy, Anonymous Catalonia asks all the Anons of the world who are in favour of the freedom of expression […] and peaceful dialogue to persist in the #FreeCatalonia operation until 29 October 2017.” Various accounts associated with the disparate group have been tweeting messages with #opCatalunya and #FreeCatalonia, claiming “big attacks are coming”, although the government sites in question appear to be back to normal now. “We wish to state that the Catalan people’s desire to express their will via a referendum is the majority view and cuts across all strata of society and is in keeping with the civic, peaceful and democratic determination expressed in the multitudinous demonstrations held by organised society in favour of its right to decide,” noted another Anonymous branded video. Stephanie Weagle, VP at Corero Network Security, argued that DDoS attacks continue to function as an effective disrupter of businesses and in some cases help to distract IT teams while information is stolen. “In order to effectively protect their networks, prevent disruptions to customer operations, and better protect against service outages, downtime and potential data theft, companies need real-time visibility and mitigation of all DDoS attack traffic targeting their networks, regardless of size or duration,” she added. “Traditional security infrastructure will not stand up to these service interrupting attacks—a dedicated layer of DDoS mitigation is required to eliminate the DDoS threat. Source: https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/anonymous-attacks-spanish/

Continue reading here:
Anonymous Attacks Spanish Government Sites

CERT issues cyber attack warning for India

Malware Reaper is acquiring internet-connected devices for coordinated attack, say State Cyber Police Mumbai: The Maharashtra Cyber Department is in the process of issuing a State-wide advisory outlining steps to prevent potential targets from falling prey after the New Delhi-based Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) said it has received intelligence inputs about a massive cyber attack on several countries, including India. The CERT is the country’s central cyber security agency. Maharashtra Cyber Police officers confirmed to The Hindu that the attack would be similar to the Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) attack that hit the State last year. In July 2016, The Hindu had reported how small and medium Internet Service Providers were under attack from unknown parties, who were pinging their servers incessantly to the point where the servers crashed, denying service to their clients and causing loss of revenue. According to sources, the imminent DDOS attack, which is believed to be on a much larger scale, is being readied using malware known by two names, Reaper and IoTroop, and is currently taking over thousands of machines connected to the internet to be used for a synchronised attack on the target servers. Maharashtra IG (Cyber) Brijesh Singh said, “Mirai had acquired five lakh devices. The Reaper malware has already affected two million devices worldwide, and is acquiring 10,000 devices per day. It seems to be targeting CCTV camera systems and Digital Video Recorders connected to the internet.” Bot attack A Cyber Police officer said, “It’s difficult to say at this point exactly who the targets are, but we have enough information to indicate that machines connected to the internet, including cell phones, laptops, CCTV cameras and other devices, are susceptible. A large number of such machines are being hacked and turned into bots as we speak. Our cyber intelligence network indicates a lot of abnormal behaviour on the internet, consistent with hacking of devices.” A bot, or robot, is an automated programme. In this kind of cyber attack, hackers use malware to infect devices to turn them into bots that do their bidding. Sources said the perpetrators of Reaper are currently creating a huge network of bots, called a botnet in cyberspeak. In October 2016, a malware known as Mirai had executed multiple DDOs attacks on servers of Dyn, a leading domain name service provider, affecting several popular websites including Twitter, Netflix and Reddit. Cyber Police officers said Reaper is amassing bots on a much larger scale than Mirai. “Once the botnet is ready as per the perpetrators’ requirements, they simply have to command the bots to ping servers of the target all at once, resulting in a server crash. Depending on the size of the company or industry targeted, it will result in massive losses of revenue.” A possible way to execute the attack would be that the bots are pre-programmed to strike on a particular day. This possibility is also being probed, officers said. Superintendent of Police Balsing Rajput, Maharashtra Cyber Police, confirmed that intelligence inputs about Reaper have been received. “We are working on the information and will soon be coming out with an advisory regarding the same.” Source: Malware Reaper is acquiring internet-connected devices for coordinated attack, say State Cyber Police Mumbai: The Maharashtra Cyber Department is in the process of issuing a State-wide advisory outlining steps to prevent potential targets from falling prey after the New Delhi-based Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) said it has received intelligence inputs about a massive cyber attack on several countries, including India. The CERT is the country’s central cyber security agency. Maharashtra Cyber Police officers confirmed to The Hindu that the attack would be similar to the Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) attack that hit the State last year. In July 2016, The Hindu had reported how small and medium Internet Service Providers were under attack from unknown parties, who were pinging their servers incessantly to the point where the servers crashed, denying service to their clients and causing loss of revenue. According to sources, the imminent DDOS attack, which is believed to be on a much larger scale, is being readied using malware known by two names, Reaper and IoTroop, and is currently taking over thousands of machines connected to the internet to be used for a synchronised attack on the target servers. Maharashtra IG (Cyber) Brijesh Singh said, “Mirai had acquired five lakh devices. The Reaper malware has already affected two million devices worldwide, and is acquiring 10,000 devices per day. It seems to be targeting CCTV camera systems and Digital Video Recorders connected to the internet.” Bot attack A Cyber Police officer said, “It’s difficult to say at this point exactly who the targets are, but we have enough information to indicate that machines connected to the internet, including cell phones, laptops, CCTV cameras and other devices, are susceptible. A large number of such machines are being hacked and turned into bots as we speak. Our cyber intelligence network indicates a lot of abnormal behaviour on the internet, consistent with hacking of devices.” A bot, or robot, is an automated programme. In this kind of cyber attack, hackers use malware to infect devices to turn them into bots that do their bidding. Sources said the perpetrators of Reaper are currently creating a huge network of bots, called a botnet in cyberspeak. In October 2016, a malware known as Mirai had executed multiple DDOs attacks on servers of Dyn, a leading domain name service provider, affecting several popular websites including Twitter, Netflix and Reddit. Cyber Police officers said Reaper is amassing bots on a much larger scale than Mirai. “Once the botnet is ready as per the perpetrators’ requirements, they simply have to command the bots to ping servers of the target all at once, resulting in a server crash. Depending on the size of the company or industry targeted, it will result in massive losses of revenue.” A possible way to execute the attack would be that the bots are pre-programmed to strike on a particular day. This possibility is also being probed, officers said. Superintendent of Police Balsing Rajput, Maharashtra Cyber Police, confirmed that intelligence inputs about Reaper have been received. “We are working on the information and will soon be coming out with an advisory regarding the same.” Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/cert-issues-cyber-attack-warning-for-india/article19920037.ece

Read the original post:
CERT issues cyber attack warning for India

What is cyber terrorism?

How is cyber terrorism defined and how likely is an attack? Everyone is familiar with what “terrorism” means, but when we stick the word “cyber” in front of it, things get a bit more nebulous. Whereas the effects of real-world terrorism are both obvious and destructive, those of cyber terrorism are often hidden to those who aren’t directly affected. Also, those effects are more likely to be disruptive than destructive, although this isn’t always the case. Cyber terrorism incidents One of the earliest examples of cyber terrorism is a 1996 attack on an ISP in Massachusetts. Cited by Edward Maggio of the New York Institute of Technology and the authors of Internet: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 2 , a hacker allegedly associated with the white supremacist movement in the US broke into his Massachusetts-based ISP after it prevented him from sending out a worldwide racist message under its name. The individual deleted some records and temporarily disabled the ISP’s services, leaving the threat “you have yet to see true electronic terrorism. This is a promise” While this is a clear example of a cyber-terrorist incident carried out by a malicious, politically motivated individual that caused both disruption and damage, other frequently listed examples fit less clearly into the category of “terrorism”. For example, while attacks that have taken out emergency services call centres or air-traffic control could be considered cyber terrorism, the motivation of the individuals is often unclear. If a person caused real-life disruption to these systems, but had no particular motivation other than mischief, would they be classed as a terrorist? Perhaps not. Similarly, cyber protests such as those that occurred in 1999 during the Kosovo against NATO’s bombing campaign in the country or website defacements and DDoS attacks are arguably online versions of traditional protests, rather than terrorism. Additionally, in the case of civil war, if one side commits a cyber attack against the other then it can be said to be more of an act of war – or cyber war – than one of cyber terror. Again, where there is a cold war between nations, associated cyber attacks could be thought of as sub-conflict level skirmishes. Indeed, the FBI defines cyber terrorism as “[any] premeditated, politically motivated attack against information, computer systems or computer programs, and data which results in violence against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents”. Under this definition, very few of the tens-of-thousands of cyber attacks carried out every year would count as cyber terrorism. The future of cyber terrorism As the number of connected devices increases, the likelihood of a more destructive cyber terrorist incident – something on a par with an attack in the physical world – becomes increasingly possible. The security industry is full of stories and proofs of concept about hacking medical devices, with two particularly famous demonstrations being given by New Zealander Barnaby Jack. This opens up the possibility for targeted assassinations or mass-scale killings carried out remotely and potentially across borders. Similarly, there are concerns self-driving vehicles could be turned into remote-controlled missiles and used in an attack, although the counter argument is that such vehicles will make the roads safer in the face of terrorists driving conventional vehicles into crowds. Another possible style of cyber terrorism is disruption of infrastructure in a way that could potentially endanger life. For example, in 2016 an unknown actor caused a disruption that saw two apartment buildings in Finland lost hot water and heating for a week in the dead of winter. In locations as cold as Finland, actions like this could cause illness and death if widespread and sustained. Nevertheless, the likelihood is most serious cyber attacks will be acts of cyber warfare, rather than cyber terrorism, as nation states have larger and more sophisticated resources at hand. Source: http://www.itpro.co.uk/security/29726/what-is-cyber-terrorism

See the original post:
What is cyber terrorism?

More than half of businesses fell victim to DDoS attacks in the past year, survey shows

CDNeworks research shows 54% of businesses were hit by distributed denial of service attacks in the last year, and many feel they are underinvesting in cyber defences. More than half of businesses (54%) have been victims of successful distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks over the past 12 months, according to research from cloud security firm CDNetworks. The company surveyed 305 organisations in the UK, Germany, Austria and Switzerland about the technologies that protect them from cyber attacks. Some 83% of the respondents felt either confident or very confident about their cyber defences, but 44% felt they were currently underinvesting in anti-DDoS technologies. Chris Townsley, Emea director for CDNetworks, told Computer Weekly that this mix of opinions was strange. “Not only is there widespread complacency – the overwhelming confidence in DDoS protection, undermined by the high proportion of businesses suffering successful attacks – but there is also a significant number of businesses that are worried that they have not invested enough,” he said. “It is odd to see so much confidence alongside such doubt about whether enough is being done.” The survey also found that 64% of organisations said they would be investing more in such technology over the next year, and in terms of expectation of an attack, 79% rated the likelihood of an attack as between “likely” and “almost certain”. This attitude is reflected in the frequency of incidents, with 86% saying they had suffered a DDoS attack in the previous 12 months. The size of attacks is also growing. In the first half of 2015, the largest DDoS attack recorded was 21Gbps, but during the equivalent period in 2016, it was 58.8Gbps. Also, 31% of attacks in the first half of 2016 were 50Gbps or more, but there were no attacks of that size in the first half of 2015. Townsley added: “As the size of attacks increases, businesses need to look more at protection from the edge and not at the origin or datacentre. “As the size of traffic increases, so does the likelihood that the bandwidth of the origin server will be saturated, no matter what protection is in place to keep it up and functioning. “Also, with the frequency of attacks increasing, businesses should move to a mindset of ‘when’ and not ‘if’ an attack will occur.” When asked whether the number of successful attacks was due to businesses buying the wrong security products, Townsley said: “It could be that the type of protection was not suitable, or was suitable for some types of attack but not all. As the types of attack are changing all the time, products can become obsolete.” Source: http://www.computerweekly.com/news/450428288/More-than-half-of-businesses-fell-victim-to-DDoS-attacks-in-the-past-year-survey-shows

Read the original post:
More than half of businesses fell victim to DDoS attacks in the past year, survey shows

Cybersecurity: into the data breach

Cybersecurity has become a significant issue as attacks are increasing. In the new payments ecosystem, where third-party developers can directly interact with banks’ customers, data privacy and security become paramount, according to the World Payments Report 2017 by Capgemini and BNP Paribas . A significant issue to address as the new payments ecosystem evolves is that of cybersecurity. During the past few years, cyberattacks and crimes have increased across the globe, with corporate and financial institution entities, large and small, targeted. The price of increasing collaboration among industry stakeholders in the new payments ecosystem could be an increase in cyber security vulnerabilities. To alleviate this risk, corporates are increasingly turning to their banks for advice on how to strengthen their infrastructures against cyber attacks. To ensure the highest levels of cybersecurity and the security of infrastructures in the new payments ecosystem, each stakeholder must assess security across all the data sources and points of collaboration. The need for robust cyber security solutions to cater to all forms of cyberthreats has never been greater for corporate treasurers as new technologies proliferate and collaboration increases. Of prime importance for corporates in developing defence mechanisms is awareness of potential cyber security risks, regular updating of security profiles and continuous training of employees. This is because attacks perpetrated by cybercriminals are unpredictable in both timing and nature. The vulnerabilities stakeholders face include cyber security, data privacy, data breaches, and payments fraud. The utmost vigilance is required to protect organisations against cyber attacks and all stakeholders, including regulators, must be more proactive regarding cybersecurity, with ownership of the issue taken to prevent attacks. In the new payments ecosystem, third-party developers can directly interact with a partner banks’ customers, raising questions about data privacy and security. In an increasingly networked ecosystem, identifying the source of attack will be a challenge. Verizon’s 2017 Data Breach Investigations Report found that security incidents and data breaches affect both large and small financial organisations almost equally. However, the security of larger banks is difficult to compromise as they invest more in cyber security solutions. Smaller banks, which do not have the same access to resources, are more prone to cyberattacks. A fraud survey by the Association for Financial Professionals and JP Morgan found that the highest levels of fraud in 2016 were perpetrated via cheques. However, there was a surge in wire transfer fraud, from 27 per cent in 2014 to 46 per cent in 2016. An increasing number of cyber security breaches are causing significant losses for banks and corporates across the world. Among recent incidents, in February 2016, a cyberheist at Bangladesh Central Bank resulted in a loss of $81 million and prevented another $850 million worth of transactions from being processed on the Swift network. Similarly, in May 2016 cybercriminals hacked the Swift system and stole $9 million from Ecuadorian bank Banco del Austro. In May 2017, the WannaCry ransomware attack affected more than 150 countries and 200,000 computers, as attackers demanded each of those affected to pay up to $300 worth of bitcoins to unlock their systems. In a survey for World Payments Report , bank executives ranked distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks and customer payments fraud as the main security challenges they face. Also of concern were the high levels of card fraud, which place a significant cost burden on banks. The increasing adoption of digital offerings in transaction banking is also giving rise to higher levels of payments fraud, making cyber security a top priority for banks and corporates. Customer payments fraud is the top ranked concern for financial technology companies and other survey respondents. This group is much less likely to view DDoS attacks as a threat; data breaches due to hacking attacks was of more concern, as was internal fraud. While banks are investing significantly in cybersecurity solutions, there are still many risks at the corporate level that they cannot manage. Corporates must, therefore, step up their own efforts to manage cybersecurity risk and not leave it all to the banks. They should upgrade their internal systems, train their staff, and review their partners’ systems. The idea of a cyberattacker as a lone figure hacking into systems is now obsolete. Cyberattacks are perpetrated by entities that are set up like companies, with project managers, key performance indicators and operations. Attacks to compromise corporates and banks are designed to be multi-staged, with two main objectives: commercial gain and industry espionage. In general, the funds received via attacks go into the coffers of the organisation, while the intelligence gained during an attack will be used by perpetrators to gain a business advantage. Attacks can happen at any time, and over time, therefore all corporates should be vigilant and on constant guard against attacks. So serious are the growing cyberattack and data breach problems that regulators across the globe should move from their present reactive approach to a more proactive one. Stringent regulations and fines to strengthen cybersecurity laws are required from regulators. Many regulations related to this are, however, still in the inception stage. Europe has relatively the most mature cybersecurity and data privacy laws, with recent initiatives including the Electronic Identification and Trusted Service which was launched in 2016. Effective cybersecurity requires organisations to efficiently and quickly identify, mitigate and manage cyber risks and incidents. All stakeholders are taking measures to strengthen the security of transactions against potential cyber threats. Banks and other stakeholders have three options available to them: collaborating with financial technology companies, making investments in advanced technologies and monitoring tools, and strengthening internal governance to ensure seamless compliance. Collaboration with fintechs This is occurring in several areas including secure authentication and authorisation, account onboarding, identity verification and anti-money laundering. Examples include India’s Yes Bank and FortyTwoLabs’ development of multi-factor authentication tool PI-Control, which enables users to apply for internet banking access, pay bills, transfer funds, seek loans, make remittances and undertake other card transactions. Rabobank in the Netherlands is working with Signicat to provide digital identity solutions that can be easily integrated using API technology. As banks increasingly collaborate with fintechs and regtechs, due diligence, adherence to industry standards and participating in the development of new industry standards has become critical. Investment in advanced technologies and monitoring tools Blockchain technology is still in a nascent stage, with its potential as an enabler of digital identity and payment transaction security still being tested. Banks can leverage the technology to differentiate themselves in the provision of digital identity, authentication and know your customer services. Banks are investing in projects that combine advanced cryptography that supports private or permitted use of blockchain technology with transaction security elements that provider greater transaction visibility. To ensure the highest levels of cybersecurity and transaction security, all the ecosystem participants must assess security from multiple sources in the network. Common security standards and protocols when developing and investing in new technologies and monitoring tools will be increasingly important as collaboration increases. With a common network governing the interfaces between banks and third-party providers, various groups are developing network-based security standards to ensure a secure environment is built around the dynamic payments ecosystem. The ability to respond to cyber threats or attacks in real-time is hampered by legacy security systems. Traditional security monitoring typically identified and reacted to cyber threats in isolation. A modern approach identifies specific unusual patterns or behaviour and alerts operational teams to anomalous activity. Advanced machine learning algorithms are the logical next step as response mechanisms in the event of a threat. Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are being piloted globally, yet legal issues regarding accountability for the actions of such systems persist. Contextualisation of threats (linking the threat to the business and not just to technology) is needed to identify the source and understand the objective behind any attack. Another useful approach is risk-based authentication (RBA) to detect the risk profile of transaction banks and retailers. Using RBA and analytics processes, banks can create a threat matrix of fraud profiles to triangulate the threat instances to their origin and be able to proactively block fraudulent traffic. Behavioural analytics, AI, machine learning and threat matrix can help to continuously monitor the ecosystem network and provide threat intelligence. Banks can undertake various activities such as continuously checking all systems for possible threats, observing markets, scenario simulation, examination of previous attacks, monitoring activities and applications, and establishing a payments control centre to permanently monitor payments and identify exceptional situations. Robust internal governance A robust governance model and standards are imperative for seamless functioning of the new payments ecosystem. Banks and treasurers need to interact with central authorities and regulators to share feedback, which in turn will help to improve compliance. Banks and treasurers are increasingly collaborating with regtechs to ensure compliance. Industry stakeholders must establish common data, technical, legal, functional, and security standards for robust governance. Firms will be well served if they can ensure that security systems have multiple layers to withstand ‘flood’ attacks. To ensure a foolproof system, firms should identify the data needs of all stakeholders before finalising the controls to put in place. With the onset of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and revised Payment Services Directive (PSD2) in the EU, the focus on compliance with data privacy and security has increased. Firms must install a dedicated team to continuously review and update security policies. Additionally, stakeholders should work with the local regulatory authorities to understand the complexity of different regional legal requirements and expectations for each country. Firms must ensure mandatory data privacy and security training is conducted at regular intervals. Educating employees on potential threats and ensuring they keep their systems updated would have prevented, or greatly reduced the impact of, events such as the WannaCry ransomware attack. Source: http://www.bankingtech.com/1019032/cybersecurity-into-the-data-breach/

View article:
Cybersecurity: into the data breach

33% of businesses hit by DDoS attack in 2017, double that of 2016

Distributed Denial of Service attacks are on the rise this year, and used to gain access to corporate data and harm a victim’s services, according to a Kaspersky Lab report. Cybercriminals are increasingly turning to Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) this year, as 33% of organizations faced such an attack in 2017—up from just 17% in 2016, according to a new report from Kaspersky Lab. These cyber attacks are hitting businesses of all sizes: Of those affected, 20% were very small businesses, 33% were SMBs, and 41% were enterprises. Half of all businesses reported that the frequency and complexity of DDoS attacks targeting organizations like theirs is growing every year, highlighting the need for more awareness and protection against them, according to Kaspersky Lab. Of the companies that were hit in 2016, 82% said that they faced more than one DDoS attack. At this point in 2017, 76% of those hit said they had faced at least one attack. Cybercriminals use DDoS attacks to gain access to valuable corporate data, as well as to cripple a victim’s services, Kaspersky Lab noted. These attacks often result in serious disruption of business: Of the organizations hit by DDoS attacks this year, 26% reported a significant decrease in performance of services, and 14% reported a failure of transactions and processes in affected services. Additionally, some 53% of companies reported that DDoS attacks against them were used as a smokescreen to cover up other types of cybercrime. Half (50%) of these respondents said that the attack hid a malware infection, 49% said that it masked a data leak or theft, 42% said that it was used to cover up a network intrusion or hacking, and 26% said that it was hiding financial theft, Kaspersky Lab found. These results are part of Kaspersky Lab’s annual IT Security Risks survey, which included responses from more than 5,200 representatives of small, medium, and large businesses from 29 countries. “The threat of being hit by a DDoS attack – either standalone or as part of a greater attack arsenal – is showing no signs of diminishing,” said Kirill Ilganaev, head of Kaspersky DDoS protection at Kaspersky Lab, in a press release. “It’s not a case of if an organization will be hit, but when. With the problem growing and affecting every type and size of company, it is important for organizations to protect their IT infrastructure from being infiltrated and keep their data safe from attack.” Want to use this data in your next business presentation? Feel free to copy and paste these top takeaways into your next slideshow. 33% of organizations experienced a DDoS attack in 2017, compared to 17% in 2016. -Kaspersky Lab, 2017 Of organizations hit by DDoS attacks, 20% were very small businesses, 33% were SMBs, and 41% were enterprises. -Kaspersky Lab, 2017 53% of companies reported that DDoS attacks against them were used as a smokescreen to cover up other types of cybercrime, including malware, data leaks, and financial theft. -Kaspersky Lab, 2017 Source: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/33-of-businesses-hit-by-ddos-attack-in-2017-double-that-of-2016/

Read this article:
33% of businesses hit by DDoS attack in 2017, double that of 2016