Tag Archives: stop ddos attacks

How can you prepare for a cyber attack?

Keeping your data secure is more important than ever, but it seems like there’s a new wide-scale data breach every other week. In this article, David Mytton discusses what developers can do to prepare for what’s fast becoming inevitable. Cyber security isn’t something that can be ignored anymore or treated as a luxury concern: recent cyber attacks in the UK have shown that no one is immune. The stats are worrying – in 2016, two thirds of large businesses had a cyber attack or breach, according to Government research. Accenture paints a bleaker picture suggesting that two thirds of companies globally face these attacks weekly, or even daily. According to the Government’s 2016 cyber security breaches survey, only a third of firms have cyber security policies in place and only 10% have an emergency plan. Given management isn’t handling the threat proactively, developers and operations specialists are increasingly having to take the initiative on matters of cybersecurity. This article covers some essential priorities developers should be aware of if they want their company to be prepared for attack. Know your plan There’s no predicting when a cyber attack might come, whether it be in the form of a DDoS, a virus, malware or phishing. It’s therefore important to be constantly vigilant, and prepared for incidents when they do occur. Senior leadership in your company should be proactive when laying out a plan in the event of an attack or other breach, however this might not always be the case. No matter what your position is within your company, there are preemptive actions you can take on a regular basis to ensure that you’re adequately prepared. If you’re in an Ops team, make sure you’re encouraging your team to test your backups regularly. There’s little use having backups if you’re unable to actually restore from them, as GitLab learned to their detriment earlier in the year. Use simulations and practice runs to ensure that everyone on your team knows what they’re doing, and have a checklist in place for yourself and your colleagues to make sure that nothing gets missed. For example, a DDoS attack may begin with a monitoring alert to let you know your application is slow. Your checklist would start with the initial diagnostics to pinpoint the cause, but as soon as you discover it is a DDoS attack then the security response plan should take over. If you happen to be on-call, make sure you’ve got all the tools you need to act promptly to handle the issue. This might involve letting your more senior colleagues know about the issue, as well as requesting appropriate assistance from your security vendors. Communication is always one of the deciding factors in whether a crisis can be contained effectively. As a developer or operations specialist, it’s important to be vocal with your managers about any lack of clarity in your plan, and ensure that there are clear lines of communication and responsibility so that, when the worst does occur, you and your colleagues feel clear to jump into action quickly. Remember your limits It might sound obvious, but it’s worth remembering: in a cyber attack or catastrophic incident, there is only so much you yourself can do. Too many developers and operations staff fall prey to a culture of being ‘superheroes’, encouraged (often through beer and pizza) to stay as late as they can and work as long as possible on fixes to particular issues. The truth is, humans make mistakes. Amazon’s recent AWS S3 outage is a good example: swathes of the internet were taken offline due to one typo. If you’re on-call while a cyber attack occurs there’s no denying you’re likely to work long hours at odd times of the day, and this can put a real strain on you, both mentally and physically. This strain can make it much harder for you to actually concentrate on what you’re doing, and no amount of careful contingency planning can compensate for that. At Server Density we’re keenly aware that employee health and well being is critical to maintaining business infrastructure, especially in the event of a crisis. That’s why we support movements like HumanOps, which promote a wider awareness of the importance of employee health, from the importance of taking regular breaks to ergonomic keyboards. All too often people working in IT forget that the most business-critical hardware they look after isn’t servers or routers, it’s the health and well being of the people on the front lines looking after these systems. Cyber attacks are stressful on everyone working in an organisation, and the IT teams take the brunt of the strain. However, with careful planning, clear lines of delegation and an appreciation of the importance of looking after each other’s health, developers and operations specialists should be able to weather the storm effectively and recover business assets effectively. Source: https://jaxenter.com/can-prepare-cyber-attack-133447.html

Read More:
How can you prepare for a cyber attack?

Linksys Routers Vulnerable to DDoS Attack

Flaws in the routers’ firmware could let hackers access configuration settings and execute remote commands. Linksys said it’s working on a patch. Linksys this week identified several vulnerabilities in its router firmware that allow hackers to bypass authentication and perform denial of service (DDoS) attacks. The company said it is working on a fix for the vulnerabilities, which were discovered by security researchers at IOActive in January and affect more than two dozen models of Linksys wireless routers in the WRT and EAxxx series. IOActive found 10 separate issues in the Linksys firmware, including high-risk vulnerabilities that could let hackers exploit routers using default credentials to log in, view router settings, and execute remote commands. “Two of the security issues we identified allow unauthenticated attackers to create a Denial-of-Service (DoS) condition on the router,” IOActive researcher Tao Sauvage wrote in a blog post. “By sending a few requests or abusing a specific API, the router becomes unresponsive and even reboots. The Admin is then unable to access the web admin interface and users are unable to connect until the attacker stops the DoS attack.” The vulnerabilities, which are similar to those found in many other Internet of Things (IoT) devices, are particularly worrisome because they could be used in future attacks of the sort that took large swaths of the internet offline for several hours last fall. Sauvage said that “11 percent of the active devices exposed were using default credentials, making them particularly susceptible to an attacker easily authenticating and potentially turning the routers into bots, similar to what happened in last year’s Mirai Denial of Service (DoS) attacks.” Linksys published a full list of the router models that are affected, and suggested that owners change the default password for their administrator account. The company said it is working to provide a firmware update for all of the affected models, but didn’t offer details on when it would be ready. Source: http://www.pcmag.com/news/353228/linksys-routers-vulnerable-to-ddos-attacks

View post:
Linksys Routers Vulnerable to DDoS Attack

New DDoS Attacks Use Far Fewer Infected Hosts

Akamai Technologies has identified a new attack method generating extremely large distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks against educational institutions and other types of organizations but without the millions of infected hosts typically seen in these scenarios. In a threat advisory recently published by the content delivery network company’s security intelligence response team, researchers described a reflection and amplification method that can produce “significant attack bandwidth” through “significantly fewer hosts.” What’s required are open ports allowing LDAP traffic. The company’s security experts have detected and mitigated a total of 50 Connection-less Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (CLDAP) reflection attacks. CLDAP was intended as an “efficient alternative to LDAP queries done over Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). Most of the attacks seen in the wild used CLDAP reflection exclusively. Twice, education has been the target. However, the primary victims have been in the software and technology industry, where 21 attacks have taken place, and the gaming segment, which has had 15 attacks. The largest of the attacks hit its target with a peak bandwidth of 24 gigabits per second and a top count of packets per second of 2 million. The source port was 386, the port used by Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP). According to the report, signatures of the attack suggest that it’s “capable of impressive amplification.” For example, Akamai security people obtained sample malicious LDAP reflection queries that had a payload of only 52 bytes. Yet the attack data payload was 3,662 bytes, meaning that the amplification factor was 73. More typically, the average amplification rate was 57, according to the researchers. The attacks are launched using “attack scripts,” usually written in C and with only slight variations from one vector to another. When the script is run, the target IP becomes the source of all the 52-byte query payloads. These are then sent rapidly to every server in the supplied reflector list. From there, the CLDAP servers do as they’re designed and reply to the query. As a result, the report described, “the target of this attack must deal with a flood of unsolicited CLDAP responses.” The attack is “fueled” by the number of servers on the internet with port 389 open and listening. Once a server has been identified as a viable source, it’s added to the list of reflectors. The best mitigation, suggested the report, is to filter the port in question. “Ingress filtering of the CLDAP port from the internet will prevent discovery and subsequent abuse of this service,” the report noted. Another option is to apply rules, which won’t stop the outbreak, but will alert system administers when an attempt is made to use the systems as part of a reflection attack. Source: https://campustechnology.com/articles/2017/04/20/new-ddos-attacks-use-far-fewer-infected-hosts.aspx?admgarea=news

See more here:
New DDoS Attacks Use Far Fewer Infected Hosts

Should we worry the general election will be hacked?

“Brexit vote site may have been hacked” warned the headlines last week after a Commons select committee published its report into lessons learned from the EU referendum. The public administration and constitutional affairs committee (Pacac) said that the failure of the voter registration website, which suffered an outage as many people tried to sign to vote up at the last minute in 2016, “had indications of being a DDoS ‘attack’”. It said it “does not rule out the possibility that the crash may have been caused … using botnets”. In the same paragraph it mentioned Russia and China. It said it “is deeply concerned about these allegations about foreign interference”. With a general election just seven weeks away, how worried should we be about foreign interference this time round? Labour MP Paul Flynn, who sits on the Pacac, certainly thinks we should be worried – although closer inspection of the report finds that, beyond the headlines, there’s a startling lack of evidence for those particular fears. In reality, a DDoS – “distributed denial of service” – attack is the bombarding of a server with requests it can’t keep up with, causing it to fail. Not only is it not actually hacking at all, but it also looks rather similar to when a lot of people at once try to use a server that doesn’t have the capacity. Given the history of government IT projects, some might favour this more prosaic explanation of why the voter registration website went offline. And that’s just what the Cabinet Office did say: “It was due to a spike in users just before the registration deadline. There is no evidence to suggest malign intervention.” So perhaps we shouldn’t fear that kind of attack, but hacking elections takes many forms. The University of Oxford’s Internet Institute, found a huge number of Twitter bots posting pro-Leave propaganda in the run up to the EU referendum. At least, that was how it was widely reported. The actual reportreveals the researchers can’t directly identify bots – they just assume accounts that tweet a lot are automated – and admit “not all of these users or even the majority of them are bots”. But the accuracy, or inaccuracy, of the research aside, there’s a bigger issue. What the Oxford Internet Institute never says is that there’s no evidence bots tweeting actually affects how anyone votes. Bots generally follow people – we’re all used to those suggestive female avatars in our notifications feeds – but people don’t really follow bots back. So when they push out propaganda, is there anyone there to see it? Of course, en masse, those bots can affect the trending topics. But getting “#Leave” trending is not the same as controlling the messaging around it, and Twitter’s algorithm explicitly tries to mitigate against such gaming of the system. And again there’s the question: who looks at tweets via the trending topics tab anyway (except perhaps journalists looking for something to pad out a listicle)? Fake news, the last of the unholy trinity, is a harder problem. We know it exists, and we know it gets in front of many people via social media sites like Facebook. We don’t really know how much it affects people and how much people see it for what it is – but the history of untrue stories in the tabloid press on topics like migration does lend weight to the idea that fake news can influence opinion. What is and isn’t fake news is a contested field. At one end of the spectrum, mainstream publications report inaccurate stories about flights full of Romanians and Bulgarians heading for the UK. At the other, teenagers in Macedonia run pro-Trump websites where the content is pure invention. Most would agree the latter is fake news, even if not the former. But this is a different problem to DDoS attacks or bot armies. The Macedonian teens aren’t ideologically driven by wanting Trump in the White House, they’re motivated by the advertising revenue their well-shared stories can earn. Even when fake news is created for propaganda rather than profit, there’s rarely a shadowy overlord pulling the strings – and bad reporting is some distance away from hacking the election. While there’s a strong case that foreign actors have tried to influence elections in other countries – such as the DNC hack in the US – we probably don’t need to worry unduly about cyberattacks swinging the UK election. Besides: why would a foreign state bother? We’ve already got a divided country struggling with its own future without any need for outside interference. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/20/uk-general-election-2017-hacking-ddos-attacks-bots-fake-news

More:
Should we worry the general election will be hacked?

How The New York Times Handled Unprecedented Election-Night Traffic Spike

When he woke up the morning of October 21, 2016, Nick Rockwell did the same thing he had done first thing every morning since The New York Times hired him as CTO: he opened The Times’ app on his phone. Nothing loaded. The app was down along with BBC, CNN, Fox News, The Guardian, and a long list of other web services, taken out by the largest DDoS attack in history of the internet. An army of infected IP cameras, DVRs, modems, and other connected devices – the Mirai botnet – had flooded servers of the DNS registrar Dyn in 17 data centers, halting a huge number of internet services that depended on it for letting their users’ computers know how to find them online. The outage had started only about five minutes before Rockwell saw the blank screen on his phone. His team kicked off a standard process that was in place for such outages, failing over to the Times’ internal DNS hosted in two of its four data centers in the US. The mobile app and the main site were back online about 45 minutes after they had gone down. While going through the fairly routine recovery process, however, something was really worrying Rockwell. The thing was, he didn’t know whether the attack was directed at many targets or at the Times specifically. If it was the latter, the effect could be catastrophic; its internal DNS wouldn’t hold against a major DDoS for more than five seconds. “It would’ve been incredibly easy to DDoS our infrastructure,” he said in a phone interview with Data Center Knowledge. His team had been a few months deep into fixing the vulnerability, but they weren’t finished. “We were OK [in the end], but we were vulnerable during that time.” The process to fix it started as they were preparing for the 2016 presidential election. Election night is the biggest event for every major news outlet, and Rockwell was determined to avoid the 2012 election night fiasco, when the site went down, unable to handle the spike in traffic. One of the steps the team decided to do in preparation for November 2016 was to fully integrate a CDN (Content Delivery Network). CDN services, such as Akamai, CloudFlare, or CDN services by cloud providers Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, store their clients’ most popular content in data centers close to where many of their end users are located – so-called edge data centers — from where “last-mile” internet service providers deliver that content to its final destinations. A CDN essentially becomes a highly distributed extension of your network, adding to it compute, storage, and bandwidth capacity in many metros around the world. That a CDN had not been integrated into the organization’s infrastructure came as a big surprise to Rockwell, who joined in 2015, after 10 months as CTO at another big publisher, Condé Nast. While at Condé Nast, he switched the publisher from a major CDN provider to a lesser-known CDN by a company called Fastly. He has since become an unapologetically big fan of the San Francisco-based startup, which now also delivers content to The New York Times users around the world. Being highly distributed by design puts CDNs in good position to help their customers handle big traffic spikes, be it legitimate traffic generated by a big news event or a malicious DDoS attack. (Rockwell said he did wonder, as the Dyn attack was unfolding, whether it was a rehearsal for election night.) Fastly ensured that on the night Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton, the Times rolled without incident through a traffic spike of unprecedented size for the publisher: an 8,371 percent increase in the number of people visiting the site simultaneously, according to the CTO. The CDN has also mostly absorbed the much higher levels of day-to-day traffic The Times has seen since the election as it covers the Trump administration. The six-year-old startup, which this year crossed the $100 million annualized revenue run-rate threshold, designed its platform to give users a detailed picture of the way their traffic flows through its CDN and lots of control. Artur Bergman, Fastly’s founder and CEO, said the platform enables a user to treat the edge of their network the same way they treat their own data centers or cloud infrastructure. In your own data center you have full control of your tools for improving your network’s security and performance (things like firewalls and load balancers), Bergman explained in an interview with Data Center Knowledge. While you maintain that level of control in the public cloud, you don’t necessarily have it at the edge, he said. Traditionally, CDNs have offered customers little visibility into their infrastructure, so even differentiating between a legitimate traffic spike and a DDoS attack has been hard to do quickly. Fastly gives users log access in real-time so they can see exactly what is happening to their edge nodes and make critical decisions quickly. The startup today unveiled an edge cloud platform, designed to enable developers to deploy code in edge data centers instantly, without having to worry about scaling their edge infrastructure as their applications grow. It also announced a collaboration with Google Cloud Platform, pairing its platform with the giant’s enterprise cloud infrastructure services around the world. GCP is one of two cloud providers The New York Times is using. The other one is Amazon Web Services. Today, the publisher’s infrastructure consists of three leased data centers in Newark, Boston, and Seattle, and one facility it owns and operates on its own, located in the New York Times building in Times Square, Rockwell said. The company uses a virtual private cloud by AWS and some of its public cloud services in addition to running some applications in the Google Cloud. This setup is not staying for long, however. Rockwell’s team is working to shut down the three leased data centers, moving most of its workloads onto GCP and AWS, with Fastly managing content delivery at the edge. Google’s cloud is also going to play a much bigger role than it does today. The plan is to run apps that depend on Oracle databases in AWS, while everything else, save for a few exceptions (primarily packaged enterprise IT apps), will run in app containers on GCP, orchestrated by Kubernetes. As he works to sort out what he in a conference presentation referred to as the “jumbled mess” that is The Times’ current infrastructure, Rockwell no longer worries about DDoS attacks. Luckily for his team, there was no major DDoS attack on The Times between the day he came on board and the day Fastly started delivering the publisher’s content to its readers. Whether there was one after Fastly was implemented is irrelevant to him. “It’s no longer something I have to think about.” Source: http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/how-the-new-york-times-handled-unprecedented-election-night-traffic-spike

View article:
How The New York Times Handled Unprecedented Election-Night Traffic Spike

IoT malware clashes in a botnet territory battle

The Hajime malware is competing with the Mirai malware to enslave some IoT devices Mirai — a notorious malware that’s been enslaving IoT devices — has competition. A rival piece of programming has been infecting some of the same easy-to-hack internet-of-things products, with a resiliency that surpasses Mirai, according to security researchers. “You can almost call it Mirai on steroids,” said Marshal Webb, CTO at BackConnect, a provider of services to protect against distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. Security researchers have dubbed the rival IoT malware Hajime, and since it was discovered more than six months ago, it’s been spreading unabated and creating a botnet. Webb estimates it’s infected about 100,000 devices across the globe. These botnets, or networks of enslaved computers, can be problematic. They’re often used to launch massive DDoS attacks that can take down websites or even disrupt the internet’s infrastructure. That’s how the Mirai malware grabbed headlines last October. A DDoS attackfrom a Mirai-created botnet targeted DNS provider Dyn, which shut down and slowed internet traffic across the U.S. Hajime was first discovered in the same month, when security researchers at Rapidity Networks were on the lookout for Mirai activity. What they found instead was something similar, but also more tenacious. Like Mirai, Hajime also scans the internet for poorly secured IoT devices like cameras, DVRs, and routers. It compromises them by trying different username and password combinations and then transferring a malicious program. However, Hajime doesn’t take orders from a command-and-control serverlike Mirai-infected devices do. Instead, it communicates over a peer-to-peernetwork built off protocols used in BitTorrent, resulting in a botnet that’s more decentralized — and harder to stop. “Hajime is much, much more advanced than Mirai,” Webb said. “It has a more effective way to do command and control.” Broadband providers have been chipping away at Mirai-created botnets, by blocking internet traffic to the command servers they communicate with. In the meantime, Hajime has continued to grow 24/7, enslaving some of the same devices. Its peer-to-peer nature means many of the infected devices can relay files or instructions to rest of the botnet, making it more resilient against any blocking efforts. Hajime infection attempts (blue) vs Mirai infection attempts (red), according to a honeypot from security researcher Vesselin Bontchev. Who’s behind Hajime? Security researchers aren’t sure. Strangely, they haven’t observed the Hajime botnet launching any DDoS attacks — which is good news. A botnet of Hajime’s scope is probably capable of launching a massive one similar to what Mirai has done. “There’s been no attribution. Nobody has claimed it,” said Pascal Geenens, a security researcher at security vendor Radware. However, Hajime does continue to search the internet for vulnerable devices. Geenens’ own honeypot, a system that tracks botnet activity, has been inundated with infection attempts from Hajime-controlled devices, he said. So the ultimate purpose of this botnet remains unknown. But one scenario is it’ll be used for cybercrime to launch DDoS attacks for extortion purposes or to engage in financial fraud. “It’s a big threat forming,” Geenens said. “At some point, it can be used for something dangerous.” It’s also possible Hajime might be a research project. Or in a possible twist, maybe it’s a vigilante security expert out to disrupt Mirai. So far, Hajime appears to be more widespread than Mirai, said Vesselin Bontchev, a security expert at Bulgaria’s National Laboratory of Computer Virology. However, there’s another key difference between the two malware. Hajime has been found infecting a smaller pool of IoT devices using ARM chip architecture. That contrasts from Mirai, which saw its source code publicly released in late September. Since then, copycat hackers have taken the code and upgraded the malware. Vesselin has found Mirai strains infecting IoT products that use ARM, MIPS, x86, and six other platforms. That means the clash between the two malware doesn’t completely overlap. Nevertheless, Hajime has stifled some of Mirai’s expansion. “There’s definitely an ongoing territorial conflict,” said Allison Nixon, director of security research at Flashpoint. To stop the malware, security researchers say it’s best to tackle the problem at its root, by patching the vulnerable IoT devices. But that will take time and, in other cases, it might not even be possible. Some IoT vendors have released security patches for their products to prevent malware infections, but many others have not, Nixon said. That means Hajime and Mirai will probably stick around for a long time, unless those devices are retired. “It will keep going,” Nixon said. “Even if there’s a power outage, [the malware] will just be back and re-infect the devices. It’s never going to stop.” Source: http://www.itworld.com/article/3190181/security/iot-malware-clashes-in-a-botnet-territory-battle.html

Continue reading here:
IoT malware clashes in a botnet territory battle

‘One in five’ British firms hit by cyber attack in 2016

One in five British firms was hit by a cyber attack last year, research from the British Chambers of Commerce suggests Cyber attacks are a growing threat to global business operations. This was confirmed by research from the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), which surveyed 1,200 companies, revealing that one in five British businesses experienced a cyber attack last year. Larger businesses – defined as those with over 100 staff – were more likely to be attacked than smaller counterparts, according to the survey. The report found that 42% of larger organisations had suffered a cyber attack, compared with 18% of smaller ones. Clearly, more needs to be done by businesses to protect themselves. Indeed, the BCC’s report alos found that only a quarter of the firms surveyed had put in security protocols to protect themselves from hackers and cyber threats. The well documented data breaches of web giant Yahoo, telecoms firm TalkTalk and the dating website Ashley Madison have all hit the headlines in recent years. But this survey has shown just how widespread the problem is. It is endemic. “Cyber attacks risk companies’ finances, confidence and reputation, with victims reporting not only monetary losses, but costs from disruption to their business and productivity,” said BCC director-general Adam Marshall. “Firms need to be proactive about protecting themselves from cyber attacks.” Reacting to the news, Anton Grashion, managing director-security practice at Cylance, said “This is probably an underestimate if anything. Two reasons for this, firstly, this assumes they even know they have been hit, secondly people are more likely to under-report.” “Evidence of our testing when we run a POC with prospective customers is that we almost invariably discover active malware on their systems so it’s the unconscious acceptance of risk that plagues both large and small businesses.” Stephanie Weagle, VP at Corero Network Security, has identified DDoS attacks as the greatest cyber threat facing business. She said “Attackers will always find new exploits, and new attack methods of disrupting financial opportunity, extortion, accessing personally identifiable data, and disrupting an organisations online availability. Cyber attack activity is prevalent today, more than ever – especially when it comes to DDoS attacks.” DDoS attacks are on the rise and “continue to increase in frequency, scale and sophistication over the last year. 31% of IT security professional and network operators polled in a 2017 survey conducted by Corero experienced more DDoS attacks than usual in recent months, with 40% now experiencing attacks on a monthly, weekly or even daily basis. Source: http://www.information-age.com/major-flaws-devops-teams-security-123465765/

See more here:
‘One in five’ British firms hit by cyber attack in 2016

Hackers attacking WordPress sites via home routers

Administrators of sites using the popular blogging platform WordPress face a new challenge: hackers are launching coordinated brute-force attacks on the administration panels of WordPress sites via unsecured home routers, according to a report on Bleeping Computer. Once they’ve gained access, the attackers can guess the password for the page and commandeer the account. The home routers are corralled into a network which disseminates the brute-force attack to thousands of IP addresses negotiating around firewalls and blacklists, the report stated. The flaw was detected by WordFence, a firm that offers a security plugin for the WordPress platform. The campaign is exploiting security bugs in the TR-069 router management protocol to highjack devices. Attackers gain entry by sending malicious requests to a router’s 7547 port. The miscreants behind the campaign are playing it low-key to avoid detection, attempting only a few guesses at passwords for each router. While the exact size of the botnet is unknown, WordFence reported that nearly seven percent of all the brute-force attacks on WordPress sites last month arrived from home routers with port 7547 exposed to the internet. The flaw is exacerbated by the fact that most home users lack the technical know-how to limit access to their router’s 7547 port. In some cases, the devices do not allow the shuttering of the port. A more practical solution is offered by WordFence: ISPs should filter out traffic on their network coming from the public internet that is targeting port 7547. “The routers we have identified that are attacking WordPress sites are suffering from a vulnerability that has been around since 2014 when CheckPoint disclosed it,” Mark Maunder, CEO of WordFence CEO, told SC Media on Wednesday. The specific vulnerability, he pointed out, is the “misfortune cookie” vulnerability. “ISPs have known about this vulnerability for some time and they have not updated the routers that have been hacked, leaving their customers vulnerable. So, this is not a case of an attacker continuously evolving a technique to infect routers. This is a case of opportunistic infection of a large number of devices that have a severe vulnerability that has been known about for some time, but has never been patched.” There are two attacks, Maunder told SC. The first is the router that is infected through the misfortune cookie exploit. The other is the attacks his firm is seeing on WordPress sites that are originating from infected ISP routers on home networks. “The routers appear to be running a vulnerable version of Allegro RomPager version 4.07,” Maunders said. “In CheckPoint’s original 2014 disclosure of this vulnerability they specifically note that 4.07 is the worst affected version of RomPager. So there is nothing new or innovative about this exploit, it is simply going after ISP routers that have a large and easy to hit target painted on them.” The real story here, said Maunder, is that a number of large ISPs, several of them state owned, have gone a few years without patching their customer routers and their customers and the online community are now paying the price. “Customer home networks are now exposed to attackers and the online community is seeing their websites attacked. I expect we will see several large DDoS attacks originating from these routers this year.” Source: https://www.scmagazine.com/hackers-attacking-wordpress-sites-via-home-routers/article/649992/

Follow this link:
Hackers attacking WordPress sites via home routers

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

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