Tag Archives: stop-ddos

Bitter feud between partners as IBM deflects eCensus blame

NextGen, Vocus refute claims of error. A bitter feud has broken out between IBM and its internet service provider partners for the 2016 eCensus as the main contractor tried to deflect blame for the site’s meltdown on August 9 In its first detailed response to the failure, IBM said it had plans in place for the risk of DDoS attacks, but its efforts were to no avail thanks to a failure at an upstream provider. The ABS at the time said it had been forced to take the site offline on Census night following a series of DDoS attacks combined with the failure of the network geoblocking function and the collapse of a router. The statistics body has publicly criticised IBM for failing to properly implement a geoblocking service, which would have halted the international DDoS attack targeted at the Census site. But IBM is now laying blame squarely at the feet of its internet service provider partner NextGen and NextGen’s upstream supplier Vocus for the geoblocking bungle. It claimed NextGen had provided “repeated” assurances – including after the day’s third DDoS attack – that a geoblocking strategy that IBM codenamed ‘Island Australia’ had been correctly put in place. However, when the fourth and biggest DDoS attack of the day hit at around 7:30pm, IBM said it became clear that a Singapore link operated by Vocus had not been closed off, allowing the attack traffic to pass through to the Census site. “Vocus admitted the error in a teleconference with IBM, NextGen and Telstra around 11.00 pm on 9 August 2016,” IBM said. “Had NextGen (and through it Vocus) properly implemented Island Australia, it would have been effective to prevent this DDoS attack and the effects it had on the eCensus site. As a result, the eCensus site would not have become unavailable to the public during the peak period on 9 August 2016.” IBM said while it accepted its responsibility as the head contractor for the eCensus, it could not have avoided using ISPs to provide links for the website. “It is not possible for an IT services company such as IBM to implement the 2016 eCensus without engaging ISPs. It was necessary for IBM to involve the ISPs in the implementation of the geoblocking solution as they have control over their respective data networks and are in a position to block internet traffic originating from particular domains or IP addresses.” IBM did, however, admit what many security experts speculated had occured – that following the fourth DDoS a system monitoring dashboard showed an apparent spike in outbound traffic, causing its staff to wrongly assume data was being exfiltrated from the website, prompting IBM to shut down the website. The contractor also revealed that a configuration error meant a manual reboot of one of its routers – which was needed after the eCensus firewall became overloaded with traffic – took much longer to rectify than it should have, keeping the site offline for a further hour and a half. NextGen, Vocus fight back But Vocus said NextGen was well aware that Vocus would not provide geoblocking services, and had instead recommended its own DDoS protection. IBM declined the offer, Vocus said. NextGen and Vocus instead agreed on remote triggered black hole (RTBH) route advertisements with international carriers. “If Vocus DDoS protection product was left in place the eCensus website would have been appropriately shielded from DDoS attacks,” Vocus said in its submission to the inquiry. Vocus refuted IBM’s claim that it had failed to implement geoblocking, revealing that it had not been made aware of IBM’s DDoS mitigation strategy – including ‘Island Australia’ – until after the fourth attack on August 9. “As a result, any assumption that Vocus was required to, or had implemented Island Australia or geo-blocking including, without limitation … are inaccurate,” Vocus said. “Once Vocus was made aware of the fourth DDoS attack, it implemented a static null route to block additional DDoS traffic at its international border routers within 15 minutes.” Vocus also argued that the fourth DDoS was not as large as IBM claimed, comprising of attack traffic that peaked at 563Mbps and lasting only 14 minutes – which it said was “not considered significant in the industry”. “Such attacks would not usually bring down the Census website which should have had relevant preparations in place to enable it to cater for the expected traffic from users as well as high likelihood of DDoS attacks.” NextGen, in its own submission, claimed it had “strongly recommended” to IBM that it take up a DDoS protection product like that on offer by Vocus, but the contractor declined. The ISP said it was not made aware of details of IBM’s ‘Island Australia’ strategy until six days before the eCensus went live in late July. At that point it told IBM that an IP address range it had provided was part of a larger aggregate network and therefore would not respond to “specific international routing restrictions” if ‘Island Australia’ was implemented. “Nextgen recommended using an alternative IP address range, which would give IBM better control, but this was rejected by IBM,” the ISP said. IBM instead chose to request NextGen’s upstream suppliers apply IP address blocking filters and international remote black holes for 20 host routes. “Nextgen believes that the individual host routes picked by IBM may not be exhaustive, and DDoS attacks could come from other routes in the IP address range (which they did in the third DDoS attack on Census day),” NextGen said. “There were a number of routes without geoblocking during the fourth DDoS attack, and which were not identified during testing, along with the [Vocus] Singapore link.” NextGen said it again offered to implement DDoS protection, this time at its own cost, which IBM agreed to four days after the events of August 9. Source: http://www.itnews.com.au/news/bitter-feud-between-partners-as-ibm-deflects-ecensus-blame-439752

Continue reading here:
Bitter feud between partners as IBM deflects eCensus blame

Leaked Mirai source code already being tested in wild, analysis suggests

Since the source code to the Mirai Internet of Things botnet was publicly leaked on Sept. 30, researchers at Imperva have uncovered evidence of several low-level distributed denial of serviceattacks likely perpetrated by new users testing out this suddenly accessible DDoS tool. With its unusual ability to bombard targets with traffic in the form of generic routing encapsulation (GRE) data packets, Mirai was leveraged last month to launch a massive DDoS attack against Internet security researcher Brian Krebs’ blog site KrebsonSecurity. Soon after, a Hackforums user with the nickname Anna-senpai publicly posted the botnet’s source code – quite possibly a move by the malware’s original author to impede investigators from closing in on him. In a blog post this week, Imperva reported several low-level DDoS attacks taking place in the days following the leak. Consisting of low-volume application layer HTTP floods leveraging small numbers of source IPs, these attacks “looked like the experimental first steps of new Mirai users who were testing the water after the malware became widely available,” the blog post read. But Imperva also found evidence of much stronger Mirai attacks on its network prior to the leak. On Aug. 17, Imperva mitigated numerous GRE traffic surges that peaked at 280 Gbps and 130 million packets per second. Traffic from this attack originated from nearly 50,000 unique IPs in 164 countries, many of which were linked to Internet-enabled CCTV cameras, DVRs and routers – all infected by Mirai, which continuously scans the web for vulnerable devices that use default or hard-coded usernames and passwords. An Imperva analysis of the source code revealed several unique traits, including a hardcoded blacklist of IPs that the adversary did not want to attack, perhaps in order to keep a low profile. Some of these IPs belonged to the Department of Defense, the U.S. Postal Service and General Electric. Ben Herzberg, security group research manager with Imperva Incapsula, told SCMagazine.com in a phone interview that the Marai’s author may have truncated the complete blacklist before publishing it – possibly because such information could offer a clue as to the attacker’s identity. Imperva also found Mirai to be territorial in nature, using killer scripts to eliminate other worms, trojans and botnet programs that may have infiltrated the same IoT devices. Moreover, the company noted traces of Russian-language strings, which could offer a clue to the malware’s origin. Herzberg said it’s only a matter of time before Mirai’s newest users make their own modifications. “People will start playing with the code and say, ‘Hey, let’s modify this, change this,” said Herzberg. “They have a nice base to start with.” Web performance and security company Cloudflare also strongly suspects it has encountered multiple Mirai DDoS attacks, including one HTTP-based attack that peaked at 1.75 million requests per second. According to a company blog post, the assault leveraged a botnet composed of over 52,000 unique IP addresses, which bombarded the Cloudflare network – primarily its Hong Kong and Prague data centers – with a flurry of short HTTP requests designed to use up server resources and take down web applications. A second HTTP-based attack launched from close to 129,000 unique IP addresses generated fewer requests per second, but consumed up to 360Gbps of inbound HTTP traffic – an unusually high number for this brand of attack. In this instance, much of the malicious traffic was concentrated in Frankfurt. Cloudflare concluded that the attacks were launched from compromised IoT devices, including a high concentration of connected CCTV cameras running on Vietnamese networks and multiple unidentified devices operating in Ukraine. “Although the most recent attacks have mostly involved Internet-connected cameras, there’s no reason to think that they are likely the only source of future DDoS attacks,” the Imperva report warns. “As more and more devices (fridges, fitness trackers, sleep monitors…) are added to the Internet they’ll likely be unwilling participants in future attacks.” Of course, compromised IoT devices can be used for more than just DDoS attacks. Today, Akamai Technologies released a white paper warning of a new in-the-wild exploit called SSHowDowN that capitalizes on a 12-year-old IoT vulnerability. According to Akamai, cybercriminals are remotely converting millions of IoT devices into proxies that route malicious traffic to targeted websites in order to check stolen log-in credentials against them and determine where they can be used. Bad actors can also use the same exploit to check websites for SQL injection vulnerabilities, and can even launch attacks against the internal network hosting the Internet-connected device. The vulnerability, officially designated as CVE-2004-1653, affects poorly configured devices that use default passwords, including video surveillance equipment, satellite antenna equipment, networking devices and Network Attached Storage devices. It allows a remote user to create an authorized Socket Shell (SSH) tunnel and use it as a SOCKS proxy, even if the device is supposedly hardened against SSH connections. “What we’re trying to do is raise awareness,” especially among IoT vendors said Ryan Barnett, principal security research at Akamai, in an interview with SCMagazine.com. Barnett noted that when the CVE first came out, an exploit on it was “more theoretical,” but now “we want to show it is actively being used in a massive attack campaign.” Source: http://www.scmagazine.com/leaked-mirai-source-code-already-being-tested-in-wild-analysis-suggests/article/547313/

More:
Leaked Mirai source code already being tested in wild, analysis suggests

How the ‘Internet of unpatchable things’ leads to DDoS attacks

For at least the past year there have been repeated warning to makers of Internet-connected devices about the insecurity of their platforms. Another came today in a report from Akamai Technologies’ threat research team, which has delved into a recent burst of distributed attacks leveraging IoT devices. In this case they are SSHowDowN Proxy attacks using a 12-year old vulnerability in OpenSSH. “We’re entering a very interesting time when it comes to DDoS and other web attacks — ‘The Internet of Unpatchable Things’ so to speak,” Eric Kobrin, Akamai’s director of information security, said in a statement. “New devices are being shipped from the factory not only with this vulnerability exposed, but also without any effective way to fix it. We’ve been hearing for years that it was theoretically possible for IoT devices to attack. That, unfortunately, has now become the reality.” Akamai emphasizes this isn’t a new vulnerability or attack technique. But it does show a continued weakness in many default configurations of Internet-connected devices. These particular attacks have leveraged video surveillance cameras and digital recorders, satellite antenna equipment, networking devices (including routers, switches, Wi-Fi hotspots and modems) and Internet-connected network attached storage. They are being used to mount attacks on any Internet targets as well as internal networks that host connected devices. Unauthorized SSH tunnels were created and used, despite the fact that the IoT devices were supposedly hardened and do not allow the default web interface user to SSH into the device and execute commands, Akamai said. Then attackers used to conduct a mass-scale HTTP-based credential stuffing campaigns against Akamai customers. It offers this mitigation advice to infosec pros: –if possible configure the SSH passwords or keys on devices and change those to passwords or keys that are different from the vendor defaults; –configure the device’s SSH service on your device and either add “AllowTcpForwarding No” and “no-port-forwarding” and “no-X11-forwarding” to the ~/ssh/authorized_ keys file for all users, or disable SSH entirely via the device’s administration console; –if the device is behind a firewall, consider disabling inbound connections from outside the network to port 22 of any deployed IoT devices, or disabling outbound connections from IoT devices except to the minimal set of ports and IP addresses required for their operation. Source: http://www.itworldcanada.com/article/how-the-internet-of-unpatchable-things-leads-to-ddos-attacks/387275

Originally posted here:
How the ‘Internet of unpatchable things’ leads to DDoS attacks

Singapore rolls out high-level cyber security strategy

The Government is taking decisive steps to tackle cyber threats – including almost doubling the proportion of its technology budget dedicated to plugging security gaps in critical infrastructure. The matter, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday, is one of “national importance” as the country becomes more connected in its mission to become a smart nation. At the opening of the inaugural Singapore International Cyber Week, he announced a high-level national strategy that includes strengthening international partnerships. One key prong will be to direct more funds into defence against attacks. These have ranged from malware infection to the defacing of government websites. About 8 per cent of the infocomm technology (ICT) budget will now be set aside for cyber security spending, up from about 5 per cent before. In fiscal 2014, Singapore spent $408.6 million on cyber security. The new proportion is similar to what other countries spend; Israel stipulates that 8 per cent of its total government IT budget must go to cyber security, while South Korea channels as much as 10 per cent. “We are investing more to strengthen government systems and networks, especially those that handle sensitive data, and protect them from cyber attacks,” said Mr Lee. “Singapore aspires to be a smart nation. But to be one, we must also be a safe nation,” he told more than 3,000 public servants and technology professionals from 30 countries who were also attending the 25th GovernmentWare Conference. Singapore’s cyber security strategy is developed by the Cyber Security Agency (CSA). Central to the strategy is the introduction of a new Cybersecurity Act in the middle of next year after public consultations, expected to be held after the draft legislation is tabled in Parliament next year. There is currently no over-arching cyber security legislation in Singapore. The current system of working with various sector regulators is “patchy”, said CSA chief executive David Koh, as the requirement to tighten gaps in critical infrastructure has not been worked into licensing conditions in some sectors. Mr Lee said that, while ICT creates business opportunities and boosts productivity, it also makes its users vulnerable. Globally, cyber threats and attacks are becoming more frequent and sophisticated, with more severe consequences, he added. Last December, a successful attack on the power grid in Ukraine left many Ukrainians without electricity for hours. This year, thieves siphoned US$81 million (S$111.3 million) from the Bangladesh Bank, the central bank of Bangladesh, in a sophisticated cyber heist. Singapore has not been spared. “Our government networks are regularly probed and attacked,” said Mr Lee, adding that attacks included “phishing” attempts and malware infection. “From time to time, government systems have been compromised; websites have been defaced. We also suffered concerted DDOS (distributed denial of service) attacks that sought to bring our systems down,” he said. The financial sector, for instance, has suffered DDOS attacks and leaks of data. Individuals, too, have become victims of scams. Fake websites of the Singapore Police Force, Manpower Ministry, Central Provident Fund Board, and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority have been set up overseas to “phish” for personal information or trick people into sending money. Mr Lee said the country must get cyber security right. “Only then can IT deliver innovation, growth and prosperity for our businesses and citizens.” Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/spore-rolls-out-high-level-cyber-security-strategy

Visit site:
Singapore rolls out high-level cyber security strategy

73% of organisations across the globe have suffered a DDoS attack

A new report from analytics firm Neustar has brought to light the amount of companies around the world who have suffered a DDoS attack, and how they are working to mitigate them. Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of organisations worldwide have suffered a DDoS attack and 76 percent are investing more in response to the threat of such attacks.  For its new global report, Neustar studied 1,002 directors, managers, CISOs, CSOs, CTOs and other C-suite executives to discover how DDoS attacks are affecting them and what they’re doing to mitigate the threat. Respondents represent diverse industries such as technology (18 percent), finance (14 percent), retail (12 percent) and government (seven percent) in North America, EMEA, and Asia Pacific. In EMEA, 75 percent of organisations were attacked. Nearly half (48 percent) were attacked six or more time and 32 percent encountered malware after a DDoS attack. Almost a quarter (21 percent) of attacked organisations reported customer data theft and 70 percent of those specific respondents said they learned of the attack from outside sources, such as social media. Globally, 30 percent of organisations took less than an hour to detect a DDoS attacks. In  EMEA, 37 percent of organisations took three or more hours to detect attacks. Despite only two percent of reported attacks exceeding 100+ GBPS, recent DDoS attacks have reached over 620 Gbps and up to almost 1 Tbps in attack size. Organisations are seeking to stay one step ahead of the game and protect against DDoS attacks. To prevent and protect against future attacks, organisations are using: Traditional firewall ISP based prevention (53 percent) Cloud service provider (47 percent) On-premise DDoS appliance and a DDoS mitigation service (36 percent) DDoS mitigation service (29 percent) DDoS mitigation appliance (27 percent) CDN (14 percent) WAF (13 percent) No DDoS protection is used in four percent of organisations. Nearly two-thirds (61 percent) have adopted and actively use IoT devices. In all, 82 percent of IoT adopters experienced an attack compared to just 58 percent of those who have not yet done so. Moreover, 43 percent of IoT adopters that were attacked are investing more than they did a year ago. In emailed commentary to  SCMagazineUK .com, Paul McEvatt, senior cyber-threat intelligence manager, UK & Ireland at Fujitsu said, “This latest report revealing the different levels of DDoS attacks has really highlighted the issues with the security of Internet of Things devices, with 82 percent of IoT adopters having experienced an attack compared with just 58 percent of those who have not yet done so. When internet-connected devices are hacked, it again brings to the surface the security risks we face as technology touches every aspect of daily life.  McEvatt added, “The issue is that businesses are failing to understand what is needed for a robust application of security from the outset, whether that’s for routers, smart devices or connected cars. Various attackers use online services to look for vulnerable IoT devices, making organisations an easy target for low-level cyber-criminals. The worrying reality is that security is often an afterthought and security fundamentals are still not being followed such as changing default passwords. Many of the cameras used in the recent DDoS attacks were shipped and left connected to the internet with weak credentials such as root/pass, root/admin or root/1111111, so it is little wonder these devices continue to be compromised.” Source: http://www.scmagazineuk.com/73-of-organisations-across-the-globe-have-suffered-a-ddos-attack/article/527211/

More:
73% of organisations across the globe have suffered a DDoS attack

Expect ‘Flood’ of DDoS Attacks After Source Code Release

The source code behind the massive distributed denial of service attack against security researcher Brian Krebs’s website has been released online. In a blog post over the weekend, Krebs wrote that the so-called Mirai source code’s release pretty much guarantees that “the Internet will soon be flooded with attacks from many new botnets powered by insecure routers, IP cameras, digital video recorders, and other easily hackable devices.”  Krebs knows all too well what Mirai is capable of. Last month, the “Internet of Things” botnet launched a “historically large” 620Gbps DDoS attack against his well-known and respected site KrebsOnSecurity, inundating it with so much spam traffic that DDoS protection provider Akamai dropped the site to protect other subscribers. The Mirai source code leak came to light on Friday via the Hackforums community, Krebs said. A user with the alias “anna-senpai” posted the code there for anyone to use, likely to avoid getting caught. “It’s an open question why anna-senpai released the source code for Mirai, but it’s unlikely to have been an altruistic gesture: Miscreants who develop malicious software often dump their source code publicly when law enforcement investigators and security firms start sniffing around a little too close to home,” Krebs wrote. “Publishing the code online for all to see and download ensures that the code’s original authors aren’t the only ones found possessing it if and when the authorities come knocking with search warrants.” The malware spreads by “continuously scanning the Internet for [vulnerable] IoT systems” that are using default or hard-coded usernames and passwords. Vulnerable devices are then turned into bots, which together can be used to launch DDoS attacks designed to send so much traffic to a website that it’s knocked offline. “My guess is that (if it’s not already happening) there will soon be many Internet users complaining to their ISPs about slow Internet speeds as a result of hacked IoT devices on their network hogging all the bandwidth,” Krebs wrote. “On the bright side, if that happens it may help to lessen the number of vulnerable systems.” Source: http://www.pcmag.com/news/348404/expect-flood-of-ddos-attacks-after-source-code-release

See the article here:
Expect ‘Flood’ of DDoS Attacks After Source Code Release

Newsweek Website Suffers DDoS Attack After Publishing Controversial Trump Report

Newsweek reported suffering a massive DDoS attack right after they published an exposé on how some of Donald Trump’s companies had violated the United States embargo on trading with Cuba. The attack was sufficient to prevent access to the article on Friday, September 30, but the attack subsided, and the report was available the following day. Kurt Eichenwald, the journalist that penned the piece, and Jim Impoco, Newsweek Editor-in-Chief, both categorized the incident as a cyber-attack. “The reason ppl couldnt read #TrumpInCuba piece late yesterday is that hackers launched a major attack on Newsweek after it was posted,” Eichenwald wrote on Twitter. “Last night we were on the receiving end of what our IT chief called a ‘massive’ DoS (denial of service) attack,” Impoco told fellow media outlet TalkingPointMemo (TPM) via email. Some websites that generate enough hype can suffer from huge traffic loads that overcome servers. Nevertheless, Newsweek is a reputable news portal that has the resources to deal with such traffic spikes. Impoco was very adamant that the incident was because of a coordinated DDoS attack, which he claims might have originated from Russia, but did not elaborate beyond explaining that the DDoS attack’s “main” IP address was from Russia. This explanation doesn’t make any technical sense since DDoS attacks don’t have “main” IP addresses.           Source: http://news.softpedia.com/news/newsweek-website-suffers-ddos-attack-after-publishing-controversial-trump-report-508874.shtml

More:
Newsweek Website Suffers DDoS Attack After Publishing Controversial Trump Report

Waiting for DDoS

In football, many offensive plays are designed to trick the defense into thinking something else is about to unfold. In the world of cybersecurity, DoS (Denial of Service) or DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks often serve as a similar smokescreen or decoy to a far more sinister plot with the ulterior motive to mount a computer network breach that results in the loss of data or intellectual property. It was a DDoS attack that woke up Sony Pictures a year ago (watch the video emailed to Sony employees on the morning of the attack), even though attackers had infiltrated the company’s networks months before undetected, and eventually obliterated its computer systems. According to  Fortune , half of Sony’s global network was wiped out, erasing everything stored on 3,262 of the company’s 6,797 personal computers and 837 of its 1,555 servers. Hackers calling themselves “#GOP” (Guardians of Peace) threatened to release publicly Sony Pictures’ internal data if their demands, including “monetary compensation,” were not met. They weren’t bluffing. Sobering DDoS Statistics Recent studies show DDoS attacks growing exponentially in recent years, launched through rentable, relatively inexpensive, anonymous botnets that cost as little as $1,000 and can render an e-commerce website completely inoperable. The average denial of service (DoS) attack costs the victim $1.5 million, according to a separate Ponemon Institute survey sponsored by Akamai and published in March 2015. The 682 responding companies reported four attacks a year. AT&T also reported companies across its network were hit with four times a year with DDoS attacks and 62 percent growth in DDoS attacks over the past two years. Once an organization receives a DDoS attack, the chances of being the object of a data breach are better than 70 percent, reported Neustar Inc., a Sterling, Va.-based provider of cloud-based information services, including conducting research on cloud metrics and managing various top-level internet domains. The second quarter of 2015 set a record for the number of DDoS attacks recorded on Akamai’s Prolexic Routed network – more than double what was reported in 2014’s second quarter. Corero Networks, a Hudson, Mass.-based security services provider, reported that its clients were getting DDoS attacks an average of three times a day, and in the second quarter of 2015 daily attack volume reached an average of 4.5 attacks, a 32 percent increase from the previous quarter. More than 95 percent of the attacks combated by Corero last 30 minutes or less, and the vast majority of the attacks were less than 1 Gbps. Only 43 percent rate their organizations as highly effective in quickly containing DoS attacks, and only 14 percent claimed to have had the ability to prevent such attacks, according to the Ponemon report. The worst DDoS attack on the Akamai network peaked at 214 million packets per second (Mpps), a volume capable of taking out tier 1 routers, such as those used by internet service providers (ISPs). “It’s pretty hard to stay one step ahead of these guys,” admits Mark Tonnesen, chief information officer (CIO) and chief security officer (CSO) of Neustar. In a recent survey of 760 security professionals commissioned by Neustar and conducted by Simply Direct of Sudbury, Mass., for the U.S. market and Harris Interactive of London for the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) markets,  DDoS attacks increased in 2015 six-fold when compared to the previous year. “Every day there’s an announcement of some [DDoS attack] going on with a company caught unprepared, trying to ramp up with people and technology,” Tonnesen says. “Companies are looking for any way they can grab an edge any way in identification, detection and reaction time to eliminate the attack.” Interruption vs. Outage Those behind DDoS attacks may have ulterior motives to capture real value from the attack, such as financial gain, brand carnage, or intellectual property resold on the underground market. Any of those scenarios happen nine out of every 10 DDoS attacks, according to Neustar data. The impact on a company’s customers and the firm’s bottom line “negatively impacts everybody’s financials,” Tonnsesen points out. DDoS attacks, which can take the form of an interruption or the more serious outage, almost always serves as a smokescreen avoiding attention to an outright sinister data breach. Meanwhile, the IT staff is trying to figure out why the website isn’t working properly. “Unbeknownst to you, [the malware is] already in your network,” he explains. A DDoS  outage  is a complete slaughter of messaging to a network, such as an e-commerce platform. Effectively, the network appears to shut down completely due to the bandwidth overload, making it nearly impossible to get traffic through to the website. In contrast, a DDoS  interruption  involves attacks targeted such as to a customer service organization or intellectual property or customer records and identity. “[An interruption] certainly has a major impact, but it wouldn’t be an outage,” explains Tonnesen. “It’s more of a disruption, not a flat-out attack. The attackers are much more intelligent and organized; they know what they’re certainly looking for, such as affecting your brand and or having a financial impact. There’s an element of showcasing their capability, and the lack thereof of the company that was attacked.” As a result, IT security and network teams must be vigilant and always be on high alert. The Hybrid Solution  Some CISOs are moving to a “hybrid” approach to combating a DDoS attack of the of the Open System Interconnection (OSI) Model Application Layer 7 variety. The approach uses an on-ground client security product that links with a cloud-based mitigation tool. One argument for this approach is that attack victims can react more quickly to a specific attack on a business area, such as engineering or customer support, if they have the benefit of cloud-based updates rather than waiting for a network-based device to be updated. “Based on the customers I talk to, hybrid approaches are becoming mainstream,” says Tonnesen. Client and cloud security products work together with one or the other configured as a rules-based defense working on certain types of data attacks that affect key assets and applications.  Typically, underlying attacks involve a DNA-like sequence that lives in a lower level of an organization’s technology stack, such as malware sitting on a server some place, and begin to take over key assets. “That’s where a DDoS mitigation service can really help a weakness or attack sector,” Tonnesen says. “One approach really isn’t good enough anymore.” Mike Weber, vice president of labs of Coalfire, a cyber risk management and compliance company based in Louisville, Colo., says that “being able to diagnose a denial of service attack does take some time. Generally understanding if it’s a problem internally, such as an application malfunction, system problem or faulty hardware, those kinds of diagnostics take a while.” When Weber was fending off DDoS attacks at a former employer, a web hosting company, he received an insider’s view of old-fashioned corporate espionage. The client hosting company had known adversaries but could never pin the frequent attacks on a single entity. “They had a good idea who was behind the attacks,” he remembers. “A lot of times, it was their competition. It was used as a revenge tactic – sometimes it was intended to impact that company from a business perspective for whatever reason. Maybe it’s a page rank or advertising issue.” Attackers leverage those kinds of attacks to consume personnel/intellectual capital being used for diagnosis. While the victim attempts to identify the strategy attempting to thwart it typically sends companies under attack into a state of chaos. An attack against a website can be set to look like a denial of service interspersed with an attack that achieved the end goal of flooding log servers. Typically the obvious attack needs to be stopped before one can diagnose the other less obvious attack. “Think of that as DNS (Domain Name System) amplification – a DDoS attack where the attacker basically exploits vulnerabilities in the DNS servers to be able to turn small inquiries into large payloads, which are directed back to the victim’s server,” Weber says. “Those are a different protocol than those other attacks that are attacking different parts of the infrastructure whether they’re operating systems or applications. So typically they would be targeted towards two different parts of the client environment.” Malicious Traffic A typical approach to prevent DDoS from inflicting damage is to re-route non-malicious traffic to a cloud-based or third-party provider whose sole purpose is to mitigate denial of service-type attacks at what’s known as a “scrubbing” center. “Only clean traffic gets through,” says J.J. Cummings, managing principal of Cisco’s security incident response team. DDoS traffic then purposely gets diverted to the external provider, which takes the “brunt” of the attack and “roots out all that’s evil and bad.” Denial of service attacks are extremely challenging and can be expensive from a mitigation perspective, in terms of pipe size and technology, he admits. “At the end of the day it comes down to how critical these business applications are,” Cummings says. “How much do you want to spend to withstand an attack and an attack of what size?” The first questions that need to be addressed before, during or following a DDoS, says Cummings, “are how big is your Internet pipe and how much bandwidth has been thrown at you historically?” The answers determine a network’s required level of operational capability as well as what the needs at a bare minimum to resume the business. Security products are available from multiple vendors to help harden a company’s public-facing systems so they’re less susceptible to targeted types of attacks. “Those technologies presume you have enough of an Internet pipe to withstand that amount of bandwidth,” says Cummings. Otherwise, it’s a moot point. Detection analytics is another important tool to put DDoS mitigation measures in place. “You don’t all the sudden get a terabyte of traffic hitting. It kind of spools up, as that botnet starts to distribute the attack commands,” he adds. ISPs can know in advance to block certain IP addresses or certain traffic streams upstream. More sophisticated attacks often are focused on a profit motive and target companies with a lot of money or a gambling site that is taking bets on a major sporting event. In online video gaming or gambling, some players go to the extremes of disrupting the network where the opposition is hosted by firing off a DDoS attack. Retribution is another scenario with DDoS attacks. A former employee or student gets mad and rents a botnet to conduct the attack. A significant consequence to a denial of service attack is damage to the victim organization’s reputation, in addition to a potential dollar loss for every minute that the network is offline. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of respondents in the Ponemon Institute’s denial of service study say reputation damage is the main consequence of a DoS attack, with 35 percent for diminished IT staff productivity and 33 percent for revenue losses. “We try to come up with metrics on how to measure reputation loss, which is pretty significant,” says Larry Ponemon, chairman of the Ponemon Institute, the cybersecurity think tank based in Traverse City, Mich. “When people hear the bad news, what do they do? The churn can be significant from a revenue point of view. People leave, they find alternatives.” Citing research from the institute’s recent Cost of Data Breach study, Ponemon says the most expensive attack type on a unit cost per attack is DDoS, when compared to other security incidents such as phishing, because it takes a lot of effort to stop it. Meanwhile, he adds, “there’s an extraction of data while people are worrying about the website being down.” Source: http://www.scmagazine.com/waiting-for-ddos/article/523247/

Visit site:
Waiting for DDoS

911 Is Vulnerable To DDoS Attacks

A new report has found that America’s emergency helpline number, 911, is vulnerable to Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks. Interestingly, the threat of attack has previously been issued by Department of Homeland Security as well as the FBI. Mark James, Security Specialist at ESET commented below. “These days DDoS attacks are easy to accomplish and can be relatively low cost to put in place. As technology gets cheaper, and the ability for botnets to infect more users thus making themselves stronger, seems easier and easier. The art of causing problems through brute force is now more readily available than ever before. In this modern day of internet everywhere, we take for granted the ability to access websites as and when we want them. When a website gets a DDoS attack those services become unavailable, now it’s not such a big problem when it’s a news delivery site but when it’s a service it’s a very different kettle of fish, and even more of a problem if it disrupts emergency or medical services. If you’re unable to access services in an emergency the worst case scenario could be life threatening. An effective defence to DDoS can be as easy as utilising third party services but there may be consequences for data security or disruption to the smooth user experience. Effective security is only achieved through multi-layered protection.” Source: http://www.informationsecuritybuzz.com/hacker-news/911-vulnerable-ddos-attacks/

Link:
911 Is Vulnerable To DDoS Attacks

Attackers Launch DDoS Attacks And the Kitchen Sink

First off, full disclosure, I work for Akamai as my day job. I don’t want any illusion on the point as I discuss the latest State of the Internet report that I was fortunate enough to be a part of creating. That being said, it was an interesting quarter. Last quarter shed some light on some interesting developments with regards to Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) as attackers tried their hand at various different approaches. We hear. time and again, about DDoSdistributed denial of service attacks and theis last most recent quarter gave rise to one of significant volume. This example was a rather significant attack that was a confirmed 363 Gbps of attack traffic against a media organization customer in Europe. Nothing to sneeze at to be certain. Is your organization in a position to sustain operations while weathering an attack of this magnitude? As we have seen more frequently of late, this was a multi vector attack. Tto put a fine point on it, this attack made use of multiple different vectors in the attacker’s futile attempt to take down their intended target. They made their attempt using the following vectors: SYN, UDP fragments, push, tcp, DNS and UDP floods. The only thing they forgot to throw in was the kitchen sink. Over the last few quarters Akamai has noticed an uptick in the number of attacks against sites that have DNSSEC configured domains. DNS open resolvers continue to rise and attackers are taking advantage of this by capitalizing on them to amplify their attack traffic. A great deal of this can be traced back to botnets that have been built out as the commoditization of DDoS continues to spread. Now, in addition to this type of attack, we also see that the criminal element has been leveraging tactics to obfuscate their origin and identity when launching web attacks to obfuscate their origin and identity. These attackers have been demonstrating an increased use of anonymization services to help to cover their digital footprints in the binary sand. Like with any criminal with a lick of ny sense about them, the last thing attackers they want is to get pinched by law enforcement. Subsequently we have seen an increased amount of use of attackers leveraging virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxies when launching web application attacks. When looking for resources on how to accomplish this online, we see all manner of webpage giving step by step instructions onthat steps through what an attacker would need to do. From blocking client side JavaScript to using a browser in Incognito mode and even leveraging Tor to launch attacks. All of these ideas have various levels of merit but, there are shortfalls wherein the attacker can be discovered. There are differences between the traditional VPN services and anonymizing ones. Traffic from between the client and the VPN service is encrypted and the IP address of the client is masqueraded. Pretty standard, but, when you look at an anonymization service they will promise any number of things, the most basic being like not storing any logging information on their customers. This is not always the case as one Lulzsec member discovered in September 2011 when his VPN provider was served with a court order to turn over logs, which they claimed they didn’t keep. Another thing that attackers have to contend with is the throttling of bandwidth over anonymization services. As a result, they leverage third party booted and stressor platforms to launch their attacks. These services would be paid for with Bitcoin in an effort to further obfuscate their identity and avoid detection. Be sure to check out the latest copy of the State of the Internet Report which is out today September 14, 2016. for more in-depth discussion on denial of service attacks and anonymization efforts of the attackers. Source: http://www.csoonline.com/article/3119675/security/attackers-launch-ddos-attacks-and-the-kitchen-sink.html

See original article:
Attackers Launch DDoS Attacks And the Kitchen Sink