Analytics // Threat Intelligence
9/13/2013
01:11 AM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Countering Attacks Hiding In Denial-Of-Service Smokescreens

Noisy attacks are increasingly camouflaging more subtle exploits, but a well-structured incident response plan and third-party providers can help limit the noise

Denial-of-service (DoS) attacks have long been considered the blunt wooden club of online hazards -- a multigigabit stream of shock and awe.

Yet increasingly the noisy attacks are being used to hide more subtle infiltrations of a target's network. A number of financial institutions, for example, have been targeted by distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks immediately following a wire transfer, according to security firms familiar with the cases. The attacks, generated by computers infected with the DirtJumper DDoS malware, attempt to disrupt any response to the fraudulent transfer of funds, which are usually in the six-figure dollar range, according to a report by Dell Secureworks published in April.

"The analogy is signal jamming," says Kevin Houle, director of threat intelligence for managed security provider Dell SecureWorks. "To the extent that you can use the DDoS attack to do cause chaos electronically, to prevent access to particular systems during an attack, the tactic has proved successful."

While DirtJumper has focused on causing chaos immediately following money transfers, the technique could be generalized to other attack scenarios. A variation of the attack has been used by Iranian hacktivists groups to disrupt the online operations of U.S. financial institutions by hiding more subtle application-layer attacks within larger packet floods. And South Korean companies were flooded with data while malware deleted information on organizations' servers.

"Your goal is to sow confusion," says Vann Abernethy, a senior product manager at NSFOCUS, a DDoS mitigation firm. "A DDoS attack is designed to get your IT department to run around like their hair is on fire."

[While distributed denial-of-service attacks topping 100 Gbps garner the headlines, they are not the threat that should worry most companies. See Large Attacks Hide More Subtle Threats In DDoS Data.]

In addition, noisy DDoS attacks could attract more attackers, says Terrence Gareau, principal security architect for Prolexic, a DDoS mitigation firm. A very public attack could convince other groups to attempt their own operations in the chaos, he says.

"If it's a very public attack, then there is a high probability that other opportunistic attackers could take part as well," Gareau says. "Opportunistic criminals will say, wow they are under a DDoS attack, so let's look at the network and see what changes have been made."

Companies need to structure their response group to handle a large infrastructure attack, but not be blinded by the influx of alerts to their system. Like magicians, the goal of the attackers is to force the security staff to only pay attention to a distraction to keep them from discovering the actual trick.

"You almost have to have a team that deals with the infrastructure attack, and a separate group that goes into hypervigilance to find any other attacks coming in," says NSFOCUS's Abernethy.

A third-party provider, which can use intelligence from attacks on other customers to more quickly identify new attacks, can help eliminate much of the inbound attack traffic, dialing down the volume of alerts that the security team has to process. The level of alerts seen by a security team during a DoS attack can increase by an order of magnitude. Filtering them out at the edge of the Internet can greatly reduce the impact on a business' network and employees.

"If you don't have to have all those alerts on your network, you can pay attention to what matters," Prolexic's Gareau says. "Using a third-party mitigation provider can significantly reduce the noise."

Yet attacks that use a variety of traffic and techniques in a short time period can cause problems for DoS mitigation firms, says Lance James, head of intelligence for Vigilance, a threat information firm that is now part of Deloitte.

"They are not perfect," James says. "We still see major banks going down. But they do well against long-period-term DDoS attacks."

While DirtJumper, also known as Drive, is not the only botnet that is used for combined attacks, it is a popular one. DirtJumper has a half dozen ways of attacking infrastructure, including flooding Web sites with GET requests and POST requests, targeting infrastructure with two types of IP floods, and using UDP packets to slow down networks.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Add Your Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message. Robert Lemos is a veteran technology journalist of more than 16 years and a former research engineer, writing articles that have appeared in Business Week, CIO Magazine, CNET News.com, Computing Japan, CSO Magazine, Dark Reading, eWEEK, InfoWorld, MIT's Technology Review, ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
AccessServices
50%
50%
AccessServices,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/16/2013 | 1:20:14 PM
re: Countering Attacks Hiding In Denial-Of-Service Smokescreens
Companies and major carriers have been fighting botnets for years now. Bot herders take advantage of systems that are not properly maintained for their attacks. We need to stop looked at the symptoms and start looking at the problem. The focus should be on preventing these systems from being compromised. Forcing these systems to upgrade is key to stopping these attacks. iHeart radio will not let you access it's services unless you have the latest version of Flash. Other companies should start taking the same action. If ISPs would not allow a PC on its network unless it was patched, a lot of the botnets would be cut down significantly.

Jeff Jones
Security Architect
Abacus Solutions
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Flash Poll
Current Issue
Cartoon
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-0972
Published: 2014-08-01
The kgsl graphics driver for the Linux kernel 3.x, as used in Qualcomm Innovation Center (QuIC) Android contributions for MSM devices and other products, does not properly prevent write access to IOMMU context registers, which allows local users to select a custom page table, and consequently write ...

CVE-2014-2627
Published: 2014-08-01
Unspecified vulnerability in HP NonStop NetBatch G06.14 through G06.32.01, H06 through H06.28, and J06 through J06.17.01 allows remote authenticated users to gain privileges for NetBatch job execution via unknown vectors.

CVE-2014-3009
Published: 2014-08-01
The GDS component in IBM InfoSphere Master Data Management - Collaborative Edition 10.0 through 11.0 and InfoSphere Master Data Management Server for Product Information Management 9.0 and 9.1 does not properly handle FRAME elements, which makes it easier for remote authenticated users to conduct ph...

CVE-2014-3302
Published: 2014-08-01
user.php in Cisco WebEx Meetings Server 1.5(.1.131) and earlier does not properly implement the token timer for authenticated encryption, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via a crafted URL, aka Bug ID CSCuj81708.

CVE-2014-3534
Published: 2014-08-01
arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c in the Linux kernel before 3.15.8 on the s390 platform does not properly restrict address-space control operations in PTRACE_POKEUSR_AREA requests, which allows local users to obtain read and write access to kernel memory locations, and consequently gain privileges, via a c...

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio