Attacks/Breaches
4/25/2013
07:29 AM
Dark Reading
Dark Reading
Quick Hits
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

How Cybercriminals Attack The Cloud

What attacks are most likely against cloud computing environments? Here's a look -- and some advice

[Excerpted from "How Cybercriminals Attack the Cloud," a new report posted this week on Dark Reading's Cloud Security Tech Center.]

The adoption of cloud-based computing shows no signs of slowing. Indeed, cloud services are expanding at an incredible rate across all sectors of the economy, with the market for public cloud services expected to grow to $210 billion by 2016, according to Gartner.

And it's no wonder: The cloud is a compelling proposition for businesses and government agencies alike, offering easy access to shared, elastically allocated computing resources. The model creates savings on capital expenditures and reduces the running costs of operating a network, allowing enterprises to focus more on their core operations instead of IT.

However, what makes cloud computing so attractive to businesses -- the sharing of resources to achieve economies of scale -- also makes the model attractive to cybercriminals.

Cloud services concentrate so much data in one place that they become very attractive targets, justifying a large investment in a hacker's time and resources. Recent researchby the European Network and Information Securit Agency has led it to warn, "The proliferation of cloud computing and the sheer concentration of users and data on rather few logical locations are definitely an attractive target for future attacks."

What types of attacks are most common against cloud environments? Volumetric attacks aim to overwhelm a network's infrastructure with bandwidth-consuming

traffic or resource-sapping requests.

State-exhaustion attacks, such as TCP SYN flood and idle session attacks, abuse the stateful nature of TCP to exhaust resources in servers, load balancers and firewalls. Several cloud providers saw their firewalls fail last year during DDoS attacks.

Techniques such as amplification magnify the amount of bandwidth that can be used to target a potential victim. Suppose an attacker is able to generate 100 Mbps of traffic with his botnet. This may inconvenience or block access to a small site, but it would not impact a well-protected cloud hosted site or service.

The attacker could go to a botnet herder to rent access to its botnet, but this could get expensive. The attacker also could use manual and automated coordination techniques similar to those used by the Anonymous group, which notifies fellow "anons" of the time to start an attack so that it's big enough to affect the victim's resources.

By using an amplification technique called DNS reflection, an attacker's botnet can send out a DNS query of about 60 bytes to an open recursive DNS resolver that will gener-ate a response message sent to the victim of up to 4,000 bytes, increasing the amount of attack traffic by a factor of more than 60. The DNS protocol is ideal for this type of attack because queries can be sent with a spoofed source address -- using User Datagram Protocol, which doesn't require a handshake -- and a DNS response is significantly larger than the query itself.

To learn more about the different types of attacks made on cloud computing environments -- and what you can do about them -- download the free report.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Add a Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
In a digital world inundated with advanced security threats, Intel Security seeks to transform how we live and work to keep our information secure. Through hardware and software development, Intel Security delivers robust solutions that integrate security into every layer of every digital device. In combining the security expertise of McAfee with the innovation, performance, and trust of Intel, this vision becomes a reality.

As we rely on technology to enhance our everyday and business life, we must too consider the security of the intellectual property and confidential data that is housed on these devices. As we increase the number of devices we use, we increase the number of gateways and opportunity for security threats. Intel Security takes the “security connected” approach to ensure that every device is secure, and that all security solutions are seamlessly integrated.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading's October Tech Digest
Fast data analysis can stymie attacks and strengthen enterprise security. Does your team have the data smarts?
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-1927
Published: 2014-10-25
The shell_quote function in python-gnupg 0.3.5 does not properly quote strings, which allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in unspecified vectors, as demonstrated using "$(" command-substitution sequences, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-1928....

CVE-2014-1928
Published: 2014-10-25
The shell_quote function in python-gnupg 0.3.5 does not properly escape characters, which allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in unspecified vectors, as demonstrated using "\" (backslash) characters to form multi-command sequences, a different vulner...

CVE-2014-1929
Published: 2014-10-25
python-gnupg 0.3.5 and 0.3.6 allows context-dependent attackers to have an unspecified impact via vectors related to "option injection through positional arguments." NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2013-7323.

CVE-2014-3409
Published: 2014-10-25
The Ethernet Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) handling feature in Cisco IOS 12.2(33)SRE9a and earlier and IOS XE 3.13S and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via malformed CFM packets, aka Bug ID CSCuq93406.

CVE-2014-3636
Published: 2014-10-25
D-Bus 1.3.0 through 1.6.x before 1.6.24 and 1.8.x before 1.8.8 allows local users to (1) cause a denial of service (prevention of new connections and connection drop) by queuing the maximum number of file descriptors or (2) cause a denial of service (disconnect) via multiple messages that combine to...

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Follow Dark Reading editors into the field as they talk with noted experts from the security world.