Cloud

1/24/2017
04:00 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

Bad Bots Up Their Human Impersonation Game

Every third website visitor was an attack bot in 2016, and humans represent just under half of all Internet traffic, new Imperva data sample shows.

Unsavory traffic on the Web continues to flow at a steady clip with nearly one-third of it from bad bots.

New data released from Imperva today shows bots with the upper hand overall, with humans representing 48.2% of website traffic in 2016; so-called "good" bots (think feed-fetchers, search engine bots and crawlers) at 22.9%, and bad bots accounting for 28.9% of the traffic. Bad bots mainly include automated accounts posing as humans, which make up about one-fourth of all bad bots. Other bad actor bots: hacker tools, scrapers, and spammers.

Every third visitor to a website was a bad bot last year, and more than 94% of websites in the study suffered at least one attack by a bad bot during the 90-day study of some 16.7 billion visits to 100,000 randomly-selected domains on Imperva's Incapsula network, a cloud-based service that provides web security, DDoS protection, and optimization for content delivery networks.

"I don't know if people  know that every third visitor to their website is an attack bot," says Igal Zeifman, a senior manager at Imperva. "The majority of automated visits … are doing something they shouldn't be doing, scraping the content of a website," spamming, comment-spamming, link-spamming, auto-filling online forms, and of course, waging distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, he says.

Bad bots have maintained a steady presence online as the Internet continues to grow, at 31% in 2012, a dipping slightly to around 29% the past couple of years, according to Imperva's data.  "This talks [of] motivation" of attackers, and their ability to successfully attack via bots, he says.

Source: Imperva
Source: Imperva

Imperva's report says "impersonator" bots remain the most prolific brand of bad bot: they accounted for 243.% of all traffic on Imperva's Incapsula network last year. These are bots that not only launch DDoS attacks, but also pose as browsing users in order to evade security detection tools. Depending on the website, the biggest risk of these nasty bots is DDoS attacks, using the site as a malware distribution forum, or as the first phase of an attack that ultimately infiltrates the organization itself, according to Zeifman.

Distil Networks last year found that last year humans outnumbered bad bots on the Web for the first time since 2013. But Distil's data drew from its Hadoop cluster that includes some 74 million bot requests and other customer data. Unlike Imperva's data set, it doesn't include DDoS bots but instead all other types of bad bots, including digital ad fraud.

What was in common, however, was that Distil also saw an increase bad bots imitating human online behavior. "I think that what's interesting is that the sophistication of bots seems to be increasing," says Edward Roberts, director of product marketing at Distil, which currently is putting the finishing touches on its new 2016 bot activity report.

For example, these smarter and more human-like bad bots are spreading around website activity requests among thousands of IPs, he says, in order to remain under the radar of web security tools and teams. They pause a few seconds between page requests, for instance, and move the mouse similar to the way a human does, he says.

Some organizations are suffering more than others from bad bot activity. "Two of three requests are [via] bad bots on some companies'" websites, he says.

"This is something that's not going away," Distil's Roberts says.

Related Content:

Kelly Jackson Higgins is Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
1/25/2017 | 10:21:48 AM
Sophistication in automation
At the end of the day, though, bot activity -- by definition -- is automated.

Therefore, as bots get more sophisticated, the "good guys" working to stop them have to as well.

So if the bots move the mouse similar to the way a human does, they're still doing this activity on repeat from a set of instructions.  Accordingly, certain patterns must be learned -- and, from there, treated in an escalatedly guarded manner when detected.
'Hidden Tunnels' Help Hackers Launch Financial Services Attacks
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  6/20/2018
Inside a SamSam Ransomware Attack
Ajit Sancheti, CEO and Co-Founder, Preempt,  6/20/2018
Tesla Employee Steals, Sabotages Company Data
Jai Vijayan, Freelance writer,  6/19/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-12716
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-25
The API service on Google Home and Chromecast devices before mid-July 2018 does not prevent DNS rebinding attacks from reading the scan_results JSON data, which allows remote attackers to determine the physical location of most web browsers by leveraging the presence of one of these devices on its l...
CVE-2018-12705
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-24
DIGISOL DG-BR4000NG devices have XSS via the SSID (it is validated only on the client side).
CVE-2018-12706
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-24
DIGISOL DG-BR4000NG devices have a Buffer Overflow via a long Authorization HTTP header.
CVE-2018-12714
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-24
An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel through 4.17.2. The filter parsing in kernel/trace/trace_events_filter.c could be called with no filter, which is an N=0 case when it expected at least one line to have been read, thus making the N-1 index invalid. This allows attackers to cause a denial o...
CVE-2018-12713
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-24
GIMP through 2.10.2 makes g_get_tmp_dir calls to establish temporary filenames, which may result in a filename that already exists, as demonstrated by the gimp_write_and_read_file function in app/tests/test-xcf.c. This might be leveraged by attackers to overwrite files or read file content that was ...