Perimeter

12/18/2014
03:50 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Bad Bots On The Rise

Humans remain outnumbered by bots online, new data shows.

The number of bots roaming the Net dropped this year, but the population of malicious bots has grown.

The overall population of bots, good and bad, dropped by more than 5% over 2013, according to a study published today. Bad bots that wage distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, commit click and ad fraud, scan for vulnerable targets, and spy, for instance, increased by as much as 15%.

Bots still outnumber humans online, accounting for 56% of Internet traffic versus humans at 44%. And bad or malicious bots account for more traffic than good bots, with 29% of a site's traffic. Good bots represent 27% of site visits.

"The sophistication of bad bots has increased," says Marc Gaffan, CEO and co-founder of Incapsula, whose firm for the second year in a row has seen more bots than real people inhabiting the Net. Bots are user machines infected by malware to do the bidding of the attacker. Incapsula calls the more sophisticated DDoS, ad fraud, and malicious scanning bots "impersonators," because they try to appear as legitimate users.

"The bar for creating bad bots has risen a bit. The ones out there are a lot more dangerous," Gaffan says.

Bots don't discriminate when it comes to site size: About one in three visitors to any size website is a malicious bot, according to the report. The data comes from a sampling of 15 billion human and bot visits over a 90-day period on 20,000 websites worldwide. Each site had a minimum of 10 human visitors per day.

The malicious bot threat has been an increasing problem. A bot is born in an organization about every 24 hours, according to a recent CheckPoint Software study, which found that three-fourths of enterprises have at least one bot-infected endpoint in-house. The percentage of organizations found with bots jumped from 63% in 2012 to 73% in 2013, the study found.

Aside from DDoS and other duped bots, there's a heavy population of bots recruited to perform ad fraud today. A recent study by the Association of National Advertisers and WhiteOps found that advertisers are losing $6.3 billion to $10 billion per year of ad revenue to fraud, thanks to the epidemic of phony ad traffic perpetrated by bots. From Aug. 1 to Oct. 1, WhiteOps researchers studied and analyzed the digital advertising traffic of a who's who of 36 US major corporations from various industries -- all ANA members -- including Ford, Honda, General Mills, Lilly, MasterCard, Merk, MillerCoors, Home Depot, Verizon, Walmart, and Wendy's.

"Incapsula's data reflects the reality that because you're receiving traffic doesn't mean it's a pair of human eyeballs on the other side. Sometimes it's a machine," says Dan Kaminsky, chief scientist with WhiteOps.

Bots are becoming more human-like and camouflaged, Kaminsky says, because the web has gotten more complicated. "As the web has gotten more complicated, so too have the bots."

Bad guys amass bots to do their dirty work because there's little risk for high financial gain, he says. "This is a criminal mechanism that generates money with no risk."

So what's the difference between an old-school bad bot and an impersonator bot? Gaffan says old-school bots are easier to spot, and their numbers will continue to dwindle in favor of the more sophisticated impersonator bots, some of which impersonate good, trusted bots.

The good/legitimate bot population is shrinking mainly due to a decline in RSS services, according to the Incapsula report.

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
Crowdsourced vs. Traditional Pen Testing
Alex Haynes, Chief Information Security Officer, CDL,  3/19/2019
BEC Scammer Pleads Guilty
Dark Reading Staff 3/20/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Well, at least it isn't Mobby Dick!
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
Organizations are responding to new threats with new processes for detecting and mitigating them. Here's a look at how the discipline of incident response is evolving.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-4035
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-22
IBM Content Navigator 3.0CD could allow attackers to direct web traffic to a malicious site. If attackers make a fake IBM Content Navigator site, they can send a link to ICN users to send request to their Edit client directly. Then Edit client will download documents from the fake ICN website. IBM X...
CVE-2019-4052
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-22
IBM API Connect 2018.1 and 2018.4.1.2 apis can be leveraged by unauthenticated users to discover login ids of registered users. IBM X-Force ID: 156544.
CVE-2019-9648
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-22
An issue was discovered in the SFTP Server component in Core FTP 2.0 Build 674. A directory traversal vulnerability exists using the SIZE command along with a \..\..\ substring, allowing an attacker to enumerate file existence based on the returned information.
CVE-2019-9923
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-22
pax_decode_header in sparse.c in GNU Tar before 1.32 had a NULL pointer dereference when parsing certain archives that have malformed extended headers.
CVE-2019-9924
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-22
rbash in Bash before 4.4-beta2 did not prevent the shell user from modifying BASH_CMDS, thus allowing the user to execute any command with the permissions of the shell.