Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Perimeter

8/24/2012
12:43 AM
50%
50%

The Attacker's Trade-Off: Stealth Versus Resilience

Trade-offs are a fact of life for network defenders, but attackers have to abide them as well. Understanding attackers' problems can help companies better use them to their advantage

Information-security managers always have to deal with trade-offs in securing their company's data, systems, and networks. Dedicating too much time and budget to the wrong areas could leave their business vulnerable.

Attackers have trade-offs, as well: A common one pits the stealthiness of an attack versus how well it can withstand the countermeasures used by defenders.

At the recent USENIX Security Conference, for example, a group of researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology and security firm Damballa showed that domain-generation algorithms (DGA) -- a technique used by attackers to foil takedown attempts -- create an easily detectable fingerprint in the domain-name system (DNS) traffic that emanates from an infected system.

"You can use a fairly lightweight technique to determine if DGA botnets are inside your network by observing two fundamental things -- how nonexistent (NX) domains are on the rise and how herds of servers are looking up similar NX domains," says Manos Antonakakis, principal scientist at Damballa, who presented the work.

Attackers' calculus on whether to harden their botnets and compromised systems from defenders' countermeasures can help investigators glean clues as to the motives of the intruders. Different attackers will weigh the decision of stealth versus resilience differently. Opportunistic attackers, such as cybercriminals, will generally choose to harden their systems, while attackers that want to stay persistent will likely attempt to avoid actions that might draw attention, says Brett Stone-Gross, senior security researchers at managed-security service provider Dell Secureworks.

Attackers focused on cyberespionage and covert operations -- known in the defense industry as the "advanced persistent threat," or APT -- create stealthy malware that focuses on deniability over dollars.

"APT malware is generally throwaway malware," says Stone-Gross, pointing out that many of the recent spying attacks are less sophisticated than their cybercriminal counterparts. "They pump out a lot of samples because they are not that difficult to program."

The Gameover Zeus botnet used domain-generation algorithms as a fallback mechanism to re-establish control over the botnet, if defenders somehow were able to sever the attacker's control of the botnet.

[ Many companies do not scrutinize their domain-name service traffic, leaving an opening for malware to communicate using the protocol. See Malware To Increasingly Abuse DNS?. ]

Another technology that has the same trade-off is peer-to-peer networking, which many malicious programs use to foil takedown by removing easily identifiable command-and-control nodes. While peer-to-peer networking hardens the attackers' infrastructure, a reasonably aware monitoring solution can easily detect it.

"Peer-to-peer botnets are even more noisy and the traffic is very distinctive," Stone-Gross says. "They have to constantly refresh their peer list, and so they have to frequently connect to peers and update the peer list."

Cybercriminals are more interested in the quick score, rather than waiting patiently for the right bit of information, says Vikram Thakur, principal security response manager for security firm Symantec. Hardening their infrastructure delivers valuable time to siphon on more money from victims. And, in many cases, the chance of detection is so low -- the response to any positive detection so slow -- that the criminals are convinced that stealth is not necessary.

"Sifting through the data is difficult," Thakur says. "And the malware authors are saying, 'I will take my chances.' It is a reasonable risk for them to take to protect their resilience of their botnet."

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.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
7 Old IT Things Every New InfoSec Pro Should Know
Joan Goodchild, Staff Editor,  4/20/2021
News
Cloud-Native Businesses Struggle With Security
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/6/2021
Commentary
Defending Against Web Scraping Attacks
Rob Simon, Principal Security Consultant at TrustedSec,  5/7/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-4811
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-14
IBM Cloud Pak for Security (CP4S) 1.4.0.0, 1.5.0.0, 1.5.0.1, 1.6.0.0, and 1.6.0.1 could allow a privileged user to inject inject malicious data using a specially crafted HTTP request due to improper input validation.
CVE-2020-4985
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-14
IBM Planning Analytics Local 2.0 could allow an attacker to obtain sensitive information due to accepting body parameters in a query. IBM X-Force ID: 192642.
CVE-2021-20391
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-14
IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics 1.0.0 through 4.1.0 allows web pages to be stored locally which can be read by another user on the system. IBM X-Force ID: 195999.
CVE-2021-20392
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-14
IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics 1.0.0 through 4.0.1 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows users to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session.
CVE-2021-20393
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-14
IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics 1.0.0 through 4.1.0 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information when a detailed technical error message is returned in the browser. This information could be used in further attacks against the system. IBM X-Force ID: 196001.