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.

Attacks/Breaches

12/28/2016
02:15 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Another Massive DDoS Closes Out 2016, But Mirai Not To Blame

Using a new malware variant called Leet, the 650 Gbps DDoS attack matched Mirai's floods of traffic.

This past year has been one for the record books when it comes to distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks, so it is only proper that 2016 closes out with news of another massive DDoS attack, reported by Imperva researchers. According to them, the Imperva Incapsula network was forced to mitigate a 650 Gbps DDoS attack just a few days before Christmas.

One of the largest DDoS attacks on record, this particular assault is notable because it strayed from the bad guys' recent DDoS playbook. For much of the year, attackers have been testing the bounds of DDoS traffic-pushing capabilities using the advanced Mirai botnet, which consists of hijacked IoT devices. This time around, Imperva researchers say the holiday attack came at the hands of a new malicious network it calls Leet Botnet.

Earlier this fall, Mirai was behind the 620 Gbps attack against KrebsOnSecurity.com, a 990 Gbps attack against French hosting provider OVH that reportedly utilized a network that could have been capable of pushing up to 1.5 Tbps in malicious traffic, and the massive DDoS in October against DNS provider Dyn that reached an estimated 1.2 Tbps in malicious traffic. To pull off these attacks, Mirai primarily relied on tens of thousands of IoT devices, most of which were compromised CCTV cameras and DVR machines.

Imperva researchers report that spoofed IPs make it impossible to figure out what kind of devices carried out the Christmas attack. Their analysis of the payload does at least lead them to conclusively determine it was another botnet wreaking havoc.

"So far, all of the huge DDoS attacks of 2016 were associated with the Mirai malware," wrote Avishay Zawoznik and Dima Bekerman of Imperva. "However, the payload characteristics clearly show that neither Mirai nor one of its more recent variants was used for this assault."

Like many recent DDoS attacks, the Leet Botnet used a combination of both large and small SYN packet sizes "to both clog network pipes and bring down network switches," the pair wrote. The smaller packets were used to push up packet rates up past 150 million packets per second (Mpps), while the larger ones were used to increase the overall attack capacity. Imperva dubbed the botnet Leet because of a 'signature' left in some of the TCP Options headers of the smaller packets that spelled out "1337."

What really interested researchers, though, was Leet's larger payloads, which were populated by shredded lists of IP addresses that indicated Leet was accessing local files of compromised devices and scrambling them up to generate its payloads.

"Basically, the entire attack was just a mishmash of pulverized system files from thousands upon thousands of compromised devices," Zawoznik and Bekerman wrote. "It makes for an effective obfuscation technique that can be used to produce an unlimited number of extremely randomized payloads. Using these payloads, an offender can circumvent signature-based security systems that mitigate attacks by identifying similarities in the content of network packets." 

This year we saw DDoS attacks escalate to record heights and these high-powered botnets are a symptom of the times.

So far, all of the huge DDoS attacks of 2016 were associated with the Mirai malware. However, the payload characteristics clearly show that neither Mirai nor one of its more recent variants was used for this assault.

 

Related content:

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Mobile Banking Malware Up 50% in First Half of 2019
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/17/2020
Active Directory Needs an Update: Here's Why
Raz Rafaeli, CEO and Co-Founder at Secret Double Octopus,  1/16/2020
New Attack Campaigns Suggest Emotet Threat Is Far From Over
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  1/16/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-5216
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In Secure Headers (RubyGem secure_headers), a directive injection vulnerability is present in versions before 3.9.0, 5.2.0, and 6.3.0. If user-supplied input was passed into append/override_content_security_policy_directives, a newline could be injected leading to limited header injection. Upon seei...
CVE-2020-5217
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In Secure Headers (RubyGem secure_headers), a directive injection vulnerability is present in versions before 3.8.0, 5.1.0, and 6.2.0. If user-supplied input was passed into append/override_content_security_policy_directives, a semicolon could be injected leading to directive injection. This could b...
CVE-2020-5223
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In PrivateBin versions 1.2.0 before 1.2.2, and 1.3.0 before 1.3.2, a persistent XSS attack is possible. Under certain conditions, a user provided attachment file name can inject HTML leading to a persistent Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability. The vulnerability has been fixed in PrivateBin v1.3...
CVE-2019-20399
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
A timing vulnerability in the Scalar::check_overflow function in Parity libsecp256k1-rs before 0.3.1 potentially allows an attacker to leak information via a side-channel attack.
CVE-2020-7915
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-22
An issue was discovered on Eaton 5P 850 devices. The Ubicacion SAI field allows XSS attacks by an administrator.