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

Spamhaus DDoS Spotlights DNS Server Security Challenge

Spamhaus DDoS attack renews talk of DNS server security

When the Spamhaus Project was recently hit with a tsunami of distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS) traffic, the impact of the incident caused a stir in the world of network security.

The attack took advantage of open DNS resolvers, allowing the attackers to control the flow of massive amounts of traffic. At its height, the attack peaked at some 300 gigabits per second, sparking a renewed focus for some on developing plans for mitigating the risk of similar situations.

"Attackers can amplify their DDoS attacks by spoofing requests to open DNS servers from their victims' IP addresses," explains Tom Cross, research director at Lancope. "The DNS responses that get sent back to the victim can be much larger than the requests that the attacker is generating, so this makes it easier for the attacker to consume the victims' bandwidth. These attacks can generate so much traffic that they will easily overwhelm the connectivity between the victims' data center and the Internet."

The right way to mitigate them is by routing traffic to a scrubbing center on the Internet that can remove unsolicited DNS responses while allowing the rest of the traffic to flow through to the destination, he adds.

In a FAQ about the situation, Spamhaus -- which tracks the world's spam organizations -- advised organizations to police traffic to ensure that traffic with spoofed sending addresses does not leave their networks. Referring to the attacks as "a call to action for the Internet community as a whole," the group also urged organizations to lock down any open DNS resolvers.

It is fair to say that despite a number of recommendations having been made during the past decade, several million recursive name servers remain configured in a generally promiscuous mode, observes Ken Silva, senior vice president of cyberstrategy within ManTech International's Mission Cyber & Intelligence Solutions Group.

"Best Current Practice 38 [BCP38], a set of recommendations which would limit the effectiveness of some DDoS attacks, was written 13 years ago, but still is not as widely implemented as it should be," he says. "Also, several best practice configuration guides outline good DNS server hygiene, but many remain configured poorly. This goes to the heart of the problem in dealing with this issue in general...in order to properly combat the threat, it involves participants from ISPs to enterprises to small network operators. And that's a lot of people and a lot of coordination."

The challenge of addressing DDoS, however, is not going away. On March 28, American Express experienced this firsthand when a DDoS attack struck its site for about two hours. The attack has been attributed to the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam group, which is believed to be behind a wave of attacks against financial institutions in the U.S. that began last year. During the past several months, the group has been tied to attacks against Bank of America, Citibank, and JPMorgan Chase.

There are several different kinds of denial-of-service attacks, each requiring a different kind of defense, notes Cross.

"The kind of attack that people usually think of when they think of DDoS is a huge traffic flood that overwhelms the bandwidth of the victim's Internet connectivity," he tells Dark Reading. "This kind of attack needs to be stopped at the service provider or out in the Internet, before the traffic reaches the victim's final hop.

"Many companies offer network-based scrubbing services that can block large traffic floods while letting legitimate traffic through," he adds. "However, these network-based solutions are not appropriate for every kind of attack. Some denial-of-service attacks can impact the availability of services without creating the sort of traffic flood that would trigger a network-based scrubbing solution."

Equipment such as firewall and intrusion detection systems can block certain classes of traditional DDOS, such as SYN Floods, but they usually don't have the features needed to deal with application-layer DDoS and other attacks hitting networks today, Cross says.

"Enterprises should not attempt to outgun the threat," advises Silva. "It's too costly, and the threat has more resources available to them. First and foremost, an enterprise needs to engage services that protect them even before the threat reaches them.

"Second, have a plan for what to do when you are under attack. Even a service provider could wind up severely degraded enough that a significant amount of traffic makes it through. Or the advisory can adapt to your countermeasures. Expect that could happen and have a plan. Lastly, make sure that you are not unwittingly participating in these attacks."

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.

Brian Prince is a freelance writer for a number of IT security-focused publications. Prior to becoming a freelance reporter, he worked at eWEEK for five years covering not only security, but also a variety of other subjects in the tech industry. Before that, he worked as a ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
GitHub Named in Capital One Breach Lawsuit
Dark Reading Staff 8/14/2019
The Mainframe Is Seeing a Resurgence. Is Security Keeping Pace?
Ray Overby, Co-Founder & President at Key Resources, Inc.,  8/15/2019
The Flaw in Vulnerability Management: It's Time to Get Real
Jim Souders, Chief Executive Officer at Adaptiva,  8/15/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-5034
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-20
An exploitable information disclosure vulnerability exists in the Weave Legacy Pairing functionality of Nest Cam IQ Indoor version 4620002. A set of specially crafted weave packets can cause an out of bounds read, resulting in information disclosure. An attacker can send packets to trigger this vuln...
CVE-2019-5035
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-20
An exploitable information disclosure vulnerability exists in the Weave PASE pairing functionality of the Nest Cam IQ Indoor, version 4620002. A set of specially crafted weave packets can brute force a pairing code, resulting in greater Weave access and potentially full device control. An attacker c...
CVE-2019-5036
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-20
An exploitable denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the Weave error reporting functionality of the Nest Cam IQ Indoor, version 4620002. A specially crafted weave packets can cause an arbitrary Weave Exchange Session to close, resulting in a denial of service. An attacker can send a specially cr...
CVE-2019-8103
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-20
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions, 2019.012.20035 and earlier, 2019.012.20035 and earlier, 2017.011.30142 and earlier, 2017.011.30143 and earlier, 2017.011.30142 and earlier, 2015.006.30497 and earlier, and 2015.006.30498 and earlier have an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Successful exploitation ...
CVE-2019-8104
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-20
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions, 2019.012.20035 and earlier, 2019.012.20035 and earlier, 2017.011.30142 and earlier, 2017.011.30143 and earlier, 2017.011.30142 and earlier, 2015.006.30497 and earlier, and 2015.006.30498 and earlier have an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Successful exploitation ...