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.

Cloud

6/24/2015
05:00 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

How To Avoid Collateral Damage In Cybercrime Takedowns

Internet pioneer and DNS expert Paul Vixie says 'passive DNS' is way to shut down malicious servers and infrastructure without affecting innocent users.

Botnet and bad-actor IP hosting service takedowns by law enforcement and industry contingents have been all the rage for the past few years as the good guys have taken a more aggressive tack against the bad guys.

These efforts typically serve as an effective yet short-term disruption for the most determined cybercriminal operations, but they also sometimes inadvertently harm innocent users and providers, a problem Internet pioneer and DNS expert Paul Vixie says can be solved by employing a more targeted takedown method.

Vixie, CEO of FarSight Security, which detects potentially malicious new domain names and other DNS malicious traffic trends, says using a passive DNS approach would reduce or even eliminate the chance of collateral damage when cybercriminal infrastructure is wrested from the attackers' control. Vixie will drill down on this topic during his presentation at Black Hat USA in August.

Takedowns typically include seizing domains, sinkholing IPs, and sometimes physically removing equipment, to derail a botnet or other malicious operation.

Perhaps the most infamous case of collateral damage from a takedown was Microsoft's Digital Crimes Unit's takeover of 22 dynamic DNS domains from provider No-IP a year ago. The move did some damage to Syrian Electronic Army and cybercrime groups, but innocent users were also knocked offline. Microsoft said a "technical error" led to the legitimate No-IP users losing their service as well, and No-IP maintained that millions of its users were affected.

The issue was eventually resolved, but not after some posturing in hearings on Capitol Hill, and debate over whether Microsoft was getting too heavy-handed in its takedown operations.

Vixie says the key to ensuring innocent users and organizations don't get swept up in the law enforcement cyber-sweep is get a more accurate picture of just what is attached to and relying on the infrastructure in question. "There is a tool that you can use to find out [whether] the Net infrastructure belongs to bad guys so you don't target anything else" that shares that infrastructure and is not malicious, Vixie says.

Passive DNS is a way to do that, says Vixie. With passive DNS, DNS messages among DNS servers are captured by sensors and then analyzed. While Vixie's company does run a Passive DNS database, he says he's advocating that investigators and task forces doing botnet or domain takedowns use any passive DNS tool or service.

Vixie says the two-part challenge in takedowns to date has been ensuring law enforcement "got it all" while not inadvertently cutting off innocent users and operations in the process.

Passive DNS not only can help spot critical DNS name servers, popular websites, shared hosting environments, and other legit operations so they aren't hit in a takedown operation, he says, but it can also help spot related malicious domains that might otherwise get missed. That helps investigators drill down to the malicious tentacles of the operation, according to Vixie.

Vixie in his talk at Black Hat also plans to lobby for researchers and service providers to contribute data to passive DNS efforts.

Meanwhile, it's unclear what long-term effects takedowns have had on the cybercrime underground. "I'm involved in the same [volume] of [takedown] cases than I ever was. The trend of bad guys is on an upward swing," Vixie says.

Kelly Jackson Higgins is the Executive Editor of Dark Reading. 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
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/3/2015 | 10:42:27 AM
Re: More Stringent Vetting Process
> Even though you used reductio ad absurdum to make it

What's wrong with that?  :p  It's a technique, not a logical fallacy.

> I don't think registration of trusted parties is comparable to a myriad of ID's.

Just another form of multifactor identification.  ;)

In any case, tell NSTIC that...
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
7/2/2015 | 7:42:08 AM
Re: More Stringent Vetting Process
Very much agree with your statement. Even though you used reductio ad absurdum to make it as I don't think registration of trusted parties is comparable to a myriad of ID's.

To your point, balance is important. Otherwise, other methods that provide an increased ease of use will be leveraged and those could contain even less security measures then the previously mentioned. This premise is not exclusive to OpenDNS.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
6/30/2015 | 11:03:41 PM
Re: More Stringent Vetting Process
Well, that's always the detriment/tradeoff, isn't it?  Alas, security and accessibility are fated to be eternal mortal foes.

We could secure access to email and other systems rather well by eliminating networks altogether by requiring face-to-face authentication at a designated computer terminal with three forms of government ID, along with eye and fingerprint scans, but that would be highly impractical.  Cybersecurity is only partly about protection; it's about finding the balance -- the line -- in that tradeoff between functionality and protection.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
6/25/2015 | 11:37:23 AM
More Stringent Vetting Process
I think a better approach from a security standpoint would be a more stringent registration practice. This way, all malicious intenders would have a more difficult time getting into the "group". This would minimize the collateral damage substantially as any outside the database could be purged with minimal risk. Some would slip through obviously but revocation is always available upon discovery. Benefits: It would strengthen security posture. Detriments: It would take longer to register due to more stringent protocols and handling. This is also dependent on a centralized model of DNS providers.
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/3/2020
'BootHole' Vulnerability Exposes Secure Boot Devices to Attack
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/29/2020
Out-of-Date and Unsupported Cloud Workloads Continue as a Common Weakness
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/28/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
This report describes some of the latest attacks and threats emanating from the Internet, as well as advice and tips on how your organization can mitigate those threats before they affect your business. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-16271
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-03
The SRP-6a implementation in Kee Vault KeePassRPC before 1.12.0 generates insufficiently random numbers, which allows remote attackers to read and modify data in the KeePass database via a WebSocket connection.
CVE-2020-16272
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-03
The SRP-6a implementation in Kee Vault KeePassRPC before 1.12.0 is missing validation for a client-provided parameter, which allows remote attackers to read and modify data in the KeePass database via an A=0 WebSocket connection.
CVE-2020-8574
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-03
Active IQ Unified Manager for Linux versions prior to 9.6 ship with the Java Management Extension Remote Method Invocation (JMX RMI) service enabled allowing unauthorized code execution to local users.
CVE-2020-8575
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-03
Active IQ Unified Manager for VMware vSphere and Windows versions prior to 9.5 are susceptible to a vulnerability which allows administrative users to cause Denial of Service (DoS).
CVE-2020-12739
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-03
A vulnerability in the Fanuc i Series CNC (0i-MD and 0i Mate-MD) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause an affected CNC to become inaccessible to other devices. The vulnerability is due to improper design or implementation of the Ethernet communication modules of the CNC. An attack...