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.

Comments
DDoS And The Internet's Liability Problem
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
paulvixie
paulvixie,
User Rank: Author
11/26/2015 | 1:54:33 AM
Re: Unconvinced
<< Um, pardon me for saying so, but -- to extend your drive-by shooting analogy -- isn't this proposal like saying that the architect and construction workers who built a person's home should be held liable for damages pursuant to a drive-by shooting? >>

your pardon is granted. as with spam before it, spoofed source ddos and irresponsibly open servers have brought out every possible form of apologist. i have heard "there is no problem" and "it is not my problem" literally hundreds of times now. i won't take it personally, and i hope you won't take it personally when i tell you that you're plain and simply and completely wrong.

argument by analogy is fraught with error. as in this case, choosing the wrong analogy leads to absurd results. closer to the situation at hand would be holding the builder and architect of a house responsible if the house catches fire and burns the whole neighborhood down because somebody rang the doorbell too hard.

<< This all seems very huffy.  The reality of crime is that bad guys often get away with their behavior, and we have to live with this unfairness lest we create even more unfairness. >>

you can live with whatever impositions you wish, but, you can't insist that i do the same. "the reality" as you call it is that in the real world, creating or operating a public nuisance is an actionable offense if someone is injured by it, and the internet has thus far yelled and screamed about "stifling innovation" whenever similar accountability and recourse has been proposed. well, i am not here to censor any content or demand that software creators be licensed or anything else that might stifle innovation.

rather, i'm saying that the collective nuisance cost of the internet's irresponsible device makers and server and network operators is now so high that even the most self deceiving apologist cannot successfully pretend that everything will be ok without giving the lawyers and insurance companies a more defined role.

vixie
Joe Stanganelli
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
11/26/2015 | 12:20:40 AM
Re: DDoS Botnets
DDoS attacks in and of themselves are made to be a bigger deal than they are -- outside of victims like retail and other major commercial websites (where those companies lose oodles of dollars for all the time that they are down).

The real solution here, in any case, is to follow the money.  Bust other forms of cybercrime, and you reduce DDoS and other cybercrime because most of it is related.  (Great source on this subject: Brian Krebs's Spam Nation)

Joe Stanganelli
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
11/26/2015 | 12:18:47 AM
Unconvinced
Um, pardon me for saying so, but -- to extend your drive-by shooting analogy -- isn't this proposal like saying that the architect and construction workers who built a person's home should be held liable for damages pursuant to a drive-by shooting?

This all seems very huffy.  The reality of crime is that bad guys often get away with their behavior, and we have to live with this unfairness lest we create even more unfairness.
PaulV378
PaulV378,
User Rank: Strategist
11/25/2015 | 12:18:46 PM
Re: DDoS without vulnerability
<< There can be a real successful DDoS attach without ant vulnerability, that is what it is always successful form of attack. >>

if you take away botnets (which are created by exploiting vulnerabilities in devices and software), and poorly operated networks lacking source address validation (which allows spoofed-source packet emission, a vulnerability in the internet itself), and you take away poorly operated servers and services (which allow amplification and reflection, another vulnerability in the internet itself), then a successful ddos will have to come from some set of endpoints who use their real ip source addresses. those endpoints can be hired, due to poorly operated cloud service providers, who don't insist on verified identity, and due to poorly operated credit card and payment systems, which allow stolen credit cards to be used to hire online services.

so while vulnerability is not strictly required, demonstrably piss-poor operational practices are, and the same "your problem looked just fine leaving here!" attitude that underlays those irresponsible operational practices are the ones which permit device manufacturers to evade responsibility for the botnets their sloppy unpatchable software creates. those practices whether by operators or manufacturers should create liability which can be exploited in civil lawsuits by ddos victims, and which ought to drive insurance costs upward. we are the frog in the famous aphorism, and we are slowly boiling ourselves to death by not holding enablers accountable for the damage they do by proxy.

vixie
Dr.T
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
11/25/2015 | 11:22:17 AM
Re: Make it so
Unless there is a way somebody seizes the moment and make money of it, it will work but I do not know who that would be.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
11/25/2015 | 11:16:56 AM
Re: DDoS Botnets
Agree, once you have the impact does not matter how it happened, this is like using target's resources to attack target itself. :--)).
Dr.T
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
11/25/2015 | 11:13:58 AM
Re: Make it so
I agree, also public is not aware of this situation, unless there is public support nobody will move or touch anything.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
11/25/2015 | 11:11:11 AM
Re: Make it so
Anything involving government these days obviously not working, you never know tough. :--)).
Dr.T
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
11/25/2015 | 11:08:27 AM
DDoS without vulnerability
DDoS without vulnerability

Nice article, enjoyed reading it. There can be a real successful DDoS attach without ant vulnerability, that is what it is always successful form of attack. 
UldisS421
UldisS421,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/22/2015 | 2:00:23 PM
Re: Make it so
Liability for insecure software would make it hard for open source. Not because someone might try suing, they cant do that. But because of people getting afraid of liabilities on them, not the software creators, thus making them choose propriatary software just to stay safe themselves.

Another aspect. Getting liabilities on the senders would mean sending legal notices etc. to thousands of them, many in faraway lands with lots of legal problems, like "it is not illegal in my country" to "we dont care" and just stretching the time.

So, I dont know if this idea would work in real life as it sounds in theory. Still many obstacles.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Improving Enterprise Cybersecurity With XDR
Enterprises are looking at eXtended Detection and Response technologies to improve their abilities to detect, and respond to, threats. While endpoint detection and response is not new to enterprise security, organizations have to improve network visibility, expand data collection and expand threat hunting capabilites if they want their XDR deployments to succeed. This issue of Tech Insights also includes: a market overview for XDR from Omdia, questions to ask before deploying XDR, and an XDR primer.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-31600
PUBLISHED: 2022-07-04
NVIDIA DGX A100 contains a vulnerability in SBIOS in the SmmCore, where a user with high privileges can chain another vulnerability to this vulnerability, causing an integer overflow, possibly leading to code execution, escalation of privileges, denial of service, compromised integrity, and informat...
CVE-2022-31601
PUBLISHED: 2022-07-04
NVIDIA DGX A100 contains a vulnerability in SBIOS in the SmbiosPei, which may allow a highly privileged local attacker to cause an out-of-bounds write, which may lead to code execution, denial of service, compromised integrity, and information disclosure.
CVE-2022-31602
PUBLISHED: 2022-07-04
NVIDIA DGX A100 contains a vulnerability in SBIOS in the IpSecDxe, where a user with elevated privileges and a preconditioned heap can exploit an out-of-bounds write vulnerability, which may lead to code execution, denial of service, data integrity impact, and information disclosure.
CVE-2022-31603
PUBLISHED: 2022-07-04
NVIDIA DGX A100 contains a vulnerability in SBIOS in the IpSecDxe, where a user with high privileges and preconditioned IpSecDxe global data can exploit improper validation of an array index to cause code execution, which may lead to denial of service, data integrity impact, and information disclosu...
CVE-2022-31599
PUBLISHED: 2022-07-04
NVIDIA DGX A100 contains a vulnerability in SBIOS in the Ofbd, where a local user with elevated privileges can cause access to an uninitialized pointer, which may lead to code execution, escalation of privileges, denial of service, and information disclosure. The scope of impact can extend to other ...