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.

Partner Perspectives  Connecting marketers to our tech communities.
SPONSORED BY
6/29/2017
11:00 AM
Raymond Pompon
Raymond Pompon
Partner Perspectives
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
50%
50%

Doxing, DoS & Defacement: Todays Mainstream Hacktivism Tools

Anyone can get angry at you and become a hacktivist. Here's how to protect your organization from these increasingly common cyber attacks.

Technology is now empowering a sea of change in politics and protest. The use of hacking tools is no longer limited to statecraft and cybercrime; hacking tools are weapons available to anyone and everyone. Their use on a highly cyber-connected society means that information itself can now be easily weaponized. These are the perfect tools for civil disobedience because they enable few to stand against many and make a difference.

Hacktivists use three common offensive cyber techniques to varying degrees to get their messages out there and harass their opponents.

Doxing & Leaking
The first is doxing (dox being short for documents, or docs), which involves publicizing private or personal information on the Internet about a hacktivist’s opponents to intimidate or embarrass them. On a broader scale, leaking is the publication of carefully curated and incriminating emails or confidential documents, which can be effective against organizations or public figures. This is what plays out on the nightly news with WikiLeaks, and it is all too common.

Doxing is a more personal attack that can target individuals within an organization. It involves releasing highly personal, identifying information about an individual that includes details like date of birth, family names, phone numbers, social media profiles, and even photographs. For example, thousands of U.S. law enforcement and government employees have been doxed as part of hacktivist protests.

Denial of Service
In the Internet world, the denial-of-service (DoS) attack is an easy, electronic substitute for a protest march or a sit-in. The real problem with hacktivists perpetrating DoS attacks is the use of illegally subverted computers (pwned bots) woven into distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) botnets. It’s much harder to claim the moral high ground when you DDoS someone using stolen computing resources. Some hacktivists have tried to frame DDoS attacks as legitimate forms of protest although, so far, this hasn’t held any water as a legal defense.

Defacement
Website defacement—changing the visual appearance of a site—was also an early and popular form of hacktivism, essentially taking the form of political graffiti across the Internet. It reached an early apex in 2001 when a mid-air collision between a Chinese fighter plane and a U.S. spy plane occurred. Chinese hackers retaliated by hacking into and defacing nearly a thousand U.S. websites, with American hacktivists responding in kind.

Beyond websites, there are more insidious forms of hacktivist defacement. In its purest form, defacement is an attack against data integrity; that is, someone has corrupted our systems by electronic tampering. Many kinds of systems, such as social media and online polls, can be subverted to send a political message. Political Bots, a research team that investigates the impact of automated propaganda on the public, explains, "The U.S. election saw perhaps the most pervasive use of bots in attempts to manipulate public opinion in the short history of these automated political tools." Entire platforms for political communication and discourse are being defaced, notably sometimes invisibly, to skew influence.

You Can’t Punch a Swarm of Bees
Hacking allows anonymous attacks from small groups or individuals to command an unprecedented level of attention in society. Part of that power is in the protestors’ ability to blend into a faceless, amorphous group. Beyond the Anonymous group, which revels in striking from the shadows, there are many other protest movements banding together solely based on goals and a set of techniques. While some of these groups have some leadership, involvement is more about hashtags than membership cards. Online tools not only facilitate, they also encourage ad-hoc associations and actions around a cause.

The inability to point to a specific leadership in an offending organization can make retribution, containment, and negotiation very difficult. These flash mob style swarms of attacks can be very attractive for protestors who want to modulate their involvement in the cause. The deployment of opt-in DDoS tools like the Low Orbit Ion Cannon (LOIC) can provide hacktivist movements with a way to arm spur-of-the-moment protestors with powerful cyber-weapons.

Anyone can get angry at you and become a hacktivist. Be sure you have done adequate risk analysis around leaks of email and doxing attacks against staff, sustained DDoS attacks, and defacement of Internet applications.

Get the latest application threat intelligence from F5 Labs.

Raymond Pompon is a Principal Threat Researcher Evangelist with F5 labs. With over 20 years of experience in Internet security, he has worked closely with Federal law enforcement in cyber-crime investigations. He has recently written IT Security Risk Control Management: An ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
7 Ways VPNs Can Turn from Ally to Threat
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  9/21/2019
Security Pros Value Disclosure ... Sometimes
Dark Reading Staff 9/19/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: I wish they'd put a sock in it.
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
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-10754
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-23
Multiple classes used within Apereo CAS before release 6.1.0-RC5 makes use of apache commons-lang3 RandomStringUtils for token and ID generation which makes them predictable due to RandomStringUtils PRNG's algorithm not being cryptographically strong.
CVE-2019-10755
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-23
The SAML identifier generated within SAML2Utils.java was found to make use of the apache commons-lang3 RandomStringUtils class which makes them predictable due to RandomStringUtils PRNG's algorithm not being cryptographically strong. This issue only affects the 3.X release of pac4j-saml.
CVE-2019-1255
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-23
A denial of service vulnerability exists when Microsoft Defender improperly handles files, aka 'Microsoft Defender Denial of Service Vulnerability'.
CVE-2019-1367
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-23
A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way that the scripting engine handles objects in memory in Internet Explorer, aka 'Scripting Engine Memory Corruption Vulnerability'. This CVE ID is unique from CVE-2019-1221.
CVE-2019-11277
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-23
Cloud Foundry NFS Volume Service, 1.7.x versions prior to 1.7.11 and 2.x versions prior to 2.3.0, is vulnerable to LDAP injection. A remote authenticated malicious space developer can potentially inject LDAP filters via service instance creation, facilitating the malicious space developer to deny se...