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.
4/6/2015
10:00 AM
John Bambenek
John Bambenek
Partner Perspectives
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
50%
50%

Principles of Malware Sinkholing

The process of sinkholing is an important tool to have in your arsenal when dealing with emerging threats.

With malware dependency on domain name systems (DNS) and the use of domain generation algorithms (DGAs) on the rise, we’ve also seen an increase in the use of sinkholing as a defense and intelligence-gathering technique.

Sinkholing is a tactic used to redirect traffic from infected machines to a system under the control of a defender or researcher. Generally, sinkholing takes two forms: internal (where you only manipulate victim machines within your own organization) and external (where you manipulate victim machines on the Internet).

Internal sinkholing is valuable to identify infected machines on the network and to sever the adversarial control of them. Organizations generally have complete control over their networks, so they can redirect traffic bound for an external malicious IP to an internal sinkhole, as well as use malicious-domain lists and their internal DNS resolver to redirect traffic. It can be valuable for many reasons, from defense to intelligence.

For instance, seeing traffic redirected from an internal victim would provide the ability to see attributes of the traffic such as user-agent or path that could be fed into Web proxies to find other victims or to block the traffic outright.

The more controversial option is external sinkholing, which usually involves registering known malicious domains. This can be accomplished by picking up malicious domains as they expire or by registering domains in a DGA, as adversaries generally do not register all that’s available.

While sinkholing may seem complicated, generally most malware uses HTTP/HTTPS to communicate with its controller. This means running a sinkhole can be as simple as running Apache or nginx on the appropriate ports and monitoring the access logs.

Simple Execution, Complex Risks

Although sinkholing is simple to execute, complex risks can be involved. First, some obvious legal issues may crop up with external sinkholing; for example, victim machines are now contacting a server you control. If, for instance, you use external sinkholing to control victim machines that do not belong to your organization -- even if it’s for benefit -- it’s a criminal act in most jurisdictions. This holds true even if there is a “self-destruct” feature in the malware that will uninstall itself when given the command to do so.

In addition, a “legitimate” sinkhole can be indistinguishable from a malicious controller. To counter this, many sinkholes will self-identify as such, usually from reverse DNS or by using name-servers that make it clear they are not malicious systems.

Another issue is victim notification. A sinkhole operator has visibility into which organizations and networks have infected machines, and many of those networks are likely unaware they have an infection. To address this, most defenders and researchers find a mechanism to report to victims that they have a problem. For example, they run victim IP addresses through an IP to ASN (access service network) service and report the information to the appropriate contacts. Shadowserver, which operates its own sinkholes, even offers a service that allows network owners to receive reports on their networks.

Finally, there’s the issue of basic operational security. By registering a domain in a DGA, the adversary is able to determine that their DGA has been reversed and people are monitoring them. While not common, some adversaries do frequently change their DGAs when they feel their infrastructure is getting too much attention. For example, during the CryptoLocker investigation, the ratio of domains registered to sinkholes to domains that were actually malicious was approximately 125:1.

It should also be pointed out that some global top-level domains (TLDs) do not offer WHOIS privacy protection, which means the domain either has to be registered under a fake identity or the identity of a real person.

Reward: Valuable Threat Intelligence

Despite the inherent risks, valuable intelligence can be gained from running an external sinkhole. Just victim counts and geographic distribution alone can be enough to get law enforcement engaged on a particular threat. The ability to see how traffic communicates to a potential controller is also useful for crafting defenses.

Additionally, this information can be important to the security community at large. Organizations generally all face the same threats, and by sharing information gleaned from sinkholing, a certain economy of scale can be realized without the need for all organizations to undertake the same research. Instead, they are able to rely on privately shared information to deal with common threats.

Ultimately, sinkholing is an important tool to have in your arsenal when dealing with emerging threats.

John Bambenek is a Senior Threat Researcher at Fidelis Cybersecurity. His areas of specialty include digital forensics, global cybercrime investigation, and threat intelligence. He has developed open source feeds of threat intelligence data and works with law enforcement ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 7/9/2020
Omdia Research Launches Page on Dark Reading
Tim Wilson, Editor in Chief, Dark Reading 7/9/2020
4 Security Tips as the July 15 Tax-Day Extension Draws Near
Shane Buckley, President & Chief Operating Officer, Gigamon,  7/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
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
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15105
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
Django Two-Factor Authentication before 1.12, stores the user's password in clear text in the user session (base64-encoded). The password is stored in the session when the user submits their username and password, and is removed once they complete authentication by entering a two-factor authenticati...
CVE-2020-11061
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
In Bareos Director less than or equal to 16.2.10, 17.2.9, 18.2.8, and 19.2.7, a heap overflow allows a malicious client to corrupt the director's memory via oversized digest strings sent during initialization of a verify job. Disabling verify jobs mitigates the problem. This issue is also patched in...
CVE-2020-4042
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
Bareos before version 19.2.8 and earlier allows a malicious client to communicate with the director without knowledge of the shared secret if the director allows client initiated connection and connects to the client itself. The malicious client can replay the Bareos director's cram-md5 challenge to...
CVE-2020-11081
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
osquery before version 4.4.0 enables a priviledge escalation vulnerability. If a Window system is configured with a PATH that contains a user-writable directory then a local user may write a zlib1.dll DLL, which osquery will attempt to load. Since osquery runs with elevated privileges this enables l...
CVE-2020-6114
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
An exploitable SQL injection vulnerability exists in the Admin Reports functionality of Glacies IceHRM v26.6.0.OS (Commit bb274de1751ffb9d09482fd2538f9950a94c510a) . A specially crafted HTTP request can cause SQL injection. An attacker can make an authenticated HTTP request to trigger this vulnerabi...