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.

Perimeter

4/23/2008
07:45 AM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Researchers Infiltrate and 'Pollute' Storm Botnet

European botnet experts devise a method that disrupts stubborn peer-to-peer botnets like Storm

Sophisticated peer-to-peer (P2P) botnets like Storm that have no centralized command and control architecture have frustrated researchers because they're tough to dismantle. But a group of European researchers has come up with a way to disrupt these stealthy botnets -- by “polluting” them.

The researchers, from the University of Mannheim and the Institut Eurecom, recently infiltrated Storm to test out a method they came up with of analyzing and disrupting P2P botnets. Their technique is a spinoff of traditional botnet tracking, but with a twist: it not only entails capturing bot binaries and infiltrating the P2P network, but it also exploits weaknesses in the botnet’s P2P protocol to inject “polluted” content into the botnet to disrupt communication among the bots, as well as to study them more closely. The researchers tested their pollution method out on Storm -- and it worked. They presented their research this month at Usenix.

“Our measurements show that our strategy can be used as a way to disable the communication within the Storm botnet to a large extent,” the researchers wrote in their paper. “As a side effect, we are able to estimate the size of the Storm botnet, in general a hard task... Our measurements are much more precise than previous measurements.”

Their Storm stats: the researchers crawled Storm every 30 minutes from December of last year through February of this year, and saw between 5,000 and 40,000 machines online at a time. Not surprisingly, the Christmas and New Year’s holidays accounted for a big jump in numbers. And the U.S. has the most Storm bots, with 23 percent, according to the researchers, who said they spotted Storm bots in 200 countries.

The researchers also tested another P2P mitigation method called an “eclipse attack,” which basically aims to separate a segment of the P2P network from the main body by luring it to their phony bots, but it didn’t work.

The pollution attack, meanwhile, “overwrites” the P2P botnet’s key, an identifier that’s used to get command information to the bots. Storm generates keys to find other bots, the researchers noted. “Since the Storm bots continue to publish their content as well, this is a race between the group performing mitigation attempts and the infected machines,” the researchers wrote. “Our experiments show that by polluting all those hashes that we identified to be storm hashes, we can disrupt the communication.”

Jose Nazario, a security researcher with Arbor Networks who has studied Storm, says the pollution technique isn't a new concept, but the researchers may be among the first "to expose such a methodology publicly," he says. "This has been a taboo subject of exploration, as people do not want to mess with other peoples' PCs by injecting commands," he says.

Bottom line: the so-called “publish/subscribe” type of communication used by Storm and other P2P botnets is vulnerable to this type of exploitation.

Not surprisingly, getting to the operators behind Storm wasn’t so simple. Storm’s two-tier architecture -- tier one being the P2P networks Overnet and Storm itself, and tier two, the better-hidden computers that send the actual commands -- made that difficult. “In future work, we plan to analyze in detail the second-tier computers and try to find ways to identify the operators of the Storm Worm,” the researchers said in their paper.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Discuss" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

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

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Limited-Time Free Offers to Secure the Enterprise Amid COVID-19
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  3/31/2020
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 4/3/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
Data breaches and regulations have forced organizations to pay closer attention to the security incident response function. However, security leaders may be overestimating their ability to detect and respond to security incidents. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-11586
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-06
An XXE issue was discovered in CIPPlanner CIPAce 9.1 Build 2019092801. An unauthenticated attacker can make an API request that contains malicious XML DTD data.
CVE-2020-11587
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-06
An issue was discovered in CIPPlanner CIPAce 9.1 Build 2019092801. An unauthenticated attacker can make an API request and get the content of ETL Processes running on the server.
CVE-2020-11589
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-06
An Insecure Direct Object Reference issue was discovered in CIPPlanner CIPAce 9.1 Build 2019092801. An unauthenticated attacker can make a GET request to a certain URL and obtain information that should be provided to authenticated users only.
CVE-2020-11590
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-06
An issue was discovered in CIPPlanner CIPAce 9.1 Build 2019092801. An unauthenticated attacker can make an HTTP GET request to HealthPage.aspx and obtain the internal server name.
CVE-2020-11591
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-06
An issue was discovered in CIPPlanner CIPAce 9.1 Build 2019092801. An unauthenticated attacker can make an API request and obtain the full application path along with the customer name.