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.

Threat Intelligence

4/12/2018
02:00 PM
Martin McKeay
Martin McKeay
Commentary
50%
50%

The Good, the Bad & the Disruptive: Bots on the Wild, Wild Web

Not all bots are bad -- some are downright helpful -- so you can't block them entirely.

Botnets, with odd names like Mirai and Dorkbot, give bots a bad name. That being said, it's important to understand that just because something is called a bot doesn't mean it's bad. We use the term to refer to almost anything from the spider programs that search engines like Google use to make a searchable index of your site to the most malicious tools hackers use to steal data. The reality is that most tools we call bots are beneficial to the workings of your site and the Internet. Intent and usage make a huge difference, even for the most helpful bots.

IT and security teams must be prepared to manage bots with their eyes open. According to Akamai's Fourth Quarter, 2017 State of the Internet/Security Report, bot traffic accounts for more than 30% of all pure Web traffic (excluding video streaming). Web teams can't afford to ignore the impact that bots have on their systems, nor can they block bots entirely.

There are also some bots that absolutely, positively must be defended against. Credential abuse bots, those that check an email and password against your site login page, are responsible for 43% of all login attempts, according to the Akamai data. There are literally billions of fake login attempts happening every month. And if you're running a hotel or airline website, a significant majority (83%!) of all logins against your site are driven by malicious bots.

Background Radiation
Bots and botnets are all too easy to ignore for many organizations. They're part of constant noise that every site sees, something that quickly gets filtered out of our ability to care about. But that's part of what makes bot traffic so dangerous. Credential abuse attacks have been around since shortly after the first Telnet and Secure Shell servers were exposed to the Internet, and scanners looking for services will probably be some of the last systems to go offline decades from now.

The modern incarnation of account checkers and credential abuse bots have evolved significantly since those early days. Even a few years ago, one of the common ways to detect and protect against these tools was to use rate limits. If you saw dozens or hundreds of login attempts from a single host, you could block that host and move on. In response, bot developers have moved from single/few host models to using whole botnets to host their tools. They circumvent rate limits by using a few nodes of the botnet at a time against a single target, cycling through IP addresses so a single site only sees an IP once in a great while.

A few years ago, it might have taken half an hour for a system exposed to the Internet to see the first login attempts show up in the logs. In today's world, it's often just seconds after the system goes live that the first attacks happen. It's not because attackers are so great that they detect your systems when they first come online. Instead, it's because there's so much bot traffic — acting as a kind of background radiation bouncing around without a specific target — that any system is going to be hit by random attacks from the very start.

Solving the Problem
Organizations looking to solve this problem can look to the efforts in fraud prevention to solve the problem of distributed credential abuse by these botnets. For instance, credit card companies have to look across multiple organizations and look for out-of-the-ordinary behavior. It sounds easy when stated like this, but the reality is that it requires visibility into traffic at a global scale and can't be done by looking at the traffic of just one organization.

If you've ever received a call from your credit card company telling you that it put a hold on your account because it saw a charge coming from Ukraine just minutes after you purchased gas in Boston, you have an idea how this works. By themselves, neither the gas purchase nor the purchase from Eastern Europe are necessarily suspicious. But when intelligence from the two events is combined, a clear picture showing the impossibility of traveling from one location to the other is revealed.

Credential abuse bots can be detected in a similar manner. Traffic from an IP that hits your site once then moves on might not trigger any defenses, because a single event isn't enough to draw conclusions. But if you can combine information from multiple organizations and see a pattern of that IP hitting a series of sites, a clear pattern of abusive behavior can be determined. In turn, this allows for signaling to other organizations, letting them deny the attacking IP automatically.

Bad guys are getting smarter and distributing their attacks. In return, defenders have to maintain controls that rely on what similar organizations are seeing. An attack that looks like it's just part of the background radiation of the Internet takes on an entirely different meaning when you can draw patterns from shared information. Account takeover bots try to hide their activity in the noise of the bots that you want to have access to your site, which means you need to cut through the noise to find them.

Related Content:

Interop ITX 2018

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop ITX. Learn from the industry's most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop ITX 2018 agenda here.

Martin McKeay is a Senior Security Advocate at Akamai, having joined the company in 2011. As a member of Akamai's Security Intelligence Team, he is responsible for researching security threats, customer education, and industry intelligence. With more than 15 years ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Mobile Banking Malware Up 50% in First Half of 2019
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/17/2020
Active Directory Needs an Update: Here's Why
Raz Rafaeli, CEO and Co-Founder at Secret Double Octopus,  1/16/2020
New Attack Campaigns Suggest Emotet Threat Is Far From Over
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  1/16/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-20399
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
A timing vulnerability in the Scalar::check_overflow function in Parity libsecp256k1-rs before 0.3.1 potentially allows an attacker to leak information via a side-channel attack.
CVE-2020-7915
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-22
An issue was discovered on Eaton 5P 850 devices. The Ubicacion SAI field allows XSS attacks by an administrator.
CVE-2019-20391
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-22
An invalid memory access flaw is present in libyang before v1.0-r3 in the function resolve_feature_value() when an if-feature statement is used inside a bit. Applications that use libyang to parse untrusted input yang files may crash.
CVE-2019-20392
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-22
An invalid memory access flaw is present in libyang before v1.0-r1 in the function resolve_feature_value() when an if-feature statement is used inside a list key node, and the feature used is not defined. Applications that use libyang to parse untrusted input yang files may crash.
CVE-2019-20393
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-22
A double-free is present in libyang before v1.0-r1 in the function yyparse() when an empty description is used. Applications that use libyang to parse untrusted input yang files may be vulnerable to this flaw, which would cause a crash or potentially code execution.