Slashdot Mirror
Death Knell For DDoS Extortion?
Ron writes "Symantec security researcher Yazan Gable has put forward an explanation as to why the number of denial of service attacks has been declining (coincident with the rise of spam). His theory is that DoS attacks are no longer profitable to attackers. While spam and phishing attacks directly generate profit, he argues that extortion techniques often used with DoS attacks are far more risky and often make an attacker no profit at all. Gable writes: 'So what happens if the target of the attack refuses to pay? The DoS extortionist is obligated to carry out a prolonged DoS attack against them to follow through on their threats. For a DoS extortionist, this is the worst scenario because they have to risk their bot network for nothing at all. Since the target has refused to pay, it is likely that they will never pay. As a consequence, the attacker has to spend time and resources on a lost cause.'"
They still want the money somehow, and getting it bears higher risk with extortion than by simply grabbing dough under-the-table from spammers.
I suspect (okay, hope?) that spamming will begin to lose its profit motive as well, as users become computer-literate enough en masse to ignore emailed pitches... making the reward not really worth the effort. Even the dumbest user can get ripped off only so many times before they either a) go broke, or b) figure out that maybe they should stop buying stuff from spammers.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
That is not entirely true. In the present scenario the potential extortionist has a choice - spam or extort. Spamming is currently more profitable, or so the argument goes, and therefore, there are fewer extortions. In the world outside of botnets, extortionists may not have such easily available alternatives, so they stick to extortion.
The extortion part is difficult though, since the target must decide whether to comply with your demands (i.e. payment) or else just give you a good thrashing.
Karma police, arrest this man. He talks in math. He buzzes like a fridge. He's like a detuned radio.
I mean, what better place (from an objective POV) to park warez and illicit data (e.g. certain types of illegal pr0n), than on some unsuspecting schlep's machinery?
The mobsters then charge admittance by way of proxies (conceptual term, not 'w.x.y.z:8080') and advertise by way of spam?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Got some nuclear research you'd like to do but don't have the resources to create a super computer? rent a botnet!
Perhaps we could make them into a self-aware AI one day, imagine that. an AI running on poorly secured Windows boxes
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
That all DDoS attacks are for the purpose of extortion. Does nobody do these things simply because they just want to blackball someone anymore? No, this isn't the death of the DDoS.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Even if the victim doesn't pony up to stop the DoS, they still pay in lost service and opportunity. In this regard, a DoS against a big moneymaking site means a huge loss of revenue. How long until an ethically-challenged company DoS's their competition?
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
It's sort of like kidnapping.
Way back when, kidnapping was a pretty good way to make some quick cash. Grab somebody's significant other and tell them to deliver money to see them again. The automobile was pretty new and you could grab somebody and get them far enough away in a short amount of time that local law enforcement couldn't deal with it.
Thus, the feds were immediately brought in to any kidnapping case. Because the FBI had kidnapping specialists who knew all the angles, kidnapping for ransom became very unsuccessful. Nowadays, you rarely hear of a kidnapping case with a ransom demand here in the United States. It's just not worh it.
If someone refuses to pay, just don't DDoS them and move on. It's not like your reputation for following through on threats is on the line, you're a secretive criminal.
These guys have hit us up before. From what I have seen it is a
-give us $ or we shut you down.
-a small quick ddos to show you they can.
-you say "no thanks", so now they ask for $$$.
-a little bit longer ddos because you pissed them off.
-now they ask for $$$$$. which you certainly are not going to pay.
-another little ddos, more email threats of looming death and destruction, they are "leet" after all.
at this point you begin to factor outages and lost revenues into the business plan, you call ISP's, you consider calling the FBI.
they eventually go away. The best advice we got was from someone who has a "relationship" (pronounced cashcow) with a ddos'r. The scam is that they are looking for regular clients that they know can/will pay, and that they can hit up when they need cash. The word has gotten around that if you pay once, you'll pay twice. At least in the business of online casino's everyone has begun to understand that you just dont pay, ever.
South America, the Philippines (well, less Luzon than the other islands), southern Asia... lots of places. Probably because a lot of those places have weak central governments so "The Feds" aren't around to bring massive resources to bear on every single kidnap case. If they were, I'm sure the US solution would work fine.
If.
Another factor why the DDoS extortion of today is less profitable than a few years back is the existence of mechanisms to mitigate attacks more effectively. Companies like Arbor Networks and Cisco make products that let enterprises and Service Providers quickly flip a switch to redirect and protect legitimate customer traffic. I helped design the Sprint IP Defender solution, providing Sprint customers both quick notification of a security event AND the option to circumvent the issue. This takes all the control away from the extortionists.
Naturally, being employed in the managed security space, I have a dichotomy of interests that should not be forgotten - yes I want to see DDoS incidents being eliminated BUT yes I work for a company where fear of an incident leads companies to buy services from us which in turn drives up my 401k. There is big business in fear, but hey, if you lose $100k in revenue every 10 minutes your network is down, it only makes sense that you protect that income stream. Anyways, for every one extortionist, there are three script-kiddies hanging out in #l33tddos on EFnet wanting to see the level of damage he/she can impose.......
G'night all.If you can choose two ventures, one of which will almost certainly generate revenue with very little risk to you, and the other of which often generates no revenue at all but poses a high risk to your liberty and your resources, which do you choose?
Meta will eat itself