Slashdot Mirror
Cybercriminals Building New, Stealthier Networks
ancientribe writes "Cybercriminals are adopting a new method of hiding and sustaining their malicious Websites and botnet infrastructures so they'll be harder to detect, called "fast-flux," according to an article in Dark Reading. Criminal organizations behind two infamous malware families — Warezov/Stration and Storm — in the past few months have separately moved their infrastructures to so-called fast-flux service networks. The article says bad guys like fast-flux not only because it keeps them up and running, but also because it's more efficient than traditional methods of infecting victims' machines." I'm not exactly sure why this is new/different than the more well known open relay proxy networks.
The bit about blocking TCP port 80 is troubling. I run a small web-site for learning purposes and to share info with family and friends. I don't especially like the possibility of having to ask or pay extra to have port 80 opened on my end.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
"I'm not exactly sure why this is new/different than the more well known open relay proxy networks."
Has a lot more detail: http://www.honeynet.org/papers/ff/fast-flux.html
The blocking of port 80 they suggest really isn't about stopping the fast flux network, but it's an attempt to make it harder (marginally) to use the systems on that network for phishing attacks. As I understand it one of the uses these networks are being put to is to duplicate a phishing site on a couple hundred zombie systems, then rotate a single phishing URL through all of them making it harder to bring down the phishing site because you'd have to take down every one of the zombies, or find some way of nuking the DNS entry (which apparently the registrars are hesitant to do, even though some recent events seem to show that they'll do it quite happily if a big enough company or corporation asks them to). Personally I think blocking port 80 is a dumb idea and barely constitutes a speed bump for the kinds of people that run these things, but hey, that's never stopped a company from adopting a stupid idea, or marginal positive value and substantial negative (to the customer, if it hurts their bottom line forget it).
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Them: So you don't like Children? Why not?
You: Because criminals use vulnerabilities in children to conduct their illicit affairs.
*shrug*
Randomly select a different port each time you connect to the zombie. If you're really worried about users running netstat to check their open ports (and I suspect that zombied machines are more often owned by people who don't even know the CLI exists, much less who generally run network diagnostic tools via the CLI than not - and by a wide margin), then have it only open the port for ten minutes every hour. Windows, by default, updates its clock to NIST weekly, so you can be reasonably sure that your zombies are synced enough for that to work. Round-robin assign the ten minute window to the zombies (xx:00 - xx:09, xx:01 - xx:10, xx:02 - xx:11, etc). During that window, you use the zombie to host content, and you can push a listen port update. At any given time, most of your zombies are running on the same port (they have to be, or your victims can't connect to your content), but blocking that port will only be effective for however long you determine. How fast can ISPs identify a rogue port and block it?
If my experience with spam is any indication, the linked sites go down almost as fast as the spam comes in, but that's (apparently) not a problem for the spammers. So you rotate ports every two, three days.
And this is just the scheme I've come up with off the top of my head in less than a minute.
Come to think of it, you're already executing arbitrary code on the zombied machine. Have them determine when they can listen on their assigned port, with a minimum frequency and duration set, with a bias towards times the user isn't at the console. When the window opens, step one is to notify the mother ship that this machine is active.
There are probably holes in this scheme, but I don't see the problem as being intractable. I do see any effort to just block port 80 as being naive (at best). I don't think ISPs can respond fast enough to block a new port every couple days, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Fast-flux takes advantage of the ability to set extremely low time-to-lives on DNS resource records. The shorter the TTL, the faster changes propagate out through the DNS cache network. This suggests a way of neutering fast-flux: implement a minimum TTL in DNS servers. Since most people depend on their ISP's DNS servers rather than going directly to the roots, this would effectively prevent the fast-flux record changes from propagating as fast as they need to to be effective. If, for example, an ISP put a 30-minute minimum TTL in place, then the A record for a given name would remain fixed for 30 minutes (modulo cache being filled and the record being forced out) regardless of what the fast-flux network did. And since the DNS servers enforcing the minimum typically aren't under the control of either the botnet or the infected machines, there's nothing the botnet operators can do about the situation. As a side-effect, this also cuts the load on the DNS network caused by PHBs who order 60-second TTLs on their records "so customers won't be inconvenience when we change our IP addresses".
Two glitches with the idea:
As the subject implies, fast-flux networks are not proxies. They HAVE proxies. The basic difference is that a proxy redirects incoming and outgoing traffic through a server or router some where else, thus "spoofing" your IP address. Fast-flux networks certainly use proxies, but there's one big difference; fast-flux networks allow you to host content this way. To host your own website (short of technical mastery) you used to need a static IP address that runs directly to one or more servers, making it very easy to catch you if you use a domain name for illegal purposes and even easier to shut you down. Fast-flux networks allow you to use many IP addresses to host content from one central server or set of servers. The IP's on the front end are disposable and more can be generated quickly. It also provides the web site administrator a proxy level to protect his identity while hosting just like the one Tor proxy provides me while surfing. In other words, the difference between fast-flux networks and proxies is that fast-flux networks can be used to host from one computer to many different IP addresses, in part by using proxies. A proxy just doesn't let you do that. Thanks for reading a rather long post. I'm a student and a paper on fast-flux networks just happened to be distributed where I do research for the summer:)
ALL of these zombies are computers running a Windows OS.
There. I've said it. Why hide the truth?
Are journalist thinking "everyone knows it is Windows that is so vulnerable to mere emails, so there's no use in embarrassing Microsoft"? I don't think so... any more than they "just happened" to get Ferrari laptops for writing good articles about VISTA.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!