Slashdot Mirror
TimeWarner DNS Hijacking
Exstatica writes "It looks like TimeWarner is taking vigilante action on the botnet problem. They've hijacked DNS for a few IRC servers, the latest being irc.mzima.net and irc.nac.net — both part of EFNet. (irc.vel.net was hijacked earlier but has been restored.) Using ns1.sd.cox.net, the lookup returns an IP for what looks to be a script that forces the user into a channel and issues a set of commands to clean the drones. There have been different reports of other IRC networks being hijacked and other DNS servers involved. Is this the right way to handle the botnet problem? Is hijacking DNS legal?" Botnets are starting to move off of IRC for command and control, anyway.
Update: 07/24 00:01 GMT by KD : Updated and added more links; thanks to Drew Matthews at vel.net. 07/24 11:52 GMT by KD : Daniel Haskell wrote in to say that ircd.nac.net is seeing cox.net connections again, and that they are in discussion with the EFF over the matter.
Update: 07/24 00:01 GMT by KD : Updated and added more links; thanks to Drew Matthews at vel.net. 07/24 11:52 GMT by KD : Daniel Haskell wrote in to say that ircd.nac.net is seeing cox.net connections again, and that they are in discussion with the EFF over the matter.
In Pennsylvania, it sounds like it might fall under Theft of, or Diversion of Services.
If Time Warner was really concerned about it wouldnt it be easier and more effective to use their virtual truck (TW Self help) application to redirect the users browser start page to a list of instructions, tools and a support number to clean up their system? I have seen several instances were they redirect users to a "disabled due to non-payment" type pages...would a "Hey idiot your computer is infected" page be that difficult?
Wired found someone who approves of breaking the internet:
Right, because the kind of people who might actually use IRC know nothing about botnets and the kind of Windoze users who are part of the botnet care about IRC. This is just another attack on the free software community as outlined in the Haloween Documents.
Once again, the ISP has punished the good guys for problems crated by the bad guys. The root cause of the botnet is Windoze. Fixing it and raising awareness is as simple as cutting the problem computers off your network and telling their owners why. This is as it should be and pretending otherwise props up third rate software and threatens the stability of the net.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Uhhhh.. see, I'm kinda of the opinion that vigilante action is only bad if there are proper channels. There are none.
How we know is more important than what we know.
You mean you actually talked to someone in tech support who not only knew what a packet was but also looked up what was happening on their end at a technical level? How many drones did you have to speak to telling you to A)reboot or B)reinstall your machine? Did you use chicken blood or ox blood to perform this magic?
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
This is in no way a new practice -- Time Warner has been doing this for well over two years. In the past script kiddies who have been caught hosting botnet servers on *.res.rr.com machines had their DNS's redirected to a single server in which all registered IRC users would be directed to #badbotbad, with the topic as .remove. It did, and still does, little to stop the botnet problem since the methods TW uses to sniff out the botnet servers are very specific to IRC protocol. That, and the server would only remove a standard kiddie rxbot with unchanged commands. --Manix
This isn't the perfect or ideal way to do things. But its about damned time the ISPs did something.
There is simply **NO** excuse for a bot to be running on any ISP for more than the time it takes to detect it pumping out massive volumes of email. My solution, as I've stated several times, would be to disconnect the offending computer, and then fire them off a snailmail letter stating that they will not be permitted back until their computer is disinfected. But since that would cost them customers, no one will do that.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Since it sounds like they were doing it with their DNS servers. While it would be illegal for me to break in to your DNS server and modify it, it is not illegal for me to modify my DNS server, even if you use it. If you dislike it, you can use another service, but unless I have a contract with you there's nothing wrong with it (legally). You can argue it is a bad idea, but changing their equipment on their network is well within their rights.
First, as a person who owns and operates many networks, I would be rather annoyed that someone has hijacked one of my domains, for any purpose.
To me, a domain name is the equivalent to a land deed, it's a peace of virtual real-estate. It's a representation and label identifying a group of IP addresses which may or may not be associated to a physical device or service. If I have a problem with some other network, I attempt to contact the powers-that-be of the offending network; in good faith, that they would be cooperative.
Now, I assume many offensive networks out there might not cooperate, or might think that what their network is doing is either legal, moral, or of no harm. Well... I do admit, I block all of APNIC to my mail servers, though, I do not service "customers" either. If I did, I would assume my customer demographic might include a need or desire for correspondence with those in APNIC, and permit the traffic. While I might, on case by case scenerios, filter a range of IPs known for SPAM or whatever, things I certainly wouldn't do is hi-jack a domain, and most disturbingly, attempt to execute code on a clients machine without direct consent for each instance, each time. Basically, what you're doing then is intentionally deceiving a computer system, breaking standards, breaking and entering said computer system, and influencing change which permanently alters HOW that computer operates. And, knowing the practices and the broad generalized sweeping tactics of Cox Communications (for example), I must say I do NOT trust what they MIGHT consider as "malicious" code to delete off my computer "at their whim".
If this becomes "legal", then what's to stop Cox Communications (for example), from considering my MP3s as "malicious or of questionable origin" and on behalf of RIAA, delete my mp3s? How are they going to know?
Now, on to San Diego Cox Communications. While I agree that if you are on someones network, you do what they say. However, as already implied above, if my intention is to provide "Internet Service", then I DO inherently forfeit some of that overall power. And Cox Cable, blocking incoming and outgoing ports is really not within their moral obligation to do so. Nothing illegal about them doing it, no doubt some here might agree with them. But, if I'm going to sell someone "Internet Service", as I have in the past, they get "Internet Service" in full. I don't want a parent above me, and most certainly, I should be allowed unaltered Internet Service from Cox Communications on request against the default safegaurds in-place for the sake of the laymen.
But, Cox Communications does NOT permit one to exercise all of the technologies available. They notoriously block ports, and muck with the traffic. Why? Who knows, and I don't mean to be elitist, but their explanations of some Windows worm really doesn't apply to my Linux box. Besides, if I was running Windows, I still wouldn't appreciate all the port blocking and crap. I'll handle that myself.
As a result, I refuse to use Cox Cable or Time Warners Road Runner services. (Aside from the fact I'm banned from San Diego Cox Cable's network for running VPN clouds on their network, among other things like DoS'ing everyone on my subnet to boost my download speeds...), I warmly welcome other high-speed services that do NOT play parenthood. Sadly, one practically has to purchase a "Business" line instead of a "Home" connection. So, that's in fact what I have so if I want to launch my own webserver/mailserver, SQL Server or whatever, it's simply a matter of just configuring and launching the daemon.
In short, I feel hi-jacking is wrong. And I feel that people should not use Cox Cable as they are the "AOL" of today anyways. Such actions are so typical of Cox Cable... it's truelly ridiculous.
Well as some have pointed out you can use other DNS servers. However, many people don't have the time/knowledge/or need to mess with this and they really shouldn't have to. Messing with DNS for these purposes is a questionable activity. However, especially in the case of EFNet servers, I find this especially strange. EFNet does have some botnets that end up with them, but they are very few and far between.. and small in nature. These things are taken down pretty rapidly on EFNet and that's part of the reason they're not used frequently. DALnet -- a whole other story. There's tons of active botnets there now. EFNet is definitely much smaller in scale n terms of the number, the size, and the lifespan. This is pretty sad. Redirecting a hacked server being used by an IRCD is one thing. Doing it selective IRCDs on a huge *legit* network.. that's a whole other story.
Yes, the solution you propose is possible, and indeed, in progress.
You've probably seen something similar when you have to install an ActiveX control in IE (for a bank, or Windows Update). It asks i) if you'd like to install it and ii) If you'd like to trust the publisher in the future.
The binary is cryptographically signed which assures the computer that it is a product of the authorised holder of a particular crypto key. MS already uses this scheme for device drivers on 64-bit versions of Vista - at present, it can be disabled by a technically oriented user, but there's no guarantee that ability will persist.
The downside is twofold - firstly, for this measure to have any teeth, you have to remove the ability of the user to ignore it. Secondly, it provokes ideas like Microsofts "Trusted Computing" initiative (aka "Palladium"), which hands over full control of your computer to a short list of people who know the secret keys embedded in your motherboard. The main motivator for requiring signed drivers in Vista is to prevent the loading of things like virtual devices which can be used to capture perfect digital copies of DRM protected media. A secondary consideration is quality assurance.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
At some point it is inevitable that MS operating systems will produce an API that permits calling programs to determine the presence of unsigned drivers or software, and refuse to perform certain functions (like playback of DRMed media). Heck, this shouldn't be hard to implement right now with a little effort. With TP, because the only trusted root certificates will be stored in inaccessible firmware, there will be no way for the user to sign drivers himself and mark them as trusted. Therefore MS (and anyone they care about pleasing) will be in control of what your computer can or cannot do.