40-Gbps DDoS Attacks Worry Even Tier-1 ISPs
sturgeon and other readers let us know that Arbor Networks has released their annual survey of tier-1 / tier-2 ISP security engineers. This year they got responses from 70 lead engineers. While DDoS attacks are reaching new heights of backbone-crushing traffic — 40 Gbps was seen this past year — the insiders are also worried about emerging threats to DNS and BGP. The summary notes that "Most believe that the DNS cache poisoning flaw disclosed earlier this year was poorly handled and increased the danger of the threat," but doesn't spell out what a better way of handling it might have been. All in all, the ISPs sound a bit pessimistic — one says "fewer resources, less management support, and increased workload." You can request the full PDF report here, but it will cost you contact information. In related news, an anonymous reader passes along a survey by Secure Computing of 199 international security experts and other "industry insiders" from utilities, oil and gas, financial services, government, telecommunications, transportation and other critical infrastructure industries. They are worried too.
Then perhaps we will fix some of the fundamental problems.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...one says fewer resources, less management support, and increased workload.
Welcome to the recession. Please enjoy your stay.
i can't decide, is the 40Gbps spike was related to fighting between criminal organizations. so its mollifying that this tool is so far only being used at such screaming proportions as turned on its creators:
the new york times had a good summary:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/technology/internet/10attacks.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
its notable that a lot of this potential is just sitting around, waiting for a chance to be used. if china goes to war with taiwan, or as when russia declared war on georgia, you will see/ saw these countries get DDosed off the face of the earth. that's the really worry: using DDos as a tool of war. the usa can sit around and wait until DDos used against vital government and civilian systems, or get ahead of the curve now
also notable: reflective amplification. that's the methodology employed. i'm not really sure, but i think that's where you dupe completely unrelated systems into responding to forged packets. someone wiser than me on these issues: is that the general drift?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Where's my "-1, Epic Fail!" moderation option when I need it?
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Skip the spam and just download directly here... http://www.arbornetworks.com/en/docman/worldwide-infrastructure-security-report-volume-iv-2008-/download.html
Have any studies been made with regards to DDoS attacks and IPv6. While at this point highly theoretical, would the differences in address range and lack of NATs reduce, increase or have no change on the risk?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
as far as trolls go, that was pretty good. that is how slashdot trolling ought to be done
Libertarian once shat on my carpet. Said the free market would sort it out.
I don't often ride to the rescue of MSFT but if people are going to ignore updates and continue to run unpatched IE5 on Windows 2000.. what would you have them do? Force patches on people with no disable option? That'd go over real well with the /. crowd.
Probably the best thing that could happen would be for major web sites to start rejecting IE5. That would oblige a significant chunk of the slackasses out there to upgrade and visit windowsupdate in the process. Not that this would really improve the already infected machines out there but it's a start.
CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
...take them out.
The computers I mean. If it's that bad the zombies need to be killed off.
I've read a few stories about researchers infiltrating botnets and being able to see a list of all the compromised computers. I wonder if it's possible to completely stop network access remotely without causing data loss.
If I was in a position where I could press a button and wipe the MBR of every zombied computer on a gigantic botnet, I'm not sure if I would or not. Would you?
Nuclear bombs even worry 1st world countries.
Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
Most believe that the DNS cache poisoning flaw disclosed earlier this year was poorly handled and increased the danger of the threat
The Kaminsky thing? The ISPs thought it was handled poorly? How ***the fuck*** should it have been handled then? The day they disclosed publicly that there was a vulnerability, nevermind that they didn't disclose the details, they had patches out for every major DNS server and any ISP who wanted to be patched could have been. WTF?
This is terrifying.
So terrifying, in fact, that I fully support the rebuilding of the entire Internet by pseudo-Democratic countries like the United States, and large businesses such as General Electric and Monsanto.
We have to stop these faceless Internet terrorists once and for all!
Did we just jump in back 5 (or more) years in time?
You are joking, right? Open relays have been oveshadowed by compromised destop machines as spam sources for a few years now. Plus, since SMTP MTAs tend to be on static IPs, the use of RBLs has effectively limited the reach of open relays as sources for any kind of email (SPAM or otherwise).
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
And let SLIP the dogs of war.
Taggers, please quote correctly.
It is often the elephant in the cubicle, but there's really nothing that most people can do. For anybody outside Microsoft, and most people inside it, it's kind of like a bad Supreme Court decision.
Now, suppose that all of these problems, all the spam and DDOSs, were due to Microsoft's incompetence, shortsightedness, and general desire to increase next quarter's profits while dooming civilization as we know it. (This isn't entirely true, of course.) Suppose that the top Microsoft execs believed they had to do something effective, or God was going to release everything Microsoft ever wrote under GPLv3.
They decide to get to work on a more secure OS. This will take a lot of rewriting, and they'll dump other features before they get it out the door. They decide to keep the eye candy intact, and give the RIAA and MPAA everything they want. They call it, for the sake of argument, Mojave. (Vista may not be ideal, but it has a lot more security built in than XP.)
Now, what do they do about older software? Most people and businesses have some software they rely on, which really won't work on a secure machine. The developers of Roller Blade Tycoon and The Sins had administrator accounts, after all, and that's what they tested on. Everybody took advantage of all the security holes, because it made it possible to get their stuff out the door a week sooner, at the expense of dooming civilization as we know it of course.
Ballmer thinks. He can't just enforce security, because nobody will buy Mojave. He can't leave all the holes there, or he gets Eric Raymond and Richard Stallman as permanent house guests. The only thing he can do is plug the holes, and let the users decide what they want to run under the Users Are Competent program.
At this point, the users notice that Mojave runs slower, and when they try to run their favorite game, Uncle Wiggley DDOSs WWW.Apple.Com, they have to click through all these boxes, which is annoying even to the multitudes who are completely trained to click OK on "See dancing pigs and doom civilization as we know it!" They start badmouthing Mojave, and stick to XP as much as they can. When they get Vista, the ones who know enough disable all those annoying little dialog boxes, and the rest just click through them to get them off the screen. "Hey, dancing pigs!"
So, regardless of what you think of Microsoft's bad security practices and shortsightedness, there's really very little they can do about the situation they helped create. We have to deal with the computers we have, not the ones we wish everybody had.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes