Slashdot Mirror
DDoS Attacks Exceed 100 Gbps For First Time
wiredmikey writes "The Sixth Annual Worldwide Infrastructure Security Report, released today by Arbor Networks, revealed that DDoS attack size broke 100 Gbps for first time; up 1000% since 2005. In addition to hitting the 100 Gbps attack barrier for the first time, application layer attacks hit an all-time high. Additionally, it goes on to show that as new equipment, protocols and services are introduced into networks, the vulnerable attack surface for DDoS is expanded. DDoS attacks are likely to continue as a low cost, high-profile form of cyber-protest in 2011 and beyond."
Are we really calling illegal attacks on a companies' servers "cyber protest" now?
a sign of good faith. takes some of the fear out of it. one guy causes this logjam/life threatening 'block party'? doubtful. a happy ending is in order?
Far too much of the country cannot avail themselves of a DDOS at these high rates. DDOS attacks should not be confined to those lucky enough to live in the big cities.
With the increase in computing power and with innovations in attacks I think they'll reach 1TB/sec in six years...
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
a happy ending is in order?
It's all the wimmins' fault. I guarantee you if there were more happy endings, there'd be a lot fewer guys willing to smash, burn, loot or blow things up. Hell, just look at what they promise suicide bomber in Muslim Heaven.
.
.
.
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 1 hour, 23 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
seriously, eat a bag of racid AIDS, slashcode.
and at least pretend to attempt to render the goddamned formatting tags somewhat approaching correctly
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Could we please agree that 100 Gbps, especially in this context, is not a "barrier"? At best, it is a mildly interesting milestone in the march towards completely saturating the internet with crap. But it is not a barrier in the sense that there was some physical limitation that held us up on our way past it. True, it happens to match the rated throughput of a particular class of network routing equipment, but so what? The sound barrier was an actual barrier in airspeed, one which many objects and phenomena cannot overcome, and one that took extra effort to get humans past. A brick wall is a barrier to your forward progress that requires extra effort to push through (if you're into that kind of thing). But 100 Gbps is no more a barrier than 99 Gbps was or 101 Gbps will be. Round numbers are not barriers - they're just human conventions.
PR group for company A says that a problem that our product 'solves' is really really bad.
Buy our product or you will be doomed.
Assuming most of these DDOS attacks come from from botnets; I wonder what percent of these DDOS attacks are made up of computers that were infected/compromised because they were left unpatched out in the open verses computers that were compromised because the user installed a pirated copy of some software that contained a virus or rootkit.
Given the reports I've heard of China and many other countries pirating 90% of their software http://slashdot.org/story/11/01/21/2217248/Ballmer-Says-90-of-Chinese-Users-Pirate-Software, I'd imagine there's got to be botnet makers who make software piracy the foundations of some big botnets. Anyone know?
IPv6 is fully deployed and operational world-wide.
In general, I'm not a big fan of all the proposals by ISPs to limit user traffic, cap data, etc.
But, it seems to me that clamping down on DDoS's initiated by zombie networks would be a fabulous use of the related technologies. If the ISPs really want to cut down on traffic, start cutting off all the traffic from botnet zombies.
I wonder if they could even, using Deep Packet Inspection, figure out what traffic was specifically from the botnet, and refuse to route that traffic, while still allowing legitimate traffic (e.g. the user browsing the web with their web browser, playing online games, sending email, etc) from the same machines.
Two things are interesting in the article
1) Firewalls are an easy target since stateful inspection table can be easily overflowed
2) Ipv6 is not something that helps the issue (I suspect the huge addressing space does no help, so is more crypto provisioning)
The only solution I see is for web sites to have an agreement with providers in the world whereby they can request a specific IP to be blocked to route to a specific web-site (for a limited period, obviously)
The magic should be done by means of automatic block request sent by the website to the offending IP source ISP..
Thanks Amazon, to the cloud my *ss!
Equates to my building and one of our neighboring ones. With 1 Gbps per apartment I fail to see the awe aspiring in the "accomplishment" from that perspective.
Assuming it wasn't my neighbors who got hacked and that the world's 500 million connected households have an average of 1Mbit/s uplink capacity, the feat might be interesting from another perspective than the consumed bandwidth; being able to orchestrate 100k drones without being traced. That's pretty cool since there must have been quite a couple of decoy routers and mechanisms in place to prevent tracing the origin of an orchestration like that. "Secret" command and control center of modern warfare, cloak and a 100k daggers.
Perhaps the USG should track these people down and recruit them in order to bolster the forces for their War On Internet (their goals seem aligned after all).
In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda ~ Bill Durodié
Sounds like Arbor is needing to sell some more "e-series" products.... just saying.