Slashdot Mirror


How To Crash the Internet

rudy_wayne writes "We know you can take down Web sites with Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks. We know that a government, like Egypt's, can shut down an entire country's Internet access. And, we thought we knew that you can't take down the entire Internet. It turns out we could be wrong. In a report from New Scientist, Max Schuchard, a computer science graduate student, and his buddies claim they've found a way to launch DDoS attacks on Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) network routers that could crash the Internet."

166 comments

  1. n00bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I've got much better ways to cra

    1. Re:n00bs by tom17 · · Score: 0

      Like I it's not the millionth time i've heard the old "oh noes, the internet is de

    2. Re:n00bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you (by any chance) Canadian?

    3. Re:n00bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, after the 100th disconnected-joke it gets kind of stale and tom17's post becomes funnier ... at least relatively.

      Also, Candleja

    4. Re:n00bs by smitty97 · · Score: 1

      You all forgot to put the #*D(@5&%h++ NO CARRIER

      --
      mod me funny
    5. Re:n00bs by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      >#*D(@5&%h

      WHAT? My mother was a saint! GET OUT!

    6. Re:n00bs by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm all for repetitive jokes. With suitable timing, they can be a good 'badum tisch'. But much as I always found this one funny, I was always amused more by the impossibility of its very nature (Unless you are using a live see-as-they-type app like ICQ used to have, remember the first time you used that with someone you were flirting with online?). I just felt the urge to call on that impossibility today.

      Of course the AC that replied to said calling seemed to be on the defense, obviously assuming I was attacking the OP. That just made the whole little debacle even funnier (in my little mixed up world, that is).

    7. Re:n00bs by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Smitty, are you one of the Imagination Movers?

    8. Re:n00bs by commodore6502 · · Score: 0

      It's okay. If the internets go down, you can call my BBS and chat. Or connect to usenet (rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.startrek, etc):

      ATDT5601750
      (doo daa dee dah dit dah doo) (whoooosh)
      (aaaaaaaaaa)
      CONNECT 56000

      WELCOME TO C&%'S EMPORIUM FOR SLASHDOT, USENET, AND $[56FREE FLOPPY RIPS$[55. ENJOY YOUR STAY.
      USERID: ****
      PASSWD: ********************
      ANSI ON? NO.

      MENU (? FOR HELP): ___

      +++
      ATH
      %&@&!$#58)%)!@&
      CARRIER LOST

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    9. Re:n00bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's still USENET out there. I thought they shut that all down as a repository of Child pornography.

    10. Re:n00bs by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      "You must be new here."

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    11. Re:n00bs by commodore6502 · · Score: 1

      "In 2008, Verizon Communications, Time Warner Cable and Sprint Nextel signed an agreement with Attorney General of New York Andrew Cuomo to shut down access to sources of child pornography.[45] Time Warner Cable stopped offering access to Usenet. Verizon reduced its access to the "Big 8" hierarchies. Sprint stopped access to the alt.* hierarchies. AT&T stopped access to the alt.binaries.* hierarchies."
      - wikipedia

      Of course there are still plenty of other places to get Usenet. Like groups.google.com (formerly dejanews.com)

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    12. Re:n00bs by sjs132 · · Score: 1

      I just create a loop back on my cable modem... Ha! Take that, no more tubes!

      --
      --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
    13. Re:n00bs by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

      Ever tried Googling Google? Crashes the Internet every time.

      I can also crash the Internet by unplugging my modem.

      Who knows if it has crashed when my modem is unplugged, it is like if someone is not in the room with you, do they really exist? Or do they only exist only when you see them?

    14. Re:n00bs by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Schroedingers Internet?

  2. Big Red Button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big red button does it all.

    1. Re:Big Red Button by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      The big red button does it all.

      No! Don't click the big red button - it's a trap! You'll be Rick Rolled!!

    2. Re:Big Red Button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't the "easy button"

    3. Re:Big Red Button by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

      And it's much easier to find than the little pink one (although, I keep insisting it doesn't exist but my wife says I'm just not trying hard enough).

      --
      Loading...
    4. Re:Big Red Button by jimbobborg · · Score: 1

      I found it easily enough and she thanked me afterward!

    5. Re:Big Red Button by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      You forgot to give the link!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:Big Red Button by exomondo · · Score: 1

      The big red button does it all.

      No! Don't click the big red button - it's a trap! You'll be Rick Rolled!!

      That's what they want you to think.

  3. Crashing the net is pointless by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 4, Funny

    Where is he going to go brag afterwards? It's a self-defeating endeavor.

    1. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He just wants to get the GrandTour medal. He doesn't care if he gets disavowed or not.

    2. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      Who needs the Internet? He'll just call up the leaders of the free world and demand ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      Ah, screw it! We'll just do what we always do - steal a nuke and hold the world hostage. /doctorevilpinky

    4. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Where is he going to go brag afterwards? It's a self-defeating endeavor.

      Hey, some of us still have cradle modems and BBS software...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    5. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      got any door games?

    6. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by t0p · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be "doctorevilthebrain"?

      Pinky: Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?

      The Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world!

      --
      http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
    7. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Some of us actually wrote the BBS software ;-)

    8. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The only winning move is not to play" strikes again.

    9. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by ivucica · · Score: 1

      Funny, I just read an old computer games magazine with a review of a Pinky/The Brain game...

    10. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by yahwotqa · · Score: 1

      No, this was a Austin Powers reference. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118655/quotes?qt0367876)

    11. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      And some of us built modems. Ah, fun times...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    12. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by puhuri · · Score: 1

      Hey, some of us still have cradle modems and BBS software...

      But do you have telephone network to connect modems and does to network extend beyond local central office?

    13. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Yes. POTS!=internet.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    14. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhm, he is referring to dr Evil raising his pinky to his lip, of austin powers fame... not pinky from pinky and the brain... although I can understand why you might have been mislead :)

    15. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Wow really? What exactly did you do?

    16. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      s/free/cheap/ FTFY

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    17. Re:Crashing the net is pointless by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Nothing noteworthy, I just made boxes for friends in the late 70's/early 80's. Ready-built modems were rare and expensive, parts were relatively cheap and plentiful, so I did what any nerdy kid with a soldering iron would for a bit of extra money. We're talking 200/300 baud with no internal compression, so it wasn't rocket surgery.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  4. Thanks Max by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're the reason we can't have nice things.

  5. People have been thinking about this for ages by djlemma · · Score: 2

    I remember a decade ago, somebody from l0pht was discussing how they could take down the entire internet and keep it down for a while. I'm sure many people have made a point of keeping up with advancing technology and continuing to find ways that they could take down the internet itself...

    Still interesting to read about though.

    1. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BGP route poisoning has been around since BGP was invented. Every few years we get a story about how China or someone blackholed a huge swath of the 'net with a bad advertisement. This is nothing new, blah blah, internet is tied together with bubblegum and shoelaces. However there's almost always a way to "fix" routers on different networks since they're mostly independently managed, so you're looking at downtime of a few days to a week max. Nothing that's going to destroy the fabric of society.

    2. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Nothing that's going to destroy the fabric of society.

      One Word:

      Strategically placed EMP devices.

      OK that's four words but you get the picture.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    3. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which has what to do BGP route poisoning?

    4. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      who needs something fancy like an EMP device?
      One word:
      Strategically dropped meteors.

    5. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      However there's almost always a way to "fix" routers on different networks since they're mostly independently managed, so you're looking at downtime of a few days to a week max. Nothing that's going to destroy the fabric of society.

      I think you underestimate society's use of the internet and networks. It is far more than being able to browse Slashdot and play Farmville. The internet is responsible for financial transactions, shipping management (particularly food sources, oil, etc), power management, etc. If the internet went down, would it be the end of the world? I don't particularly think so. Would there be a whole heap (and I mean A LOT) of problems from the result? You better believe it.

    6. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Yea, all those food orders will have to be done by phone. Oh noes, the horror.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    7. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by ivucica · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a portion of voice traffic spends some time as VOIP traffic nowadays? I don't claim that it does, but it wouldn't surprise me.

    8. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      How can you stand around and laugh at everyone trying to email,txt,call when they (and you) are dead? No, my way is much more fun I think.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    9. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by sirsnork · · Score: 1

      Can you be sure one of the upstream phone carriers doesn't use a VoIP link between countries?

      --

      Normal people worry me!
    10. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      15 years ago, the usual way that the IT department used to stress test hardware, was to create a test network, attach the piece of kit to that network, and send random length packets to see if the hardware could handle the traffic - some boxes did, some didn't.

    11. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by exomondo · · Score: 1

      who needs something fancy like an EMP device? One word: Strategically dropped meteors.

      Strategically unplugged network cables?

    12. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Which has what to do BGP route poisoning?

      Are you saying an EMP won't totally fuck up your BGP routing tables?

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    13. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      BGP route poisoning has been around since BGP was invented. Every few years we get a story about how China or someone blackholed a huge swath of the 'net with a bad advertisement. This is nothing new, blah blah, internet is tied together with bubblegum and shoelaces. However there's almost always a way to "fix" routers on different networks since they're mostly independently managed, so you're looking at downtime of a few days to a week max. Nothing that's going to destroy the fabric of society.

      I knew statically managing all the routes in my router would pay off some day!
      Just like my 6 GB hosts file when people started poisoning DNS!

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    14. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by Gripp · · Score: 1

      that actually made me chuckle a bit.

    15. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Bob Metcalfe (former Xerox PARC researcher, founder of 3Com, co-inventor of Ethernet) predicted exactly this scenario 15 years ago. His timetable might have been off, but this just shows that either his theory is sound, or these grad students aren't nearly as original as they thought.

      Note: Metcalfe has also "predicted" some rather stupid and amazingly incorrect things, but they usually didn't have much to do with networking.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    16. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Having worked for telecommunications companies on and off for the last 15 years. I assure you that a attack on BGP will not even take down the internet for long, let alone the core backbone telecommunication networks that internet and phone calls run over. Also a significant number of companies lease their own "links" for their own networks. Yes its all moving over to IP these days, but IP runs on top of real hardware that is not going to fall over that easily and still has leased "subnets".

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    17. Re:People have been thinking about this for ages by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Faraday cage.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  6. How is this news? by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How is this news?
    we've know for years that BGP has problems.
    it's broken big section of the net before.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS_7007_incident

    1. Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's preventing them from using POTS to do BGP updates periodically to create the separate network required? Some routers still have built-in ISDN links. You don't have to build a 2nd internet to have it work. btw, McLean, VA where that incident occurred is suspiciously close to Langley It's mentioned in the cnet reference article.

    2. Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/lore/2006-August/000040.html ..isn't an academic page. It's also referred to as lists.ucc.asn.au which is home to the University Computer Club mailinglists.

      Shameless plug of the best computer club you've likely never heard of till now. Pop in on irc, and you could even chat to the FreeBSD kernel and networking dev who wrote that very post.

    3. Re:How is this news? by bjourne · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because, as described in TFA, the method used to exploit BGP is totally different from previous known methods. This one is about DDoS-ing a single high-traffic link between two routes so that neighbouring routers will send BGP updates telling listening parties to route their traffic elsewhere. The DDoS-ing would then stop, traffic resume on the link and new BGP updates being sent. Then another DDoS on the same link and so on. Eventually the amount of BGP updates would build up a huge backlog overloading every router in the world.

      The attack is possible in theory. In reality, you would need a huge botnet concentrating on a single vulnerable link to be able to pull off the attack. Generally high traffic links are also high capacity links, so the botnets size would have to be gigantic to disrupt a major link.

    4. Re:How is this news? by sseshan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is not the same type of attack -- the AS7007 problem was a route hijack attack.

      The sigcomm paper describes a more basic route convergence issue with path vector protocols

      The paper describes the use of packet loss to create a BGP session failure and the impact of repeated announce/withdraw traffic to slow other routers. This is also not new. However, the appropriate point of reference is "RFC 1266 - Experience with the BGP Protocol" (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1266.html). Read section 9 -- this points to how packet loss results in BGP failures and points to how ensuring BGP packets have priority fixes this. This was published in 1991 :-) and is generally well known.

      Similarly, I haven't read the referenced NDSS paper (http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~hopper/lci-ndss.pdf) but I am also surprised that BGP holddown timers don't prevent some of the related route churn problems.

    5. Re:How is this news? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Generally high traffic links are also high capacity links, so the botnets size would have to be gigantic to disrupt a major link.

      It sounds like you RTFA, so you know they call for a botnet that is 250,000 strong. That is not gigantic.
      Maybe a few years ago that would have been considered one of the world's largest botnets.

      Off the top of my head, the now decapitated Mariposa botnet was 12+ million strong.
      Currently bagel and rustock are the top two with a couple million bots each.

      What troubles me more is that one person could do the exact same attack just by standing next to the BGP router.
      China doesn't need to DDOS the world, they just need to turn their BGP routers on and off until everything grinds to a halt.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:How is this news? by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      BGP dampening is designed to stop this. I don't know why this is getting any press at all.

    7. Re:How is this news? by skids · · Score: 1

      Problem being a lot of places do not even apply control plane policing, much less prioritization of signaling traffic.

      IIRC Cisco started to do a bit of by-default signaling prioritization, at least on the ethernet/STP level, but nowadays it's hard to get a straight answer out of Cisco about such things -- whether they are in there, and whether they will still be there in the next code release. Though I have to say, they at least have their feature support matrix, which can sometimes yield answers but always must be verified with the TAC for accuracy.

      Anyway the root of the problem is not having a specific clause in the IP spec saying that devices MUST leapfrog queues when originating/forwarding signaling traffic, and routing protocol specifications not demanding that signaling traffic MUST be sent out with ToS values 6 or 7 (CS6 or CS7) and for that matter with dot1q/dot1p/ATM priority.

    8. Re:How is this news? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      The DDoS-ing would then stop, traffic resume on the link and new BGP updates being sent

      Only works once, then BGP route flap dampening kicks in and the route can come back up, but it will still be considered down until it has sat long enough to be considered stable, if when the dampened routes are released it happens again, the next hold time for the dampening will longer.

      And lets be clear, when you take down a link the size that matters enough for this to work if BGP dampening didn't exist, several someones would notice the big red alarms about the link being saturated and they could just filter the DDoS and be done with it, so it would work for all of 30 minutes if they guy watching the alarms happens to be asleep when it starts, far less if he's paying attention.

      There are millions of ways you can take down a network ran by a slashdotter or New Scientist reader, pretty much all of it goes out the door when you start talking to people who actually run the Internet. We've seen it, its not impressive, and you aren't the first to try it, hence why there are already protections in place to deal with this particular type of problem.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    9. Re:How is this news? by skids · · Score: 1

      Seeing as the OP and source do not link to the article itself, I have to go on what's described there, which is actually crashing BGP sessions by causing them packet loss (or where applied, causing the BFD feature packet loss.)

      It's not news at all to anyone who actually bothers to think "gee, if you put the signaling in-band it could get congested" and those people have tools available to them to deal with the situation (like not running BFD, conservative hold-down timers and flap-protection, and QoS for signaling traffic.)

      The only reason this could possibly work is that the group of people smart enough to say "gee, if you put the signaling in-band it could get congested" is significantly smaller than the group of people who pass themselves off as competent enough to be put in charge of routing protocols and/or design some of the corner-cutting cruft major ISPs do to scale up beyond the limits of their installed equipment base.

  7. Image by tom17 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The stock photo in the article says "Where's the internet gone?" but it's just a picture of a couple of people using old computers.

    I often see things like this where they feel they HAVE to put a photo in, a meaningful photo to help get the point across. To help get this point across they put in captions to make it clear, but half the time they put ZERO effort in to actually finding a suitable image. For this one, they could have at least found a picture with someone with their arms up in despair at the interwebs being down. But no, just people playing games or something on flickery old CRT monitors, or something.

    You know what? This REALLY GRINDS MY GEARS. Back to you Tom.

    1. Re:Image by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      There's also one with people in cars floating in a flood. So trashing the net now creates floods. Neat.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    2. Re:Image by gilleain · · Score: 1

      Even worse is when they have a generic IT-related article, an put an image of a keyboard next to the story. The BBC does this a lot - I know that getting stock photos (that are not copyright) is a pain, but really ... a keyboard?

    3. Re:Image by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Hahaha yes, quite :)

    4. Re:Image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Block bbcimg.co.uk and the World is good again. Well, other than the atrocious news page layout.

    5. Re:Image by t0p · · Score: 1

      I don't see why not. The internet going down would cause planes to fall from the sky, and (OMG) Facebook and (OMG) Twitter would stop working. So floods would be the least of our problems. Well, the least of your problems - I live on a hill/in a boat/something.

      --
      http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
    6. Re:Image by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      ... and (OMG) Facebook and (OMG) Twitter would stop working.

      I wonder if these people would like any help. I have a couple of machines I could install XP on for that purpose...

    7. Re:Image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UDP floods, maybe.

  8. easier by tarscher · · Score: 1

    1. make sex home video with Jessica Alba 2. Internet crash

    1. Re:easier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you forgot...

      3. PROFIT!!!!

    2. Re:easier by bberens · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain he covered all of the profit in item 1.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  9. Easy Fix by piripiri · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Easy Fix by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Obligatory South Park reference. Involving video with kid unplugging and replugging a giant LinkSys-like router to fix the internet.

      Unfortunately the 60 second clip was taken down due to copyright issues, so there is no link for me to back up this reference with.

    2. Re:Easy Fix by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      Someone needs to unplug, replug South Park.
      Zing!
      (Special tonight: Grouper.)

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
  10. Sigh... by chemicaldave · · Score: 5, Informative

    Can nobody find the actual paper? Oh wait, here it is, free from the altering lens of the media.

  11. How to describe the situation by pehrs · · Score: 1

    Read this:
    http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~schuch/papers/lci-ndss.pdf

    Then read this:
    http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174

    It's a simulation of the impact of a coordinated attack on BGP. We know since a long time back that BGP is vulnerable to a number of attacks, this being one of them. The researcher has done a good job with the simulations and putting numbers on it.

    Nothing else to see here, move along. The writer of the news article has no idea what he/she is talking about. We have much larger stability issues (such as Network Neutrality, IPv6 swap over and government blocking) to deal with, and theoretical attacks by large scale bot nets on BGP Is not something that will keep me up at night.

  12. Yes, you can attack BGP ... by BitZtream · · Score: 2

    and 20 minutes later your upstream provider will kill your links and stop taking BGP announcements from you and life will go one.

    Seriously Taco? Did you take a timothy pill and get retarded too? Why the fuck are you posting these retarded stories about things we've known for literally 30 years and has probably come up at least 10 times on slashdot in the last 5 years.

    Might as well just redirect slashdot.org to 4chan, the IQ seems to be about the same now days.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Yes, you can attack BGP ... by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      If you'd like to stop the specific retarded 'attack' posted in the actual story ... turn on route flap dampening on your router ... which is probably already on, which will stop his 'attack' cold.

      Its not even a BGP attack, its just a DDoS that some how is mysteriously going to work better because of BGP route flapping ... which won't happen since the route will just get dampened into oblivion more and more each time it bounces.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Yes, you can attack BGP ... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I agree. At my previous job, we lost internet once. Called up the ISP and they had no idea at first. Ten minutes later, they called and said there was road construction on the interstate about 50 miles south of us and someone cut the line.

      In under 2 hours, they had us running again.

      If they can fix a physical break in that amount of time, I should think they could block a bad BGP.

  13. google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows you just have to type google into Google. So please noone does that, even for fun!

    1. Re:google by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      weird, if you google search engine, internet search or even just search on google, the first result isn't even google. What's up with that?

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    2. Re:google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      weird, if you google search engine, internet search or even just search on google, the first result isn't even google. What's up with that?

      You need to look above the first entry to see the REAL first entry

  14. Society by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

    Would it be worth doing just for one day to see how we all cope, or is the prospect of thousands of teenagers hanging themselves because they can't milk their cows in Farmville too much to deal with?

    1. Re:Society by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Won't somebody think of the cows?

    2. Re:Society by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      And nothing of value was lost.

    3. Re:Society by GuruBuckaroo · · Score: 1

      You're vastly misinterpreting the target market for Farmville. It's not the teenagers, it's the stay-at-home moms. The average Farmville player is a 43-year-old woman.

      --
      Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
    4. Re:Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a win-win.

  15. Ask Moss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh c'mon, everybody knows all you have to do is type "Google" into Google. I really don't know what's happening to kid's education nowadays. Meh.

    1. Re:Ask Moss by cpscotti · · Score: 1

      The Internet has no weight!

  16. Not likely to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    BGP updated between routers are sent with different QoS marking than normal traffic. So even on fully utilized links BGP updates will have priority and will be exchanged between routers.

    1. Re:Not likely to happen by skids · · Score: 1

      That's the solution. The problem is it isn't quite true. Lots of routers are not properly configured for QoS, and the authors note (now that I can actually read the paper) that some "high end" routers are even sold without the computational facilities to classify ingress traffic by QoS markings at line rate. Neither of which surprises me, which is why I always recommend overbuying for your link speed (buy a router that can take an interface faster than the one you intend to use, or at least twice as many as you intend to use, is a good rule of thumb) -- however for people at the bleeding edge dealing with bundles of DWDM OC-768's that may not be an option.

      Fortunately they also note that only a fraction of existing routers would need to be attack-proof for the whole attack to fail, so hopefully their article will fall into the right hands and a good number of BGP jockeys will deploy control-plane QoS.

  17. L0pht by nitsew · · Score: 1

    L0pht phoned from 1998, they want their story back.

    http://www.schneier.com/essay-003.html

  18. Big Whoop! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they can crash the internet. Big whoop! I found the END of it last week. Had to go back.

  19. Don't Panic! by Fzz · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I was quoted briefly in the New Scientist article. Here's the longer version of what I said to the reporter.

    I've taken a quick look at this paper, and at the paper describing the actual attack on BGP sessions that this paper depends on (Zhang, Mao and Wang, 2007 (reference 74 in the paper).

    For many years a number of us have speculated that it might be possible to bring down large parts of the Internet by inducing sufficient churn in BGP routing. In principle, it seems it might be possible, but doing it in practice is very different. The closest we've seen in the real world was Jan 25th 2003, when the SQL Slammer worm spread worldwide in a matter on minutes. It affected about 75,000 computers, and then each constantly tried to infect more victims. This causes widespread congestion, and the worldwide BGP routing table decreased in size from about 127,000 routes to 123,000. Some of this was probably due to congestion disrupting routing sessions, and some might have been due to people deliberately disconnecting to avoid further damage. In any event, the Internet backbone survived the event unscathed, but quite a few edge sites fell off the Internet.

    The attack described in the paper supposes a larger number of compromised computers (250,000), but the Internet has got bigger and routers have got faster since 2003, so likely the relative traffic levels would be similar. The attack also proposes using the targetted attack described in Zhang, Mao and Wang, and targetting specific links to create maximum effect. So it's reasonable to suppose that if such an attack were successful, the impact would be greater than the Slammer event.

    So, there are two questions:

    • 1. could you disrupt routing associations in the way described.
    • 2. if you could, would the effects be as described in the paper.

    In answer to 1: Zhang, Mao and Wang describe in their paper how to defend against such attacks - by simply enabling prioritization of routing traffic - something that is possible on most commercial routers. If ISPs do this, then it seems that the attack in the paper would be thwarted. I don't know how many ISPs do enable this, but if such an attack were seen in the wild, I'm certain most of them would.

    On 2: even if you could disrupt routing associations as described, I doubt the Internet would behave as described. The simulations in the paper make a lot of simplifying assumptions, which is necessary to simulate on this scale. But in hiding all the internal topology of ISP networks, they also hide bottlenecks that would make the attack less effective. And the way they model routers queuing routes internally is simply wrong - no router has a large enough queue size to delay processing by 100 minutes, as described in the paper. As a result I have no confidence in the predictions of how the global routing system responds to this attack.

    To be clear: nobody knows if it's possible to bring down the global Internet routing system. The attack in the paper probably could cause significant disruption, at least until ISPs reconfigured their routers. But I doubt the attack would be successful in the way described in the paper.

    1. Re:Don't Panic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All traffic being watched by China of course would love to see a repriortization happen before their eyes.. want to know what it feels like to be routed?

    2. Re:Don't Panic! by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Did anyone bother to quote for you how BGP route dampening works and how it entirely stops this 'attack' already?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Don't Panic! by georgesdev · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Don't Panic! by Fzz · · Score: 1
      Having implemented BGP, I do know how route damping works. For this particular attack, it does help, but only a bit. The paper looked into this in some detail. If you take out peerings that propagate enough routes, and do it in enough places, the per-peer per-route penalty is usually not exceeded, so relatively few routes end up being damped.

      I think the paper got quite a few things wrong, but this isn't one of them.

    5. Re:Don't Panic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truth is that defending against CXPST is not even difficult, but it requires (as pointed in the paper):

      1) That BGP traffic is properly priorized over everything else. This is very often done, sometimes even as a side-effect: all major implementations correctly set the TOS fields of any BGP sessions to the highest priority, and just about every AQM and QoS scheduler will priorize them automatically.

      2) That the control plane can process control traffic at line speed. This one is actually a major problem.

      Now, there is a small detail in (2). The use of GTSM and other such techniques can actually filter off the undesired control plane traffic BEFORE it hits the control plane. It is in the list of Cisco's BGP best practices which even non-Cisco people keep a close eye at, and so is using the router hardware CoS/QoS engines to defend the CPU against undesired control plane traffic. If it filters enough at the data plane layer (and it likely will), you will not be able to DoS the router's CPU.

      So, we might actually already have the 10% or so routers that won't go down. The question is: do we have enough to twart both CXPST, AND a number of rogue routers?

      And can CXPST actually be used to finally get the annoying people at Juniper to implement GTSM, which is filtered line-rate at the data plane?

    6. Re:Don't Panic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >

      In answer to 1: Zhang, Mao and Wang describe in their paper how to
      defend against such attacks - by simply enabling prioritization of
      routing traffic - something that is possible on most commercial
      routers. If ISPs do this, then it seems that the attack in the paper
      would be thwarted. I don't know how many ISPs do enable this, but if
      such an attack were seen in the wild, I'm certain most of them would.

      Obvious question here. Does anyone not implement this? I note RFC 1266 section 9.3 specifically recommends the usage of measures to achieve this effect (and then note from above, this was published in 1991).

  20. Yet another wannabe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who finds out what BGP stands for.

    1. Re:Yet another wannabe by cpscotti · · Score: 1

      Breat Gritain Pounds

  21. Is this really a good story? by Mr.Fork · · Score: 1

    I mean, how long before some mafia or internet retard decides to launch a DDOS on BGP network routers and then demand $5 million in ransom paid to an off-shore account in the Caribbean. Wait a minute...

    --
    Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
    1. Re:Is this really a good story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minor details: 1) How to you make your demands if there's no Internet? 2) How is the money transferred if there's no Internet?

    2. Re:Is this really a good story? by memnock · · Score: 1

      Are you asking if someone is revealing too much information? If so, I think you should refer to the other comments that indicate that this has been a standing issue. Some "Internet retards" have probably known about this for some time as well. Also trying to cover up this up, instead of discussing it and possibly coming up with a solution is not an appropriate manner for dealing with such a potential problem.

  22. News: All Online Data Lost After Internet Crash by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 2

    http://www.theonion.com/video/breaking-news-all-online-data-lost-after-internet,14148/

    "An emergency meeting of Internet power players has been arranged. The group includes Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Craig of Craigslist."

  23. Roy and Moss in IT told me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that if you type "Google" into Google, you can break the Internet.

  24. while many scientists by nimbius · · Score: 0

    have conjectured for quite some time as to the brevity of this issue, only now have we seen the issue successfully coupled with a graduate students attempt to secure gainful employment after his inevitable entry into real society.

    observing scientists have calculated this graduate students chances of employment were, until this papers introduction, low enough to ensure he spend the rest of his adult life in his parents basement working on mechanical turk projects and azeroth raids. Only now have scientists been confident enough to conclude this paper, if carefully and properly handled, could propel this graduate student from the ranks of a perpetual computer science education directly toward a rewarding career as a dominos pizza delivery driver, or even a cable television installation technician.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  25. Seriously, though. by mfh · · Score: 1

    You won't crash the internet by crashing into the internet.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Seriously, though. by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      Not news: Academics unclear on the concept of route flap dampening propose theoretical attack on infrastructure with which they have no experience.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
  26. Re:Thwarted by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    I'll ask you since you're only of only a few people posting real info. Maybe the attack could be thwarted, but would someone get a nasty bill for damages? an acquaintance told me that they were afraid to host their small web service because someone DDOSed an entire data center, who promptly passed the blame for damages incurred. So forget the big sites, do we have an answer to random DDOS attacks all over the net, jsay 3 steps below the BGP level?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  27. Break the internet by dastardlydavros · · Score: 1

    It's actually terrifyingly simple to break the internet, but please don't try it, even for a joke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrQUWUfmR_I

  28. I hear this at the help desk all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Users call in and say "the Internet is down" so I'm guessing this happens more than this article is letting on!

  29. The article is crap by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2
    You can stop reading at "cyberweapon". Interestingly, the author onhis webpage mentions that he is a victim of this : http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174

    The paper making this madness appear on the news is apparently this one : http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~schuch/papers/lci-ndss.pdf

    It describes an attack on BGP routers. From its abstract (that could be the f***ing summary of an article of a "news for nerds" website) :

    Through simulations we show that botnets on the order of 250, 000 nodes can increase process- ing delays from orders of microseconds to orders of hours.

    But also what sensationalist newspaper will NEVER publish short of death threaths :

    We also propose and validate a defense against CXPST. Through simulation we demonstrate that current defenses are insufficient to stop CXPST. We propose an alternative, low cost, defense that is successful against CXPST, even if only the top 10% of Autonomous Systems by degree deploy it. Additionally, we consider more long term defenses that stop not only CXPST, but similar attacks as well.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  30. Ask Snake Plissken by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

    He knows how to do it.

    --
    Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
  31. Why not just throttle the propagation? by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

    I gather that while one individual router is taken down by an ordinary DDoS (which is difficult to fend off), the global cascade effect results from BGP traffic generated by the attacked router. If the router just waited a while before announcing itself after reconnecting, it would strain the surrounding routers a lot less.
    The neighboring routers could do the same - simply wait before propagating any changes, and suddenly out of a hundred BGP updates per minute coming in from the affected link, only a single one is passed on.

    The infrastructure would be somewhat slower to respond to sudden changes, but those aren't supposed to happen regularly anyway.

    1. Re:Why not just throttle the propagation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Why not just throttle the propagation? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Thats called flapping route dampening, and it already is in use, and its why what the article is about doesn't happen already.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Why not just throttle the propagation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dampening completes the attack, just like null-routing the destination of a DoS attack does.
      Prefix comes back up, but I'm ignoring it 'cause it's dampened! Lalalalalalala

    4. Re:Why not just throttle the propagation? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Completes the attack on the node - but negates the global doomsday scenario this article paints. That kind of local damage can be routed around, that's the point of BGP.

  32. "claim they've found a way" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tips or GTFO

  33. We know that a country, like Egypt, can shut ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "We know that a country, like Egypt, can shut down a country's entire Internet access."

    You mean a country like United States of America. Thanks hypocrite Obama. You decry the squelching of free speech in Egypt, and then push forward with the same Internet kill switch measure here.

  34. Naive assumption? by kheldan · · Score: 2
    From TFA:

    So is internet meltdown now inevitable? Perhaps not. The attack is unlikely to be launched by malicious hackers, because mapping the network to find a target link is a highly technical task, and anyone with a large enough botnet is more likely to be renting it out for a profit.

    ..unless, of course, the would-be attacker is some malevolent government. I don't think I need mention any names here, except that at least one of them starts with a 'C'.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Naive assumption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew it! Blame Canada!

    2. Re:Naive assumption? by Malenx · · Score: 1

      caannnaaAADDAAA!!!! *shakes fist*

    3. Re:Naive assumption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada?
      Cambodia?
      Cameroon?
      Chile?
      Congo?
      Cuba?

      Ohh, now I get it: Chad, right?

    4. Re:Naive assumption? by s1lverl0rd · · Score: 1

      I thought Korea was spelled with a 'K'?

    5. Re:Naive assumption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From TFA:

      So is internet meltdown now inevitable? Perhaps not. The attack is unlikely to be launched by malicious hackers, because mapping the network to find a target link is a highly technical task, and anyone with a large enough botnet is more likely to be renting it out for a profit.

      ..unless, of course, the would-be attacker is some malevolent government. I don't think I need mention any names here, except that at least one of them starts with a 'C'.

      Canada? I *knew* it!!

      CAPTCHA: snowed

    6. Re:Naive assumption? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      .. and has the last 5 letters of "China" ?

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    7. Re:Naive assumption? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      North Corea?

    8. Re:Naive assumption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly, Canada is up to something.

    9. Re:Naive assumption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress?

    10. Re:Naive assumption? by jnpcl · · Score: 0

      Corporate America?

    11. Re:Naive assumption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From TFA:

      So is internet meltdown now inevitable? Perhaps not. The attack is unlikely to be launched by malicious hackers, because mapping the network to find a target link is a highly technical task, and anyone with a large enough botnet is more likely to be renting it out for a profit.

      ..unless, of course, the would-be attacker is some malevolent government. I don't think I need mention any names here, except that at least one of them starts with a 'C'.

      I don't see what Canada can win by taking down the internet..

    12. Re:Naive assumption? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Interesting opportunity for a history lesson. It was initially Romanized with a "C", by the Italians, and this spelling survives in most European languages, e.g. French "Corée". The Japanese, however, were the face through which the United States interacted with the region around the dawn of the 20th century, and since the Romanization of Japanese used "K" for that sound, the spelling drifted to the Japanese convention. As far as I know, Koreans consider this another example of their subjugation by the Japanese Empire. (See Wikipedia for more.)

      The strange things you find in the metamod queue. (And no, I'm not waiting for a woosh—consider yourself educated.)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  35. "Researchers" with zero practical experience by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    Hate to break it to you. Your likely to see better results attacking the worlds root name servers. BGP implementations for all their faults do have countermeasures against propogation of frequent state changes as if they even need them. I don't know how many zombies you need to successfully attack a single ordinary 10GB link.. Just setting a basic CIR or priority queue for BGP sessions would prevent the success of any such attack. If you want to slow down the Internet why not just have your botnet army consume bandwidth..find a few thousand of the longest paths with the most hops (amplification) and pounce... You won't shut down the Internet but you may succeed in pissing off a lot of people especially if your attack favors International links. I'm afraid it takes a little more creativity than ddos to crash the Internet.

  36. Oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prove it!

  37. This is bunk news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a player for one of the biggies, I can assure you between CoPP and other measures like MD5 between peers, this attack vector is old news.

  38. claim they've found a way to ... crash the Interne by TVorace · · Score: 1

    Tips or GTFO

  39. C'mon people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everybody knows at this point that if you type "google" into google, you can break the Internet ;)

  40. RFC 2439 by ZerXes · · Score: 2

    Isn't this exactly what route flap damping (RFC 2439) that is used on most BGProuters today is made to prevent? Wouldn't the routers just class the link as "flapping" and ignore updates for it for a while?

    1. Re:RFC 2439 by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Which link?

    2. Re:RFC 2439 by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      It doesn't dampen links, it dampens routes. Doesn't matter what link goes up or down, the updates relating to it won't be transmitted if it happens repeatedly, those routes will be ignored and not propagated, effectively taking whatever 'link' the route uses out of the equation until it stabilizes.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  41. do it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the guy needs to do it, and brag about it afterward. Maybe it will make american ceo's stand up and take notice.

    1. Re:do it already by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Except he can't do it, his idea isn't new, I actually DEALT with this exact type of problem in 96 due to my own ignorance and the solution is painfully simple, flapping route dampening. Done, game over, the Internet moves on and the DDoS kiddies have just added someone else to the list of people getting tired of their shit. Eventually it will end, its going to be a few years though.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  42. Some reason? by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    "For some reason a lot of people on Slashdot think", etc.

    It's probably not "some" reason -- but rather a very specific reason, which you are kind enough not to spell out in all its embarrassing glory.

    --
    -kgj
  43. old story, it's been tried before by swschrad · · Score: 1

    perhaps 4 or 5 years ago, some wacks unknown DDoSed the top level DNS routers. iirc they managed to submerge 5 or 6 of the dozen. any poor ISP types who compensate for short memory and long router uptime by clearing cache had a most unpleasant day on the phone. lots of folks had inconsistent connectability.

    it stabilized as the DNS masters did some domain blocking. with much wider use of firewall appliances, it should be easier to recover in the future.

    and if the firewalling dynamically dumped offending sources of infinite requests for, say, an hour or so automatically, the impact of punks with VB or botnets can be taken care of with a call to the registered owner of the source address. "Hey, Superbits, clean up your house within the hour or you're off the web. I own your access. You're messing the nest."

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  44. Not very difficult to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not sure why inter-AS service provider links would lack proper QoS mechanisms to protect the control plane. Reserve ingress and egress bandwidth for TCP 179 destined to and from eBGP IPs on inter-AS facing interfaces. The link won't appear to "flap," BGP won't drop and the global routing table won't churn anymore than normal. Additionally, all of these links should be subject to traffic flow analysis for the purpose of tweaking BGP policy anyway. When your interface all of sudden spikes at 100% capacity, you'd easily be able to determine why, start null routing it, and then call your peering partners and have them do the same. The Internet isn't as a set of pipes isn't as 'dumb' as people think, BGP and these links are constantly monitored.

  45. It wouldn't work these days but... by JSC · · Score: 2

    ...about 18-20 years ago, when the WorldWideWeb consisted of about 50 sites - all text based - and things were a LOT looser, some yutz screwed up his router config and set his public IP to 127.0.0.1. It didn't really "crash" the internet but there was this incredible sucking sound as all those packets tried to go home.

    Then there was the backhoe operator a couple of years later who was working near a railroad right of way and dug up a fiber bundle belonging to one of the major carriers of the time (MCI IIRC). He ended up blacking out most of the US Eastern Seaboard.

    And then there was LDDS (sometimes knows as Larry, Darryl and Darryl Service) who reportedly placed a regional switch in a basement near The Point in Pittsburgh just in time for the 1996 flood.

    --
    Time's fun when you're having flies. - Kermit the Frog
  46. Oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what would 500 million + users do without facebook if this happend

    1. Re:Oh no by JockTroll · · Score: 0

      Kill themselves with fire and make the world a better, cleaner, healthier place.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  47. What? by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    Mr. Morris did that back in the 80's for a few hours. I was in a computer lab at college when a couple of the lab operators noticed that the Internet was going down. With a stupid little UNIX worm no less! You kids with your new-fangled routing protocols need to get off my lawn!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  48. Here's why their paper is 100% incorrect. by Mordant · · Score: 2

    -----

    1. There are three generally agreed-upon planes, not two - control, management, and data.

    2. The described methodology isn't novel. Observing the effects of attacks is something attackers do routinely, as is attack selectivity in order to garner maximum impact. This goes back a couple of decades with regards to DDoS attacks in particular.

    3. Routers will continue to forward and process priority 6/7 traffic - i.e., control-plane traffic like BGP - whilst dropping enough data-plane traffic to ensure sufficient link bandwidth & RP/LC CPU overhead to keep routing sessions up and process routing updates. This undercuts the central thesis of the paper.

    4. Re-marking all priority 6/7 traffic at the edge is a best current practice (BCP) for network operators; this prevents attackers from sending floods of priority 6/7 traffic in order to force punts.

    5. iACLs and GTSM, two more BCPs, protect BGP sessions against direct attack via SYN-flooding, et. al.

    6. Control-plane policing (CoPP) is yet another BCP which indirectly limits the number of updates/sec via rate-limiting control-plane traffic exchanged between routers.

    So, the assertions of novelty in the paper aren't really justified, nor are all the assumptions and assertions regarding the way routers work and the way they handle control-plane traffic. Also, standard BCPs to protect control-plane traffic aren't taken into account. Nor are routine defensive BCPs discussed and taken into account.

    Finally, there are other mechanisms which are considerably more effective in disrupting control-plane communication due to high RP CPU which aren't touched upon in the paper, nor are they cited in references. Though there are defenses against those attack mechanisms, as well, they aren't as well-known.

    It's generally a good idea for researchers to consult with members of the global operational security (opsec) community while looking for topics and methodologies which are truly unique. This saves a lot of time and effort in duplicating existing work and going down paths which don't lead to truly novel research and results.

    It's also a good idea for researchers investigating routing resilience to launch real attacks (in a lab environment) on real routers, rather than just theorizing and simulating, in order to gain an understanding of how they actually behave under attack, and how the various BCPs and other defensive mechanisms come into play.

    This .pdf presentation may be of interest, as well.