Slashdot Mirror


Finnish Bank OP Under Persistent DDoS Attack

An anonymous reader writes The Finnish bank OP Pohjola Group has been a target of a dedicated DDoS attack for days. The attack, which investigators said was launched from both Finland and abroad, began on New Year's Eve. OP was forced to open a helpline for customers unable to confirm payments or transfer money because of jammed systems. On Saturday the firm said it would compensate people for any losses or late payment fees incurred as a result of attack. On Sunday morning the bank tweeted that its services were operating normally and even customers based outside Finland were able to access their accounts — and that it was still monitoring traffic carefully to try and ward off any renewed strikes. However, on Sunday afternoon further denial of service attacks took place delaying payments and preventing access to banking services for OP customers. A formal police complaint has been filed and OP says that KRP is looking into the case.

92 comments

  1. DDOS Mitigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So lots of DDoS been going on recently.

    Technical fix?

    1. Re:DDOS Mitigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @by Anonymous Coward: "So lots of DDoS been going on recently. Technical fix?"

      Ban Microsoft Windows from the Intertubes ...

    2. Re:DDOS Mitigation by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      More than you'd even know. If it wasn't for blasted NDAs... let's say the Finns are in good company.

      Technical fix... well, there are a few things that we could do to make such DDoSs harder to pull off.

      First, if it's a DoS that relies on flaws in software or configuration (Slowloris et al), there's an easy fix for that: Hire an admin who knows what he does, patch the crates, install the relevant mods and don't use crappy default configs.

      Let's move on to the more difficult to handle stuff, i.e. what we usually think of when hearing DDoS: Lots and lots of computer clogging the pipe. While seemingly there is little you can do about it, there's actually quite a bit that could make such attacks harder or more costly to the attacker.

      These attacks usually rely on reflected amplification. You send from your machine a small packet that requests a large one from the reflector which is then sent to the target. Sounds complicated to pull off but isn't. Essentially what is (usually) done is to spoof the IP address of the target in a DNS request. DNS requests are tiny, the replies can be huge if you ask for all the info (and of course you do). Now, of course DNS is by far not the only route you can go, pretty much anything that doesn't require a complete TCP handshake can do as long as a small request leads to a huge reply. Some games are guilty of the same kind of behaviour where a client asks a server about its setup and the server sends back a load of crap.

      Mitigating this it technically of course possible, but completely unfeasible: Forgoing UDP and moving every service using it to TCP. Now, where is the interest for the service owner? He's not the one under attack. Why would he want to foot the bill? Not to mention that we're talking about completely rewiring DNS. Not some obscure little protocol that 3 people use but one of the backbone services of "the web".

      So yes, there are technical solutions to that problem. But no, it won't happen.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:DDOS Mitigation by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Now, that's harsh.

      It's enough to ban the people using it. It's not the OSs fault when users give dancing pigs higher priority than security.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:DDOS Mitigation by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Mitigating this it technically of course possible, but completely unfeasible

      It's perfectly feasible to foreclose the lion's share of amplification attacks. All that's needed is for network operators to drop packets with source addresses that don't originate from their networks. This problem has been discussed for decades now but lazy network operators still can't be bothered to engage basic egress filter rules. My ISP will happily pass along packets with source addresses that they don't own; hell, I can send out packets with source addresses that don't even belong to ARIN and my North American ISP will happily pass them along.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:DDOS Mitigation by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, but unless there is a law requiring that, nobody will implement it. Why should I implement something that benefits not me but someone else (who is under attack)?

      Such things can only be solved by governments. Nobody would want to deal with expenses that benefit only someone else.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Too OP by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 3, Funny

    That traffic be too OP for OP to handle...

    --
    Buck Feta. You know what to do.
    1. Re:Too OP by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      My mod points expired or I'd fix the bad score...

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  3. Re:This is a good thing by davester666 · · Score: 3, Funny

    God prefers stone tablets. They last longer, at least if you don't intentionally smash them...

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  4. Re:Sonebody go tell them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sure... Linux will solve all DDoS problems with fairy dust and other magic.

    I'm by no means a fan of Windows, but install any odd Linux distribution of a few months old on a public IP address, with most standard features enabled and let's see how long it lasts without getting exploited.

    Also, Linux solves nothing if you're on the receiving end of a very large DDoS. The only thing that will help you then is sufficient bandwidth, sufficient server capacity and dedicated, specialized filtering equipment. Then again, it's still hard to fight many of those "semi-intelligent" DDoSes and even the best hardware and massive pipes will get you only so far.

    It's time to see those DDoSes for what they really are: Lame acts of vandalism or extortion. There's nothing clever about them and they're causing an increasing amount of financial damages, often also a lot of collateral damage. Maybe it helps if those who initiate them get caught more often and don't get away with a few weeks of house arrest and public service.

  5. So get protection by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are service providers that specialize in DDoS mitigation. Some of them already host banks (lots of them, in some cases), and have multiple terabits of bandwidth available to survive DDoS attacks with minimal impact. They're able to mitigate attacks in the hundreds of gigabits.

    They're not cheap, but they work, and banks tend to be able to afford it.

    1. Re:So get protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aye..

      F5's Global Traffic Managers (GTM) and defense.net ..

    2. Re:So get protection by Kiuas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're not cheap, but they work, and banks tend to be able to afford it.

      Well, 2 things here: The Finnish banks are rather tiny compared to large international banks and national banks in larger countries. There are only 5,4 million people in the entire country. Secondly, this is the first time to my knowledge that a DDoS attack has done anything to any bank here. All the banks use 2-step verification process, so even in a hypothetical worst case scenario in which somehow attackers would manage to get their hands into some login info, that would not compromise the funds of the customers. Not that that would be possible with a plain DDoS attack.

      In the end it comes down to the cost-benefit ratio: sure i'd be nice to have protection from DDoSing, but unless this starts to become so commonplace as to actually start costing them significant amounts of money/customers, I doubt it will happen.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    3. Re:So get protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, and these providers rely on asshats periodically DDOSing banks in order to drum up business. It is similar to the virus industry, or the factory which made both dummies and condoms - and controlled the flow of the dummy line, by deliberately making faulty condoms.

    4. Re:So get protection by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In the end it comes down to the cost-benefit ratio

      The DDOS attack is likely to have a ransom attached to it, so it boils down to two options; spend money on honest and reliable uptime protection, or submit to the attackers dishonest and fickle protection racket. I'm pretty sure the first option would be cheaper in the long run, sure it's a relatively expensive line item on an IT budget but not enough to seriously damage the total budget of a small bank.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:So get protection by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Informative

      That "tiny" finish bank has US$3.23 billion in revenues, around US$900 million in net income, and nearly 13 thousand employees. They can afford to pay a bit more for their servers.

    6. Re:So get protection by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      Of course they can afford to pay more, I wasn't implying that. I was just saying that unless this starts to become a regular issue I doubt they'll do it whereas larger banks really have no choice.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    7. Re:So get protection by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      It seems that they have not done even the most basic preventions, like traffic shaping. The ATM's should certainly have higher priority than internet traffic (and dedicated guaranteed throughput channel), but alas, they failed too. Same with shops, other banks, etc.

    8. Re:So get protection by Gaygirlie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it seems the attackers are mostly just a loose bunch of youngsters trying to emulate the big groups, ie. Lizard Squard and Anon et.al. I certainly have not heard anything hinting towards any ransom. F-Secure already has identified and knows from before of several of the attackers, so we can expect arrests soonish.

    9. Re:So get protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it will become a regular issue. They are connected to the Internet.

    10. Re:So get protection by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      right, so that makes denial-of-service and extortion ok?

      One day they might attack a service you use, then I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune.

    11. Re:So get protection by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      There are service providers that specialize in DDoS mitigation. Some of them already host banks (lots of them, in some cases), and have multiple terabits of bandwidth available to survive DDoS attacks with minimal impact. They're able to mitigate attacks in the hundreds of gigabits.

      They're not cheap, but they work, and banks tend to be able to afford it.

      Though it makes you wonder if companies like CloudFront and all aren't also behind paying some money to LizardSquad and such to do DDoS attacks to promote their services. I mean, it's unlikely a company like Microsoft uses them (being the target of many attacks, I'm sure their systems are already hardened just because everyone wants to break into Microsoft), but hey, maybe you kinda-sorta-shoulda put Xbox LIve behind CloudFront, no?

      The goal is, of course, money, and someone like Microsoft can pay a lot of it.

      I mean, just take a look at any site's javascript include and practically everyone's using cloudfront now.

    12. Re:So get protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so we can expect arrests soonish

      Except this crap is legal in Finland.

  6. It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least it's only a DDoS attack and not a full scale DDoS hack.

  7. Gaah by war4peace · · Score: 1

    New mouse does this. Wanted to mark funny, ended up as troll. Replying to fix.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  8. The irony... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    linking on Slashdot won't help fixing a DDoS.

  9. What is the news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess there is a reason for DDoS but couldn't find it in your message. Without this is no new, just rubbish!

  10. More than one bank under attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In addition to OP (Osuuspankki), Nordea has also been attacked, and even Danske Bank is having troubles at the moment, though it's not known if they're being DDOSed or if it's just the usual incompetence.

  11. Re:affordable wine by johnsnails · · Score: 0

    Maybe they know you won't and they are trying to slur a competitor who would never spam /. for that I am going to click the link and buy some WINE Is Not an Emulator...

  12. To DDOS is coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DDOS requires close to zero skill with all that bandwidth available today.
    You might as well burn the building down but doing that actually requires some skill.

    1. Re: To DDOS is coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why does it matter on the skill level needed? Does the attack lose cool points on the hipster level because it isn't a skilled attack?

      It doesn't matter how you get the oranges up the stairs, a guy from kinkos or a ddos.

    2. Re: To DDOS is coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes

  13. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Question... Does /. send my login details over https?

  14. And therefore it is no surprise that ... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Finland, like other countries that have had security incidents, seeks to protect itself ....

    Supo wants expanded net surveillance powers - 20.6.2013

    The head of the Finnish Security Intelligence Service (Supo) has told the business daily Talouselämä that his organization wants increased funding and expanded powers to carry out surveillance of internet traffic.

    Five years ago, the Swedish Defence Radio Authority (FRA) was authorized to warrantlessly wiretap all telephone and internet traffic that crosses Sweden's borders. According to Supo chief Antti Pelttari, Finland should consider introducing the Swedish model here as well.

    "Our legal mandate is to ensure the security of the State of Finland and its social system from both internal and external threats," said Pelttari. "There must be means available to monitor what is transmitted through data networks, and the capacity to identify and evaluate anomalies," he added.

    I wonder who is attacking the Finns, and who would have reason to? Russia has been menacing Finland and its neighbors in the Baltics with incursions by aircraft and submarines. There is concern that Russia may turn on Finland after Ukraine. The Baltic states and other targets of Russia have suffered similar attacks coming from Russia.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:And therefore it is no surprise that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would anyone really notice much if Russia and China were cut off from the internet that the rest of the world uses? They seem to endorse more bad actions than good.

    2. Re:And therefore it is no surprise that ... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Well, it is a "surprise" in the sense that the connection between intelligence agencies sniffing wire traffic and stopping DDoS attacks is tenuous at best and non-existent at worst. I do not recall any intelligence agency stopping a DDoS attack, ever. That's up to the companies and network operators handling the traffic.

    3. Re:And therefore it is no surprise that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin is in your fridge you retarded brainwashed gay nigger.

    4. Re:And therefore it is no surprise that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finnland shoud be cut off from the Internet, because of action of their criminals.

      http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/12/lizard-kids-a-long-trail-of-fail/

    5. Re:And therefore it is no surprise that ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Seems like Supo has a pretty good motive to launch a DDOS attack on a Finnish bank. As long as they don't get caught and can blame it on some bad guys (Russia/North Korea/hackers) it looks like a good way to increase their budget.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:And therefore it is no surprise that ... by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      I do not recall any intelligence agency stopping a DDoS attack, ever

      they'll be the DDoS attacks that were stopped, no wonder you didn't hear of them.

    7. Re:And therefore it is no surprise that ... by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      I wonder who is attacking the Finns, and who would have reason to? Russia has been menacing Finland and its neighbors in the Baltics with incursions by aircraft and submarines. There is concern that Russia may turn on Finland after Ukraine. The Baltic states and other targets of Russia have suffered similar attacks coming from Russia.

      Russia has a complicated history with Finland. It conquered it in the early 1800s and until the time of the last tsar, it was granted a very high degree of autonomy within Russia. Use of the Finnish language was encouraged and I get the impression that the Finns were sort of left to run their own internal affairs. The Russian Revolution came and with the end of the tsars, Finland was technically left without a leader, so they declared independence. Lenin seemed to have bigger fish to fry than worrying about Finland, so Finnish independence was accepted by Russia. Stalin invaded in WWII and then Germany came to kick the Russians out. After first welcoming the Nazis as liberators, the Finns turned against them and Russia eventually re-invaded in 1944. At one point the Finns were fighting both the Russians and the Nazis and Finland cut a deal with Stalin where they surrendered a huge tract of land in the east to Russia in exchange for peace. Finland served a useful place for the USSR after WWII as it offered the Soviets a close by nation where they could hold meetings with the West.

      I'm not sure that a lot of Russians truly believe that Finland belongs to Russia as the peace treaty that Stalin brokered pretty much surrendered everybody who had any real tie to Russia. I think there are a couple of possible explanations for this, if it is Russia. One is that Russia is trying desperately to intimidate nearby countries into not joining NATO without realizing that all they are doing is making the strongest case ever that if they don't join, they'll be invaded sooner or later. Another is that one of the problems you have in the post-USSR countries (with the exceptions of the 3 Baltic States) is that communism taught people to anticipate the needs/wishes of the guy in charge, often with disastrous consequences. This wouldn't be the first time that some numbskull took it on himself to stir the pot because he thought that the guy in charge would be pleased.

  15. OP customer here: this must be pure vandalism by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Informative

    I see no other reason for this DDoS attack but vandalism of some sort. The attackers have no political agenda (this is a small Finnish bank, not one of the big tax-haven transfer banks like UBS. It also has no political connections/owners.
    The attack also has no way of obtaining any useful info, as all banks in Finland use one-time passwords for login.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:OP customer here: this must be pure vandalism by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

      russians

      it doesn't take much to mount a DDoS, and one or a handful of ultranationalist douchebags felt slighted by something innocuous someone in finland did or said recently

      they had to prove something about glorious russia, so down went a finnish bank

      it makes sense in some propagandized loser's head

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:OP customer here: this must be pure vandalism by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      You are right, this does make sense. I've seen some incredible Russian propaganda (and sock puppets) around the 'net these days. It's insane.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    3. Re:OP customer here: this must be pure vandalism by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      By the way, I 100% agree with your sig.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    4. Re:OP customer here: this must be pure vandalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:OP customer here: this must be pure vandalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen some incredible gay nigger propaganda around the 'net these days. It's insane.

      And look at the effect. Once upon a time Slasdot was a haven of intelligent debate and informed people who always read the article before they posted. Now every last post is a GNAA troll. Clearly the propaganda worked. No wonder Putin wants to copy the idea.

    6. Re:OP customer here: this must be pure vandalism by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      I see no other reason for this DDoS attack but vandalism of some sort. The attackers have no political agenda (this is a small Finnish bank, not one of the big tax-haven transfer banks like UBS. It also has no political connections/owners. The attack also has no way of obtaining any useful info, as all banks in Finland use one-time passwords for login.

      That part in bold is irrelevant.

      Often these are a distraction to get the manpower (management in a tizzy, IT busy) doing lots of stuff while they break in somewhere else. Customer accounts are not the target. The infrastructure NOT under attack at the time IS.

      It also could be as simple as "no particular reason" sometimes it is random boredom. They chose this target because they thought the logo looked stupid, or they figured they could actually accomplish something over larger perhaps "more deserving" banks.

  16. Re:This is a good thing by davester666 · · Score: 2

    No. You login as AC over http.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  17. I'll just leave this here by bytesex · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    1. Re:I'll just leave this here by symes · · Score: 2

      Illarionov is a bit crazy and paid (by American think tank iirc) to spout this sort of stuff. I think the chance that Putin would seriously threaten Finland is about the same that Putin would threaten Sweden. Also, Finland is very different to Ukraine in that pretty much everyone in Finland thinks Putin is crazy. In Ukraine there was and still is very strong support for Putin in some areas.

    2. Re:I'll just leave this here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, Finland is very different to Ukraine in that pretty much everyone in Finland thinks Putin is crazy.

      Are Finns really so retarded? I don't think so...

  18. Getting out of hand by msobkow · · Score: 2

    It's time we started charging those who launch DDOS attacks with "terrorism". They impact the entire public community of their target, with widespread damages and effects to both the user and provider of the DDOS'd services. Lock the bastards up when they're caught for far, FAR longer than happens now. :(

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Getting out of hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I kind of think terrorism is not the correct tag here. Other crimes can have the same punishments etc as terrorism, so no need to put everything under terrorism. I already hate it when all kinds of stupid laws and punishments are given under the terrorism flag, even though they have nothing to do with terrorism.

    2. Re:Getting out of hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hanging was once the penalty for stealing a man's horse. This made sense because a horse was more than just a means of transportation, it was a means of making a living, of surviving. Is the modern internet really so different? How many businesses would be able to survive if they had to go back to some paper card system?

      It might not quite be "terrorism", but there needs to be some severe penalty for DDoS, identity fraud, and other modern equivalents.

    3. Re:Getting out of hand by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Are you nuts? Just because it happened a few times in the past couple days we throw out common sense and sensible thinking and jump the "terrrrrism" bandwagon? Get a grip, a handful of isolated incidents with no connection whatsoever is hardly a reason to go into headless chicken mode.

      Also, why not target those that make it possible in the first place? Sure, the people who execute these attacks are criminals, but what they do is abusing an infrastructure established by people who carelessly allow them to abuse their infrastructure. That's like me owning a house and neither locking it nor looking after it. Think I'll be facing some sort of prosecution should a terrorist group squat there and make it their HQ because I never even bother to find out what's going on in my house?

      Such attack would not be possible to the average criminal group if they didn't get (unwitting) help from people running insecure machines and insecure services. But that's something we don't want to hear. We don't want to take responsibility for our computers! We wanna has intarwebz! We don't want to care about patching our machines, we don't want to care about having antivirus (but we'll raise hell and demand for those that infect us to be fried alive). Fuck, if the average car was in the the state the average consumer PC is in, you wouldn't think "We love Russia" videos are funny because that's what your road would look like! And far, far worse than that.

      "But you cannot expect the average user to...", fuck yes I can. I am expected to bring my car to an inspection every year and if it doesn't meet some standards they yank my plates. And with good reasons, if my brakes are shot and my lights are out, I'm a threat, to myself and others. And these machines ARE a threat to themselves and others.

      "But it's not their fault, it's the hackers". Sure. And if the world was a better place there was no reason to even write this, let alone demand anything. But the world ain't a sweet place where we all jump around and sing friendship is magic. There are bad people out there and they will abuse whatever resources you allow them to. So I have to lock my car and take my car key with me. For if I don't and someone uses my car as a getaway in a bank robbery, I'll be charged too for facilitating a crime. And leaving your machine unpatched while clicking on every fucking flashing crap that pops in your face is nothing less than that!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Getting out of hand by msobkow · · Score: 1

      If you think DDOS attacks have only been "in the past couple days", you haven't been paying attention to the tech news for oh, maybe FIFTEEN YEARS.

      And that happens to have included government sites, hospitals, and other important infrastructure that is life threatening, not just having a financial impact.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    5. Re:Getting out of hand by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's time we started charging those who launch DDOS attacks with "terrorism".

      No, just denial of service and extortion. It's not terrorism. These things are already illegal.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Getting out of hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the dumbest thing I've read in quite a while. Congratulations. I hope you are capable of feeling shame.

    7. Re:Getting out of hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even think before poasting like that? Or does DDOS cause you to experience terror? Perhaps if someone is blocking a road protesting, they should be tried as "enemy combatants" too?

      It's sad when people think that them being inconvenienced is "terrorism".

      And don't bring up bullshit about "life threatening to block internet" bullshit, because the same applies to roads.

      There are laws against doing this. Apply them. The main enablers of DDOS are botnets. Shut them down and you no longer have extortion DDOS. But people talking about DDOS as terrorism should be smacked over the head and given a good dosage of waterboarding themselves.

    8. Re:Getting out of hand by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Except DDOS attacks aren't "mass protests." They're a few individuals in control of massive botnets.

      And they are an attack on the general public, a hallmark of terrorist activity. They're not targetting individuals, they're targetting everybody who uses the attacked service.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    9. Re:Getting out of hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And on Monday, when all the curious slashdotters check out OP bank's webpage, can we send msobkow to the gulag as well? Hyperbole much!

      While I agree that DDoS is a serious problem, conflating it with terrorism would be almost as bad as saying "the interview" is terrorist propaganda.

    10. Re:Getting out of hand by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      OK, let me rephrase this, a few have surfaced to the public attention in the past couple days. Yes, there have been quite a few in the past. The question is, why do they just now become a public spectacle? If I was a conspiracy nut I'd probably wonder whether there is some legislation already on the horizon and we need some sort of excuse for it.

      And, again, even a death penalty for DDoSing is worth jack shit. What we need to worry about is not the petty crap of some self styled crusaders of some nebulous cause. They hit, they stop, they brag about it. Catching them is easy and don't worry about them getting some insane sentence anyway. But that's pretty much it. That's where your chance to actually do anything against the actual attack ends. Because one thing you may rest assured of: The attackers in this case are not within a jurisdiction that would give a flying fuck about it. Your laws are worth jack when the attacker and blackmailer is sitting in Generistan somewhere between the Ural and Gobi. And likewise they're for zilch when the actual threat strikes, a nation state that wants to cripple your infrastructure. Let's say, just for shits and giggles, that North Korea could pull off something like that. What do your laws mean in such a case?

      If you want to mitigate that threat, you have to cull their infrastructure. And that is sadly to some good deal hijacked servers and clients all over the globe. But, again, laws that would address this are apparently a nono, we're not supposed to be responsible for the actions of our computers.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Re:And therefore it is no surprise that ... Putin by umghhh · · Score: 1

    I knew it. Something was a-miss this morning, some hidden urge or itch was there. I am sure you know this feeling, you know something is wrong but do not know exactly what. You took cover away and then the difficult to identify feeling becomes a full blown itch and burn - this big monster is called Putin sending his proles to do their dirty deeds.

    But seriously - I know there are technical means to mitigate such attacks but they are still an annoyance and the only way to combat those is to go after the attackers. Pointing fingers in general direction of Putin, Russia or Zamunda is not going to do anything but raise tensions possibly, strengthening this overwhelming feeling that conflict is inevitable making the conflict in fact inevitable - if you are under pressure from all sides you may justifiably feel threatened , sort of self fulfilling prophecy.

    Yet from another angle - all the BS that NSA and security military industrial complex did over years is making me uneasy about any request for more power. Clearly the police needs more powers to find perpetrators of such acts of IT violence but we also know that they are going to abuse that as soon as they get those new powers. Thus NSA is also a culprit then.

  20. Re:affordable wine by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    How interesting that you post it in a story about a DDoS. Want to give us ideas how to deal with that spam?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Re:Sonebody go tell them by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Not every problem is a nail. No matter how much you love your hammer.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. Could be a customer by Bruinwar · · Score: 1

    Could be a customer of the disgruntled kind. At least that was my first thought.

    --
    SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
  23. Re:OP by fisted · · Score: 1

    Are we 4chan yet?

  24. Known Customer Lists by alphatel · · Score: 1

    Unlike ecommerce sites that are open to any new customers, it seems a bank could easily have warded off such an attack with a Bayesian or other learning algorithm. Assuming two-factor auth, you have a list of all of your clients most common authenticated IP addresses. Add those to an allow or positive factor list. Then take all unknown IPs and add them to a negative list. When you are being overwhelmed by a DDOS, the negative list can simply be discarded while the positive list has priority at the router. While this would not entirely stop the effects of a DDOS it should make it a much more underwhelming attack rather than a an all-out crippling of infrastructure.

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
  25. Knock Kock by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    Anyone checking the back door while the front one is being DDoSd?

    It's a great distraction to take eyes of a real attack via more profitable and less visible vectors.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  26. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you look at the source, it appears the answer is YES. however i dont get whats going with all the ascii art and braintreepayments.com in the beginning. sorta weird.

    login -
    form action="https://slashdot.org/my/login" method="post" onsubmit="if (global_returnto) { this.returnto.value = global_returnto }" class="embedded">fieldset style="-webkit-border-radius:10px 10px 0 0;border-radius:10px 10px 0 0;-moz-border-radius:10px 10px 0 0"

  27. Re:affordable wine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please tell the audience more about your wines and vineyard history here. We are all listening!

  28. Re: affordable wine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a tapdancing cow!!

  29. Firesheep by tepples · · Score: 1

    If you log in to Slashdot as a user, the password is sent over HTTPS, but then your session cookie is sent over HTTP where anyone can Firesheep it and pretend to be you. Only subscribers are protected from cookie copying.

    Am I tepples, or am I pretending to be?

  30. Fight dancing pigs with Trusted Network Connect? by tepples · · Score: 1

    So what do you propose to fight dancing pigs? Should governments make it illegal for members of the general public to own a machine that both connects to the Internet and gives the owner administrative access? Or should ISPs require PC owners to surrender administrative access to the ISP using something like Trusted Network Connect, as Alsee predicted would happen sometime this year?

  31. Re:OP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty much

  32. Re:Sonebody go tell them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes but HOW are they running the DDOS on them? Through windows zombie PC's from Joe Shmo that doesn't realize his box is rooted and wonders why his cable internet is so slow? Yarp!

    Linux isn't a magic bullet but consumer education on the issue is a good start, and Microsoft fares better when it doesn't educate users about such things.

  33. Re:Fight dancing pigs with Trusted Network Connect by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    No. But we have to address it soon or we WILL get what you propose. Because that's probably what governments would certainly enjoy, and with insecure computers littering the net with their garbage, they have every excuse to demand it.

    I'd be very happy about laws that make you responsible for what your computer does on the net. I'm required to keep my car in good repair so the brakes work and the lights indicating what I'll do, too, if I want to participate in traffic (not to mention that I'm required to know the relevant laws and rules). I'm required to keep my house in decent repair and keep people from squatting there if I don't want to be held responsible for damage that can be traced to my negligence. No matter what hobby I may have, as soon as it could possibly have some sort of impact on others there are a lot of regulations I have to heed to be allowed to do it.

    Just when it comes to hooking your computer to the internet you can be as much of an idiot as you can be and not be responsibly for diddly squat.

    Why?

    One thing is certain: More and more computers on the internet are infected in some way, becoming malware infested bots that are used by criminals in various nefarious ways. This will eventually lead to governments passing laws to stop that. It's only logical. It's the only thing governments could do to stop it, since the criminals are usually way outside their jurisdiction. And unless we find a way to solve this problem, they will solve it. And rest assured, their solution will certainly mean as much control over your machine as they can get away with.

    My suggestion in this context would be that people become responsible for what their computer does. And if they can't show that they have taken just and reasonable actions to reduce the chance of being infected, I'd throw them in with the actual criminal for aiding and abetting. Without going overboard with it, I'd already consider it quite just and reasonable if people kept their system updated (which is the default setting for contemporary systems) and took reasonable care to avoid infections (installing some sensible antivirus should do). Nothing that would require any kind of learning or even knowing what they're doing, don't worry.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  34. What antivirus is sensible in your opinion? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Without going overboard with it, I'd already consider it quite just and reasonable if people kept their system updated (which is the default setting for contemporary systems) and took reasonable care to avoid infections (installing some sensible antivirus should do).

    Can an antivirus be called "sensible" if it has only batch scanning like ClamAV as opposed to "real-time" scanning? If not, what "sensible" antivirus might users of GNU/Linux or OS X use?

    1. Re:What antivirus is sensible in your opinion? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I was giving examples. Take "just and reasonable" precautions and you're fine. Whatever just and reasonable is would be up to a court.

      What? It's not like we don't have insanely fuzzily defined laws already, what's one more?

      But seriously. If you don't like my definition, come up with a better one. One thing is certain, we will get some kind of legislation in this matter. Corporations are losing money and it's impossible to catch the actual criminals. You know how this ends.

      Unless we can find a sensible solution, we'll get a horrible one.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  35. ISP-approved antivirus by tepples · · Score: 1

    I was giving examples. Take "just and reasonable" precautions and you're fine.

    I agree in principle. I also agree with you that early legislation will cause wide-reaching unintended consequences.

    Whatever just and reasonable is would be up to a court.

    The imagined threat associated with "Trusted Network Connect" is that ISPs might require all subscribers to run ISP-approved antivirus on an ISP-approved kernel. If there's no available antivirus for a particular operating system, the ISP will just decline to approve the operating system and thus won't give the subscriber an IP address outside its private internet. The court would likely end up ruling that ISPs, as private sector companies, have the right to choose their customers.

    One thing is certain, we will get some kind of legislation in this matter. Corporations are losing money and it's impossible to catch the actual criminals.

    The fear is that Microsoft and Apple will fool ISPs into thinking GNU/Linux users such as myself share enough overlap with "the actual criminals" to warrant an ISP-imposed ban on connecting a home PC running a free operating system to the Internet.

    1. Re:ISP-approved antivirus by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, it should be fairly trivial to fool the "trusted" (i.e. untrustworthy) crap. A VM should do, if that fails an old crate posing as the "official" machine would probably suffice. It'd need to be tested, but so far I cannot think of any kind of scenario where you'd hand over the hardware to me AND can reasonably expect it to do what you want.

      Same problem that banks have with their applications: You cannot "trust" a machine that is essentially not under your control.

      But I don't even want it to go that far. I want to keep this scenario from happening, and for this we need to find a solution to the problem before our legislators get the great idea from their lobbyist friends that there is "no alternative" to such untrustworthy bullcrap.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:ISP-approved antivirus by tepples · · Score: 1

      Well, it should be fairly trivial to fool the "trusted" (i.e. untrustworthy) crap. A VM should do

      The virtual TPM's key wouldn't be signed by any established PC or motherboard maker.

      if that fails an old crate posing as the "official" machine would probably suffice.

      In this situation, the "old crate" would be acting as an Internet gateway appliance, and the ISP would require the subscriber to run the ISP's "supplicant" on the "old crate". This supplicant would check the TPMs of the machines behind it.

      so far I cannot think of any kind of scenario where you'd hand over the hardware to me AND can reasonably expect it to do what you want.

      Tell that to Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony Computer Entertainment.