Slashdot Mirror


Ransomware Adds DDoS Attacks To Annoy More People (softpedia.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Ransomware developers have found another method of monetizing their operations by adding a DDoS component to their malicious payloads. So instead of just encrypting your files and locking your screen, new ransomware versions seen this week also started adding a DDoS bot that quietly blasts spoofed network traffic at various IPs on the Internet.
Softpedia points out that "Renting out DDoS botnets on the Dark Web is a very lucrative business, even if prices have gone down in recent years."

37 comments

  1. these botnet operators by FudRucker · · Score: 0

    need to be hunted down and killed, and quickly too, do it enough and soon the rest of them will quit because it is not worth it anymore

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:these botnet operators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because people don't break so called laws where the so called penalty is death?

    2. Re:these botnet operators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disrupt the Blockchain.
      Kill Bitcoin.
      Anonymous wealth transfers are the root of many new evils.

    3. Re:these botnet operators by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      because people don't break so called laws where the so called penalty is death?

      Killing ransomware and botnet operators would not be done in order to reduce their activities. It would be done because it would be so damn satisfying.

      Sometimes, that's enough.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re: these botnet operators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think you're important enough that you get to kill people who inconvenience you? Should I assume you also want to deprive someone of their life when the stoplight turns green and the car in front of you doesn't immediately accelerate?

    5. Re: these botnet operators by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Should I assume you also want to deprive someone of their life when the stoplight turns green and the car in front of you doesn't immediately accelerate?

      No, those people should just be flogged. I'm thinking 20 hard lashes.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:these botnet operators by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It would be done because it would be so damn satisfying.

      Sometimes, that's enough.

      If you are an immoral cave-man then yes. If you actually qualify as a modern human being, then no. Or to put it otherwise: You are a problem.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re: these botnet operators by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, I expect you are now on a list of "violent crazies".

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:these botnet operators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Texas I believe that "He needed kilt" is a legitimate defense.

    9. Re:these botnet operators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      B-but what is some government is behind all of this? One that wants complete control over internets, and to kill anonymous coins? ;)

    10. Re: these botnet operators by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      No, those people should just be flogged. I'm thinking 20 hard lashes.

      Agreed. And make it 40 if it's during rush hour.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    11. Re:these botnet operators by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      If you are an immoral cave-man then yes. If you actually qualify as a modern human being, then no. Or to put it otherwise: You are a problem.

      Lighten up. Let me guess, you're the kind of person that uses terms like "micro-aggression" and "cultural appropriation" and expects to be taken seriously.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    12. Re:these botnet operators by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      need to be hunted down and killed, and quickly too, do it enough and soon the rest of them will quit because it is not worth it anymore

      I'd like to get a Kickstarter campaign going for this. Call it the "Botnet Operator Death Squad". I'd donate.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    13. Re:these botnet operators by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      because people don't break so called laws where the so called penalty is death?

      Well, they won't break the law twice.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    14. Re: these botnet operators by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well, I expect you are now on a list of "violent crazies".

      "Now"?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re:these botnet operators by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      If you are an immoral cave-man then yes. If you actually qualify as a modern human being, then no. Or to put it otherwise: You are a problem.

      You SJWs are really something.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re: these botnet operators by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      So you think you're important enough that you get to kill people who inconvenience you?

      For this definition of 'inconvenience', actually yes.

    17. Re:these botnet operators by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Lghten up. Let me guess, you're the kind of person that uses terms like "micro-aggression" and "cultural appropriation" and expects to be taken seriously."

      For these people, I have a worse punishment than flogging. They should be required to parse their own sentences for live and may God have mercy on their souls.

    18. Re:these botnet operators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ransomware is enabled by blockchain technology.

      Blockchain technology has the potential to profoundly change financial services.
      That is why the R3 Blockcain Consortium has 42 of the world's largest banks.

      We still can't decipher the trail of collaterized debt obligations from the last meltdown.
      What will happen to transparency if blockchain becomes the defacto tool to issue, trade, and settle debt instruments,

      Its interesting that the world's banks with the largest assets are not members of the R3 Consortium.
      The Consortium seems segregated by political/military interests.
      In fact, blockchain technology is about to become the weapon of choice in cyber warfare.

      Ransomware is just a tiny little spark.

    19. Re: these botnet operators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be willing to bet most of those idiots that take forever to get going at a green light are looking at their damn phone.

  2. Execute the damn criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should ransomware authors and DDoS script kiddies have any place in society? Execute them.

    1. Re:Execute the damn criminals by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The problem here is knowing who does it. When you know that, more sane measures (a year or two in prison and having to pay for the damage done in full) is entirely sufficient, no need to be a cave-man. Of course, as all resources are currently tied up in "The War on Terror", "The War on Drugs", and some other wars against mostly imaginary problems and problems that cannot be solved by a "War", DDoS attackers, being a real problem, have to take the back-seat and will likely not be identified anytime soon.

      What, you thought law enforcement and all that spying was for the benefit of the people? Seriously?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  3. Wont DDoS interfere with victims ability to pay? by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    How will they be able to submit their online ransomware payment if their network is clogged from a DDoS?

  4. Re:Wont DDoS interfere with victims ability to pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. The traffic is small from each victim. But when it adds up at the target, then it matters. Otherwise anyone would notice when he's infected.

  5. Another Windows Only Issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neither the summary, nor the article clarify the operating systems that are vulnerable. I suspect that this is, once again, an issue that only affects Windows users.

    1. Re:Another Windows Only Issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All OS's are vulnerable to attack. To pretend otherwise only shows your lack of intelligence. Windows just happens to provide a larger target audience where phishing, e-mail attack vectors, and social engineering have a better chance of succeeding. And I always find it amusing that any time a vulnerability is found in Windows the wanna be techies milk it for all it's worth in their daily prayers in hopes of converting the heretic windows users to the one and only OS god. However, when a vulnerability is found in a non-Windows OS the discussion suddenly becomes more professional where the vulnerability is first declared as not that big of a deal and then announces the problem will be fixed within the hour thanks the many eyes on the job. Even if the bug was corrected 5 minutes after it was noted how long will it take to distribute the fix to the vulnerable users. Is there some mechanism in place to assist the non-technical users in patching their system. Is there a mechanism in place to ensure that the fix will work for all of the various distributions of Linux?

    2. Re:Another Windows Only Issue? by khz6955 · · Score: 1

      Some Anonymous Coward: "All OS's are vulnerable to attack"

      Except in this case it happens to be Microsoft Windows that's the prime vector to spreading the Ransom.DDOD.ware :)

      "To pretend otherwise only shows your lack of intelligence."

      Insert painfully ignorant ad hominem.

      "Windows just happens to provide a larger target audience where phishing, e-mail attack vectors, and social engineering have a better chance of succeeding."

      Illogical, the number of audiences has no bearing on the lack of security of the target machine.

      "And I always find it amusing that any time a vulnerability is found in Windows the wanna be techies milk it for all it's worth in their daily prayers in hopes of converting the heretic windows users to the one and only OS god."

      And I find it amusing to see someone hide behind an anonymous account to spout abuse in defense of their precious :)

  6. Blame the incompetent ISPs by quarkoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Spoofed DDOS attacks wouldn't be a problem if the users' ISPs implemented source address filtering.

    Come to think of it, an awful lot of the Internet's problems would be resolved by ISPs implementing source address filtering.

    1. Re:Blame the incompetent ISPs by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And this has been known for more than a decade. But I expect nothing will happen until ISPs become liable for damage done if they do not implement source address filtering.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Blame the incompetent ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how quickly these ISPs would do something about the issue if their ASNs quickly became blacklisted in the ISP community.

    3. Re:Blame the incompetent ISPs by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Nothing will happen because they are busy installing metering so they can fine users for excessive data transfers. As a bonus, the ISP gets paid for the DDOS packets as well.

    4. Re:Blame the incompetent ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse, they don't even filter out Private address routes and we pay for a Teir 1 connection.

    5. Re:Blame the incompetent ISPs by gweihir · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, they do not. ISPs pay for upstream data and less and less of that. For downstream, they only pay bandwidth, as they do not control that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:Blame the incompetent ISPs by Agripa · · Score: 1

      What I mean is that the ISP's metering records outgoing and *incoming* packets whether solicited or not. So for every 50GB of UDP traffic someone sends you which you cannot block, you have to pay AT&T $10.

  7. I'd like to thank these guys ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for making it easier to find the infected machines on my networks!

  8. Removal by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    One can pay to get encrypted files back. But one still have the DDoS component. When will it be possible to pay for the malware being removed?

  9. Says the fake name online using douchebag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's that you said, fake name online using douchebag?