Most Updated News on How to Protect Against DoS Attacks!

1
Smart Drawing Pads Used for DDoS Attacks, IoT Fish Tank Used in Casino Hack
2
5 reasons to take a fresh look your security policy
3
British Man Confesses to Deutsche Telekom Mirai Attack
4
Almost 60% of Scottish councils hit by cyber attacks
5
Profile of a Hacker: The Real Sabu
6
FCC has no documentation of DDoS attack that hit net neutrality comments
7
Attacking Democracy: Should DDoS Be Considered a Legitimate Form of Protest?
8
Organizations Must Adapt to Evolving DDoS Attacks
9
Two Iranians Charged With Hacking US Defense Contractor
10
Can Cloud Storage save you from Ransomware Attacks?

Smart Drawing Pads Used for DDoS Attacks, IoT Fish Tank Used in Casino Hack

Some clever hackers found new ways to use the smart devices surrounding us, according to a report published last week by UK-based cyber-defense company Darktrace.

The report, entitled the Darktrace Global Threat Report 2017, contains nine case studies from hacks investigated by Darktrace, among which two detail cyber-incidents caused by IoT devices.

Smart drawing pads used for DDoS attacks

In one of these case studies, Darktrace experts reveal how an unknown hacker had hijacked the smart drawing pads used at an architectural firm to carry out DDoS attacks as part of an IoT botnet.

The hacker had used the default login credentials that came with the design pad software to take over the devices, which the architectural firm had connected to its internal WiFi network, and was exposing to external connections.

“An attacker scanning the internet identified the vulnerable smart drawing pads and exploited them to send vast volumes of data to many websites around the world owned by entertainment companies, design companies, and government bodies,” the report reads. “Involvement in the attack could have legal implications for the firm had their infrastructure been responsible for damaging another network.”

Smart fish tank used to hack North American casino

Another case where attackers leveraged a smart device was at a North American casino. Darktrace says that an unknown hacker had managed to take over a smart fish tank the casino had installed at its premises for the enjoyment of its guests.

In spite of the fact that the fish tank was installed on its own VPN, isolated from the rest of the casino’s network, the hacker managed to break through to the mainframe and steal data from the organization.

“The data was being transferred to a device in Finland,” says Darktrace. “No other company device had communicated with
this external location.”

“No other company device was sending a comparable amount of outbound data,” experts added. “Communications took place on a protocol normally associated with audio and video.”

In total, the hacker managed to steal over 10GB of data by siphoning it off via the IoT fish tank.

Other hacking scenarios detailed in the Darktrace report include the case of a US insurance company who had its servers hijacked by a cryptocurrency miner, and several cases of insider threats, companies hacked by former or current employees.

Source: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/smart-drawing-pads-used-for-ddos-attacks-iot-fish-tank-used-in-casino-hack/

5 reasons to take a fresh look your security policy

Evolving ransomware and DDoS attacks, new technology such as IoT, and changing user behavior are all good reasons to revise your security policy.

Today’s advanced persistent threats, new business technologies and a younger workforce have prompted security budgets to shift from breach prevention to detection and response. Those same forces have also motivated many organizations to take a fresh look at their security policies and guidelines – and for good reason.

By 2018, for instance, 50 percent of organizations in supply chain relationships will use the effectiveness of their counterpart’s security policy to assess the risks in continuing the relationship, according to Gartner. Does your policy align with those of your partners?

The majority of companies have some form of security policy already in place, whether created from scratch or borrowed from myriad templates available through security organizations and vendors. How effective those policies are today is another story. Some 31 percent of companies have a formal security policy for their company, while another 34 percent have an informal security policy that is adopted by various departments in the company, according to a survey of 1,500 software developers worldwide by Evans Data Corp.

The golden rules for writing security policy still apply, such as making sure the process is shared with all stakeholders who will be affected by it, using language that everyone can understand, avoiding rigid policies that might limit business growth, and ensuring the process is pragmatic by testing it out. Just because policies are intended to be evergreen doesn’t mean they can’t become stale, says Jay Heiser, research VP in security and privacy at Gartner. Particularly at the standards levels, one level below policy, guidance may need to be updated for different lines of business, or for jurisdictions that may be driven by different regulatory rules or geographic norms.  Security and risk experts offer five reasons why companies should take a fresh look at security policies.

1. Ransomware, DDoS and APTs

The number of ransomware attacks targeting companies increased threefold from January to September 2016 alone, affecting one in every five businesses worldwide, according to Kaspersky Lab. The average distributed denial of service (DDoS) peak attack size increased 26 percent in Q1 2017 compared to the previous quarter, according to Verisign.

In the past, security policies focused on how to protect information. There would be policies associated with data classification and policies associated with how to not share information in a certain way on the network. “Now, because of ransomware and advanced persistent threats (APTs), policies have to focus more on user behavior and on the behavior of the bad guys,” says Eddie Schwartz, chairman of ISACA’s cybersecurity advisory council and executive vice president of cyber services at DarkMatter LLC.

While a security policy should be “fairly stalwart and stable” to withstand those threats, some standards and individual procedures written for how to deal with individual threats may have to be updated more frequently as the threat environment changes, Bernard says Julie Bernard, principal in the cyber risk services practice at Deloitte in Charlotte, N.C..

2. Cloud, IoT blockchain and other new technology

Next-generation tools, such as the Internet of Things (IoT) in manufacturing or blockchain in financial services, are driving changes to security policies. “Policy has to keep up with the dynamic environment you’re in,” says Bernard. “If your company is going to cloud, tech people are worried about uptime and security, but what about the policies that go along with it? Can I share information with one of my key vendors through a cloud app? If so, which one? And how do you facilitate that, which gets into standards questions,” Bernard explains.

“You could have a policy of ‘thou shall not share,’ but unless you have the technical ability to block that, people are still going to try to get their work done” and do it anyway, she adds.

3. Changing user behavior

A growing millennial workforce is changing the technology expectations and work behaviors that affect security policies and standards, Schwartz says. “It’s more about ‘if you’re on Facebook at work watching that funny cat video, be careful because it might contain embedded malware,’ or ‘just don’t do it at work,’” he says. “Instead of giving users instructions that are generic about protecting information, you really have to tailor those instructions to the behaviors that we know they’re doing at the office,” such as using smart devices connected to corporate networks or surfing social media on company laptops.

In some organizations, security standards and procedures include equal parts of preventative measures and response measures, including directions for taking action after a breach inevitably happens, Schwartz says.

4. Security fatigue and lax enforcement

Sometimes employees just get tired of following all the rules, Heiser says. Pile on too many “don’ts” over time in the security policy, and security fatigue can start to diminish a policy’s effectiveness. “They’ll just begin tuning it out,” he says.

In response, organizations often lighten up on enforcing policies because of rampant use, such as areas of public and cloud computing. “The majority of organizations are not enforcing the use of SaaS,” Heiser says. “They’re allowing fairly free use of anything that employees can connect to,” which negates having the policy at all.

5. Some policy elements are obsolete

“Organizations typically don’t take a methodical look at their policy elements to see if they’re actually changing what happens,” Heiser says. “If they don’t change what happens, then what’s the point?”  He suggests making a spreadsheet of all security policies and grading them on a scale from one to five.  “Are they followed or not? If they were followed, would it reduce risk? If either one of those is zero, then the net outcome is probably zero, unless there’s an audit requirement” to include it.

“The fewer rules there are, the more reasonable it is to expect people to follow them,” Heiser says. “If you want to add something, then take something out.”

Policy refresh

While an annual review of security policies is common, especially where compliance rules are involved, some analysts believe the standards and procedures should be reviewed quarterly. “In general, for a large organization the absolute minimum is quarterly, but they should also be reviewed as needed,” Schwartz says. “If they discover a gap due to a change in the threat landscape, or get a new system HR system or move to the cloud, a new mobile environment – all of those events are going to trigger potential changes in policy.”

All new threats should be held up to established security policies to make sure they are addressed at the highest level. If they aren’t, then, “You have to have an executive leadership conversation on what do you want to do on principle” with the security team, legal, audit and compliance to determine the right course of action and then craft a policy, Bernard says. Once the security policy, standards and procedures are cleaned and up to date, make it easy for employees to find quickly, she adds.

One of the first things that James Baird did when he joined the American Cancer Society in October 2015 as vice president of IT security and compliance was to make the organization’s security policy easily accessible and searchable for employees. About 1,800 static PDF pages were replaced with HTML pages hosted on SharePoint.  Topics are now easily searchable, and hyperlinks take employees from one policy to any supporting policies, or to a set requirements or guidelines.

When searching the acceptable use of Wi-Fi, for example, an employee will quickly find the policy and a link to list of standards, access points they can have, and brands they can use. “My goal is to give people the tools that they need to inform themselves and to investigate as much or as little as they need to in a policy,” Baird says.

The right balance of security policy and risk tolerance varies greatly with each organization, Heiser says. Having very specific policy goals is the starting point for governance, but there’s no data that proves what that optimal level of policy should be, he adds. “Once [a security policy] has been out there, you can go back and ask, did this have an impact?”

Source: http://www.csoonline.com/article/3209160/security/5-reasons-to-take-a-fresh-look-your-security-policy.html

British Man Confesses to Deutsche Telekom Mirai Attack

A 29-year-old British man has confessed to a German court that he was behind a Mirai-based attack on Deutsche Telekom routers which ended up taking nearly one million customers offline last year.

The man, described in local media reports as “Daniel K”, claims to have been told by then-employer a Liberian telecommunications company to build a botnet to knock out a competitor.

He apparently agreed to the $10,000 commission as he was planning to marry his fiancée and wanted “a good start in married life”.

However, despite working as an IT technician at the firm, the Israeli born Brit, living until recently in Cyprus, had no specialist tech training and didn’t plan on the attack effectively sending the routers offline, according to the Guardian.

“The malware was badly programmed, it didn’t function properly and didn’t do what it was meant to do,” A Deutsche Telekom spokesperson said at the time. “Otherwise the consequences of the attack would have been a lot worse.”

The Mirai attack came amid a flurry of similar incidents, which knocked routers offline for over 100,000 Post Office and TalkTalk broadband customers in the UK.

Most famously, an earlier blitz took out DNS provider Dyn, and in so doing led to outages at internet giants including Spotify, Reddit and Twitter.

The malware, which was effectively open sourced after its source code was made public last year, was also used in a huge DDoS attack against Krebs on Security and – more curiously – an attack which knocked most of Liberia’s internet offline.

Mirai works by scanning the web for IoT devices like routers which are only protected by factory default or hard-coded credentials, with the aim of recruiting them into a botnet which can be directed to launch DDoS attacks.

A second witness is set to appear in court on Friday, after which a verdict could be swiftly forthcoming. “Daniel K” apparently faces up to 10 years in prison.

Source: https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/british-man-confesses-to-deutsche/

Almost 60% of Scottish councils hit by cyber attacks

Almost 60 per cent of Scottish councils and more than half of Scotland’s health boards have been targeted by cyber criminals since 2014, a Scotsman investigation has revealed.

Nine universities and numerous government bodies have also been hit during the last three years, the investigation found.

Some local authorities reported being bombarded with thousands of spam emails and receiving ransom demands to decrypt data.

Freedom of Information requests showed 19 of Scotland’s 32 councils experienced either attempted or successful attacks since 2014.

Ransomware attacks were reported by 14 local authorities, sometimes on multiple occasions.

Four councils refused to reveal any information, with two fearing doing so would leave them vulnerable to future attacks. Of the incidents logged by 19 councils, only nine authorities reported any of them to police, although no data was stolen or lost.

The investigation revealed Scottish local authorities were subject to more than 50 notable incidents in the past three financial years.

Aberdeen City Council was one of the hardest hit. Between 2014 and 2017, it suffered 12 successful cyber attacks, including six ransomware incidents, and had its webpage defaced. It also recorded more than 15 million attempts, including intrusion threats, spam, web risks and viruses, in the last eight months of 2016. Police were notified of two incidents.

Highland Council reported being targeted 953 times, including two partially-successful ransomware attacks, while more than 415,000 unsuccessful spam emails were sent to East Lothian Council.

Perth and Kinross Council reported blocking an average of 1.2 million spam emails every month. None of its three ransomware attacks were reported to any authority as it said “attacks were treated as business as usual and not significant enough to warrant reporting”.

Falkirk, Glasgow City, North Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway councils refused to disclose any details.

Three ransomware hits got through Dundee City’s defences, North Lanarkshire Council had two malware incidents in 2015 and three ransomware in 2016 and Edinburgh City Council reported nine incidents, including malware preventing access to systems, a sustained denial of service (ddos) attack, and malware being installed and copied.

A spokesman for local authority umbrella body Cosla said: “This is a fine balancing act for councils.

“Scotland’s councils have good defences in place and as such are confident around them preventing it happening to us. That said, we are certainly not, and never will be complacent or think that this couldn’t happen to us. “

We fully recognise how important our cyber security is and we are doing everything we can to safeguard councils against such attacks.“

The research, conducted together with The Scotsman’s sister titles in Johnston Press, found 11 of Scotland’s health boards were affected by the WannaCry attack in May which affected the NHS network across the UK.

In addition, NHS Fife logged 693 attempted malware attacks in the past three years. It was also hit by three successful ransomware attacks which required PCs to be rebuilt.

NHS Lanarkshire reported 51 attempted or successful attacks and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde was subject to four cyber breaches in 2016. Files became inaccessible after being encrypted by ransomware. However, data was recovered and the ransom was not paid.

NHS Ayrshire and Arran said it did not record attempts, but has one successful ransomware attack on a GP practice in 2015.

In the past year, NHS Highland had one ransomware email that attacked a “small number of files”. No ransom was paid and no data was lost.

NHS Tayside reported being bombarded with up to 7,000 attempts every month including ransomware.

NHS Orkney refused to reveal the details, stating that disclosure could pose a risk to national security. NHS Grampian did not respond, and NHS Lothian reported no cyber attacks had resulted in a breach of security.

Dumfries and Galloway, Shetland and the Borders health boards said they had no attempted cyber attacks. No board reported losing data.

Jann Gardner, director of planning and strategic partnerships with responsibility for IT at NHS Fife, said: “Of the 693 attempted malware attacks, only three affected small areas of our network, with swift action taken to contain and repair systems.

“No patient data was lost or compromised.”

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Scotland’s public sector bodies take cyber security seriously and already implement a wide range of measures to ensure basic security standards are met.

“The Scottish Government has committed to accelerating the development of a public sector action plan to help promote a common approach to cyber resilience across Scotland’s public bodies.

“Ministers expect to receive recommendations from the National Cyber Resilience Leaders’ Board (NCRLB) shortly.

“Following this, the Scottish Government will consult with Scottish public bodies on any implementation challenges before taking the plan forward.

“The NCRLB’s recommendations are expected to have reference to the Cyber Essentials accreditation scheme, which is endorsed by the National Cyber Security Centre, and which helps protect organisations from the most common forms of cyber-attack.

“The Cyber Essentials scheme is open to the public, private and third sectors, and offers a sound foundation of basic cyber security measures that all types of organisation can implement and potentially build upon.”

A spokesman for NHS Lanarkshire said that only the Wannacry incident was reported to the police as no data was lost or stolen in the other cases.

A spokeswoman for Police Scotland said: “We always encourage anyone who thinks they’ve been a victim of cybercrime to come forward and report it to police.”

Detective Inspector Eamonn Keane from Police Scotland’s cyber crime unit, added: “Cyber crime has witnessed significant growth.

“The cyber threat to Scotland is indicative of that local, national and international threat applicable to all regions in the UK.”

Source: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/almost-60-of-scottish-councils-hit-by-cyber-attacks-1-4512060

Profile of a Hacker: The Real Sabu

There are multiple stories about how the capture of the infamous Anonymous leader Sabu went down. Here’s one, and another about what he is doing today.

 The capture of Sabu was perhaps the most spectacular fall from grace this century — at least in the security world. He went from being the most beloved figure in the hacktivist group, Anonymous, to being its most hated.

From 2011 to 2012, Sabu was the unofficial leader of the online activist group. He organized effective distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) campaigns and enforced meaningful discipline within Anonymous where there hadn’t been any before — and hasn’t been since.

During Sabu’s reign, Anonymous became adept at handling the media, making effective use of Twitter to claim victory (even if they were hollow victories at best). Screenshots of “site down” pages were taken, tweeted, and trumpeted to the media, which eagerly wrote about the fearsome prowess of Anonymous. These were the salad days of Anonymous, when they seemed untouchable and everywhere.

To maximize the glory, Sabu collected a smaller cadre of hacktivists from Anonymous and named it LulzSec, which became famous very quickly for a series of high-profile hacks. Where many people passively supported the egalitarian goals of Anonymous, they were turned off by the actions of LulzSec, which were seen as creating much collateral damage to innocent citizenry.

The LulzSec attack of Sony Pictures is an illustrative example. Sony Pictures was running several prize giveaways as part of a marketing campaign. LulzSec used a basic SQL injection to breach the SonyPictures.com database and grabbed the usernames, passwords, and personal profiles of over one million registered users. They then dumped the data to Pastebin. LulzSec’s justification at the time was that Sony Pictures’ security was “… disgraceful and insecure: they were asking for it.” But the justification seemed little more than braggadocio to the community. When someone asked LulzSec why they would compromise the credentials of so many innocent television watchers, they replied “we do it for lulz” (the laughs).

Well, LulzSec wasn’t going to keep laughing for long.

By that time, Sabu had achieved an almost messianic following among Anonymous, and his twitter account, @anonymouSabu, had hundreds of thousands of followers. He was number one on the FBI’s most wanted cybercriminal list.

Screen Shot 2017-07-21 at 09.34.03

If that weren’t enough heat, Sabu had also attracted the attention of his polar opposite: the famous pro-U.S., ex-Special Ops service member and hacker known as The Jester. The Jester, too, was known for distributed denial-of-service attacks and had been spending months attacking Jihadist websites in order to drive their users into more centralized, resilient networks where they could be monitored by the various agencies that track terrorist activity.

As an ex-military operative, The Jester loathed Sabu. The two stood at opposite sides on nearly any given topic: WikiLeaks, Anonymous, the Occupy movement, the forum 4chan, the CIA, and the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, to name just a few. One notable exception was the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), which is known for conducting anti-gay protests at military funerals. Both Sabu and the Jester agreed about this group, and they both attacked the WBC repeatedly.

During the first half of 2011, Sabu and The Jester tried repeatedly to uncover each other’s identity. The conflict between Sabu and the Jester reached a fever pitch at DEF CON 19, the nineteenth annual security convention in Las Vegas. Both hackers claimed to be in attendance along with the 20,000 other hackers, researchers, and undercover FBI agents. The Jester taunted Sabu to come out and meet him face-to-face. Sabu replied that of course he would not. The Jester was suspected to be in collusion with, or at least sanctioned by, the U.S. government. Sabu protested that if he were to expose his own identity, even privately, to The Jester, he would be immediately pounced upon by the authorities.

Sabu did not come out to meet The Jester, and a few months later we found out why. Sabu had already been nabbed and turned by the FBI. There are multiple stories about how the capture of Sabu went down. The simplest one goes like this: Of course, Sabu used anonymization networks to hide his identity and make source tracing impossible. Network anonymization would have been a basic precaution for the most-wanted cybercriminal at the time.

According to one story, Sabu forgot to activate his Tor link a single time, and logged into a server using his real IP address. The authorities traced his real IP address, and Sabu was quickly and quietly detained.

Sabu’s real name, as it turns out, was Hector Xavier Monsegur, from the Puerto Rican island of Viecques.  Monsegur had been implicated in, or bragged about dozens of illegal, high-profile hacks, not to mention multiple DDoS attacks. Facing a sentence of 25 to 100 years in prison, he struck a deal in which he agreed to turn over his friends from LulzSec to the authorities.

As part of Monsegur’s plea deal, the authorities were given access to his Twitter account and used it to collect information about Anonymous and LulzSec sympathizers. The judge in Monsegur’s case praised him for his “extraordinary cooperation” with the FBI. Armed with their informant’s information, the authorities apprehended the members of LulzSec. Many are now serving long jail sentences and owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution to the organizations they once brazenly penetrated. Many in Anonymous felt betrayed by Monsegur’s cooperation with the authorities and publicly called him out. He has had little comment about it since.

Monsegur himself was freed on May 27, 2014 after time served. He now lives in New York City, where he, on occasion, gives interviews. He no longer Tweets as Sabu, but instead as Hector X. Monsegur.

With LulzSec members behind bars, and Monsegur neutralized, The Jester went back to attacking Jihadist websites and gathering intel on ISIS. He blogsvociferously against the Trump Administration and maintains a store of “JesterGear” when he’s not running his own Minecraft server.

The Jester remains undoxxed to this day.

Source: http://www.darkreading.com/partner-perspectives/f5/profile-of-a-hacker-the-real-sabu-/a/d-id/1329359

FCC has no documentation of DDoS attack that hit net neutrality comments

Records request denied because FCC made no “written documentation” of attack.

The US Federal Communications Commission says it has no written analysis of DDoS attacks that hit the commission’s net neutrality comment system in May.

In its response to a Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) request filed by Gizmodo, the FCC said its analysis of DDoS attacks “stemmed from real time observation and feedback by Commission IT staff and did not result in written documentation.” Gizmodo had asked for a copy of any records related to the FCC analysis that concluded DDoS attacks had taken place. Because there was no “written documentation,” the FCC provided no documents in response to this portion of the Gizmodo FoIA request.

The FCC also declined to release 209 pages of records, citing several exemptions to the FoIA law. For example, publication of documents related to “staffing decisions made by Commission supervisors, draft talking points, staff summaries of congressional letters, and policy suggestions from staff” could “harm the Commission’s deliberative processes,” the FCC said. “Release of this information would chill deliberations within the Commission and impede the candid exchange of ideas.”

The FCC also declined to release internal “discussion of the Commission’s IT infrastructure and countermeasures,” because “It is reasonably foreseeable that this information, if released, would allow adversaries to circumvent the FCC’s protection measures.”

The FCC did release 16 pages of records, “though none of them shed any light on the events that led to the FCC’s website crashing on May 8,” Gizmodo wrote yesterday. “The few e-mails by FCC staff that were actually released to Gizmodo are entirely redacted.”

The Gizmodo article comes in the same week that the FCC refused to release the text of more than 40,000 net neutrality complaints that it has received from Internet users since June 2015. Pai has claimed that net neutrality rules were a response to “hypothetical harms and hysterical prophecies of doom,” but most complaints to the FCC about potential net neutrality violations by ISPs are being kept secret. (The FCC did release 1,000 of the complaints to the National Hispanic Media Coalition, which had filed a FoIA request.)

Pai has claimed that his proposed repeal of net neutrality rules is using a “far more transparent” process than the one used to implement net neutrality rules in 2015.

UPDATE: The FCC released a statement this afternoon claiming that it is “categorically false” to suggest that “the FCC lacks written documentation of its analysis of the May 7-8 non-traditional DDoS attack that took place against our electronic comment filing system.” The FCC statement said there is publicly available written analysis in the form of a letter to Congress (which we quoted and linked to in the next section of this article). The FCC statement also said it has “voluminous documentation of this attack in the form of logs collected by our commercial cloud partners,” which has not been released publicly.

But again, the FCC refused to provide its internal analysis of the attack, which is what Gizmodo requested. The FCC’s new statement says that “Gizmodo requested records related to the FCC analysis cited in [CIO] David Bray’s May 8 public statement about this attack. Given that the Commission’s IT professionals were in the midst of addressing the attack on May 8, that analysis was not reduced to writing. However, subsequent analysis, once the incident had concluded, was put in writing.”

We asked the FCC to provide this “subsequent analysis,” and haven’t heard back yet.

The FCC’s position seems to be that it wasn’t asked to provide any analysis that was written down after May 8. But Gizmodo requested “A copy of any records related to the FCC ‘analysis’ (cited in Dr. Bray’s statement) that concluded a DDoS attack had taken place.” The FCC’s analysis after May 8 did not change—the commission continues to say it was hit by DDoS attacks. Yet the FCC refused to provide records related to its analysis that it was hit by DDoS attacks.

“We asked for all records ‘related to’ this analysis (emails, etc.), not just the analysis itself, which they claim does not exist,” Gizmodo reporter Dell Cameron wrote on Twitter.

Ars’ FoIA request denied

Separately, Ars filed a FoIA request on May 9 for e-mails and other communications and records related to the attack on the net neutrality comment system and related downtime. The FCC denied our request on June 21, saying that “due to an ongoing investigation we are not able to release records associated with this incident.”

Ars appealed that decision to the FCC on June 30 in light of Chairman Ajit Pai’s statement to US senators that the FBI is not investigating the comment system attack.

“In speaking with the FBI, the conclusion was reached that, given the facts currently known, the attack did not appear to rise to the level of a major incident that would trigger further FBI involvement,” Pai wrote to Senate Democrats who asked for more details about the attacks and the FCC’s response to the attacks.

The FCC has not responded to our FoIA appeal or to a followup e-mail we sent on Tuesday this week.

UPDATE: The FCC responded to our FoIA appeal two hours after this story published, saying it won’t release the e-mails and other records because of an internal investigation.

“An internal investigation into the matter is under consideration,” the FCC told us. “Agency staff have concluded that release of the records you requested could be reasonably expected to impede and interfere with this investigation.”

Comment system failure and DDoS analysis

The FCC’s website failure temporarily prevented the public from commenting on Pai’s controversial proposal to dismantle net neutrality rules. The downtime coincided with a heavy influx of comments triggered by comedian John Oliver’s HBO segment criticizing Pai’s plan, but the FCC attributed the downtime solely to “multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks.”

We published an analysis of the FCC’s statements in May, concluding that the incident was caused either by “an unusual type of DDoS or poorly written spam bots.” Cloudflare, which operates a global network that protects websites from DDoS attacks, supported the FCC’s statements. The FCC’s descriptions are consistent with “a ‘Layer 7′ or Application Layer attack,” Cloudflare Information Security Chief Marc Rogers told Ars.

“In this type of [DDoS] attack, instead of trying to saturate the site’s network by flooding it with junk traffic, the attacker instead tries to bring a site down by attacking an application running on it,” Rogers said.

The FCC also refused to release server logs related to the attack because they might contain private information such as IP addresses. Security experts who spoke to Ars supported this decision.

There are now more than 10 million comments on Pai’s plan to overturn net neutrality rules, though many contain the same text because they come from spam bots or from campaigns urging people to submit pre-written comments. Pai has said that the number of comments opposing or supporting his plan “is not as important as the substantive comments that are in the record.”

Source: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/fcc-has-no-documentation-of-ddos-attack-that-hit-net-neutrality-comments/

Attacking Democracy: Should DDoS Be Considered a Legitimate Form of Protest?

It used to be that news about DDoS attacks was largely limited to tech websites and other specialized information sources, where the focus was on attack vectors, attack sizes, how exactly the perpetrators pulled it off and how websites could protect themselves going forward. These still have their place, especially with the ever-increasing size, complexity and frequency of attacks, but over the last few years DDoS has gone mainstream and gotten political.

With DDoS attacks appearing in headlines regarding the U.S. election, Brexit and the push for democracy in Hong Kong, the question has to be asked: should these attacks be considered a legitimate form of protest?

Denying services

DDoS stands for distributed denial of service, a form of cyberattack that takes aim at websites or online services with the intent of taking them offline or slowing them downso much that they can’t be used. This is accomplished through the use of a botnet – a network of devices that have been infected with malware, allowing attackers to control them remotely and direct the botnet’s considerable traffic at the target, overwhelming the server or network infrastructure.

DDoS attacks have been in the mainstream news for the last couple of years. This is because of how pervasive they’ve become, with nearly every website on the Internet now a potential target thanks to DDoS for hire services and DDoS ransom notes, and also because of the high-profile sites that have fallen victim to attacks, including Netflix, PayPal, Twitter and Reddit. Now DDoS attacks stand accused of involvement in some of the biggest political events in recent history.

Recent political incidents

Distributed denial of service attacks hit the political headlines in 2014 when the people of Hong Kong were in the midst of a major push for democracy, asking for genuine universal suffrage instead of the newly-reformed system that allows citizens to vote for candidates selected by an exclusive nominating committee – a system that seemed overly restrictive as well as too similar to the previous system in which the Chinese Communist Party selected the candidates.

When the democratic movement’s official website launched, it logged 680,000 votes in an unofficial poll on candidates in the site’s first weekend despite the fact that it was being battered by DDoS attacks weighing in at over 300 Gbps. Though a perpetrator was not definitively named, it was widely speculated the Chinese government was behind the attacks.

In a recent report, the Chinese government has come up alongside the Russian government in rumors surrounding the Brexit vote. In the hours before the deadline to register to vote in the Brexit referendum, the registration site crashed, reportedly due to a DDoS attack. The outage left tens of thousands of voters unable to register to vote, and the referendum ended with 51.9 percent voting to leave the European Union.

Though the Russian government has been suspected of meddling via hacking in both the U.S. and French elections, reportedly in favor of Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen, it’s unknown if the Kremlin was involved in DDoS attack attempts on either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump’s website; it seems more likely these Mirai botnet-powered attempts were instead the work of hackers from underground forums.

The argument for recognizing DDoS as legitimate (and legal) protest

The history of distributed denial of service attacks go all the way back to 1995 when an Italian collective brought down the French government’s website in protest of France’s nuclear policy. Soon after, a group by the name of the Electronic Disturbance Theater built a tool that enabled anyone to join their virtual sit-ins that targeted the White House website as well as the websites of politicians.

Current hacktivist group Anonymous has taken the idea of the virtual sit-in and turned it into a voluntary botnet that allows anyone to donate the use of their device for attacks against targets like the Brazilian government in protest of the FIFA World Cup.

These actions would seem to fit the criteria of legal protest, allowing citizens to peacefully albeit virtually demonstrate and rendering a website unavailable in much the same way a sit-in would render an office or institution unavailable. However, in the United States this kind of online activism can be considered a felony.

The argument against

Not only are DDoS attacks illegal, regardless of whether or not the attack is intended as a form of protest, but legitimizing or legalizing these attacks may cause more problems than it solves. For instance, while an opt-in botnet does seem to be a form of voluntary political activism, almost all botnets are populated by devices that have decidedly not opted in, which means politically-motivated DDoS attacks would be largely perpetrated using the property of people who have not consented. Like signing someone else’s name to a petition, this cannot be permitted.

Furthermore, any legislation attempting to legalize DDoS protests would have to find a way to differentiate between attacks coming from voluntary botnets and attacks coming from nation states. A murky area, at best.

With so many other forms of protest available to motivated citizens, it’s hard to imagine legalizing or legitimizing any form of DDoS attack. It’s just too easy for these attacks to be used for altogether nefarious and malicious purposes by groups that decidedly do not represent the will or wishes of the people.

Source: http://www.techzone360.com/topics/techzone/articles/2017/07/19/433542-attacking-democracy-should-ddos-be-considered-legitimate-form.htm

Organizations Must Adapt to Evolving DDoS Attacks

Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks are becoming larger, more frequent, and more complex than ever before. According to Arbor Networks’ 12th Annual Worldwide Infrastructure Security Report (WISR), attack size has grown 7,900% since its initial report – a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 44%.

The most recent attacks are significantly larger than anything previously seen, and can now disrupt even the largest internet service providers. This data shows that DDoS attacks have become more than just a nuisance: they are rapidly increasing in size and now threaten to disrupt core Internet infrastructure.

Within the broader spectrum of risks for corporate security and IT decision makers, DDoS attacks present a nettlesome and growing challenge for several reasons. First, while the underlying technology behind DDoS attacks hasn’t changed much, the number of internet-connected devices in the world that can be compromised has dramatically increased.

In addition, the level to which DDoS attacks have become automated and commoditized has also increased. The Mirai-enabled attacks showed off the former; they used an army of internet-connected IoT devices to generate unprecedented levels of traffic.

In the past, a connection to the internet required significant hardware and expense. These days, even light bulbs can be connected to a network, which provides a lot more sources for traffic.

Second, the amount of skill required to successfully run a DDoS attack has been lowered over the last twenty years. While large attacks such as Mirai take some amount of coordination and planning, in many cases a connection to the right forum and a small amount of money ($50-100) can buy you a short attack that can take down unprotected web services.

Why DDoS attacks are hard to prevent

The best way to think about the DDoS problem is to imagine a river system, like the Mississippi or Columbia. At the end of those systems, where they meet the ocean, it’s very obvious that there’s a lot of water moving through those rivers: but at the source of all that water — at the little tiny creeks and streams and rivulets where the water first gathers — those sources don’t necessarily look like that much.

Volumetric-style DDoS attacks, whereby attackers simply flood a target with more data than their connection can handle, use a similar effect: each network only cares about sending IP packets to the “next hop”, without a holistic view or awareness of what the total, internet-wide traffic picture looks like.

So, at the source of a DDoS attack, it can be difficult to differentiate between someone uploading a file and someone perpetrating an attack. What actually matters is whether that one traffic flow joins together with a bunch of other traffic to form a giant river, or if the traffic flow is bounced off a server in such a way that it magnifies the size of the traffic many-fold. In either case, by the time you notice that you’ve got a really huge river of traffic coming at you, it may already be too late.

Emerging approaches to combat DDoS attacks

A promising approach to DDoS can be found with the DDoS Defense for a Community of Peers (3DCoP) project, which uses peer-to-peer collaboration so that like-minded organizations (such as a group of universities, government agencies, banks, or ISPs) act together to rapidly and effectively detect and mitigate DDoS attacks.

With a peer-to-peer collaborative approach, the target of a DDoS attack can send out distress calls to the origin of any traffic it sees. The receivers of these distress calls can then take a look at the traffic they’re seeing, and either pass that message on appropriately or take local action.

Universities, for example, might learn that what looks like normal traffic coming out from one of their student labs looks like a big attack to a target, and use this information to shut off or rate-limit that lab.

Other approaches involve technologies like BGP FlowSpec, an improvement over conventional IP blacklisting. FlowSpec allows a victim of a DDoS to ask its upstream service providers and intermediate networks to block specific kinds of traffic, with a good level of granularity.

Organizations can also relocate services into the cloud, as some cloud operators deploy sensors that can detect and mitigate attacks earlier. Unfortunately, today’s largest attacks are too large for cloud operators to handle, and the attacks may impact geographic regions or critical internet infrastructure.

In the end, there are a variety of methods to filter and redirect traffic, especially for those systems housed in the cloud. However, for the biggest attacks, and for institutions that cannot create replicated versions of their systems in the cloud, techniques such as 3DCoP are key in mitigating DDoS risk.

Specifically, we believe that it is only through rapid, real-time collaboration that DDoS attacks can be correctly identified, sourced, and addressed; without such collaboration, institutions must rely on phone calls and manual router updates, while a river crashes down around them.

Source: https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/opinions/organizations-adapt-evolving-ddos/

Two Iranians Charged With Hacking US Defense Contractor

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) unsealed an indictment on Monday against two Iranian nationals accused of hacking a US company and stealing software used in ammunition design.

The two suspects are Mohammed Reza Rezakhah, 39 and Mohammed Saeed Ajily, 35, both Iranian businessmen.

According to the indictment, Ajily ran a company named Andisheh VesaJ Middle East Company, which he used as a front to obtain and sell software in contravention of Western sanctions against Iran. Ajily’s customers included Iranian private companies, but also Iranian military and government entities.

Rezakhah ran his own company called Dongle Labs, which provided DRM and license cracking services. Rezakhah was one of the many hackers Ajily hired to steal software from Western companies.

The two orchestrated the 2012 hack of Arrow Tech

DOJ officials claim that in 2012, Ajily hired Rezakhah to hack and steal software from a US company called Arrow Tech. The indictment says that Rezakhah, together with another accomplice named Nima Golestaneh, rented a server that they used on October 22, 2016, to hack into the Arrow Tech website and adjacent network.

Officials say the two hackers stole a software application named Projectile Rocket Ordnance Design and Analysis System (PRODAS), created by Arrow Tech to aid in the design of bullets, missiles, and other military projectiles.

Rezakhah cracked the program, which he later supplied to Ajily to market in the Iranian market, but also elsewhere outside the US.

Group worked together for at least six years

While officials brought charges only for hacking Arrow Tech, the indictment also claims that Ajily and Rezakhah worked together for years, between 2007 and 2013, hacking several targets and stealing software.

The FBI also claims that Ajily had many other partners and hackers that he used to obtain his software, along with a network of companies that he used to sell the stolen goods.

US officials charged the two suspects with criminal conspiracy relating to computer fraud and abuse, unauthorized access to, and theft of information from, computers, wire fraud, exporting a defense article without a license, and violating sanctions against Iran.

A US judge has issued a warrant in their names. Their partner, Nima Golestaneh pleaded guilty to hacking Arrow Tech back in December 2015.

In March 2016, the US also charged seven Iranian nationals on accusations of launching repeated DDoS attacks and orchestrating hacks of industrial SCADA equipment on the behest of the Iranian government.

Source: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/two-iranians-charged-with-hacking-us-defense-contractor/

Can Cloud Storage save you from Ransomware Attacks?

Step by step, our personal and work lives are being transferred online and instantaneous connections, real-time cooperation, and free flowing information come at a price. Yes, cybercrime is hardly something new but the recent rise in global ransomware attacks are putting the question of online security into the spotlight and under scrutiny.

The hackers are getting more and more inventive, and it’s becoming harder for the individual as well as companies to protect themselves. What can be done? Can cloud storage save us from ransomware?

Cloud Storage vs. Ransomware

Cloud created a revolution in data storage. It’s cost-effective, easy to access and typically very well guarded. The convenience is reflected in its widespread use. A report by RightScale found that 82% of companies were already using multi-cloud storage strategies. According to a report by Intuit, 78% of small businesses will fully rely on cloud services by 2020. This mass migration of business of all sizes to cloud space rendered it an extremely attractive target.

Sadly, the NotPetya ransomware made it clear that ransomware has gone beyond local and physical storage, and can hit everywhere. Although being publicized as on one of the safest storage options, the cloud is not an exception to the threat.

Let’s Be Realistic

The best way to stay protected is to be realistic and keep informed about the capacity and power of the services on which you are relying. As such, cloud storage is not a magical bulletproof solution that will graciously save you from the ransomware.

To be able to withstand ransomware and other types of attacks, cloud and collaboration services need to start implementing or strengthening solutions that allow for real-time visibility, greater control, data loss prevention, and so forth. If hackers are getting more creative, the levels of security need to follow and surpass them.

How to Leverage Cloud Storage

Despite the cold splash of reality, not all is lost. Cloud storage can be a valuable partner in crime or – better said – your partner in preventing crime.

Scalability - Regardless of shortcomings, cloud services are still best equipped to act as a failsafe and protect you from ransomware today and in the future. Being flexible and scalable in essence, cloud services enable us to keep up with the changes and developments in the malware landscape. In other words, while the nature of the attack is unlikely to change, the delivery method will and cloud services have the agility to adjust aptly.

Security Layers - In most cases, the layers of security over cloud are considerably better than of any other private server. Typically, clouds are a sophisticated combination of elaborate access controls and encrypted technology with the capacity to expand. Plus, many of them provide protection against DDoS attacks which makes them all the more useful.

Backups - Due to reliability and resiliency, backing up your data with a cloud storage is far more efficient. When stored on local storage, frequent backups consume a lot of storage resources and negatively affect computer performance. With the cloud, backups of your information, data and documents can be frequent, and the streamlined failover process provides you with the comfortable safety of backup recovery. A recommended approach is to rely on several clouds simultaneously which provides a much more expansive protections without excessively high costs or unbearable complexity.

How do you know cloud is worth your time?

According to MarketsAndMarkets, the cloud security market will be valued at impressive $8.71 billion by 2019, so companies are ready to invest more and more to improve and strengthen the safety of the cloud environments from malicious attacks.

Cloud storage, although not the ultimate weapon against ransomware attacks, is by far one of the most efficient ways to protect your information without excessive spending or applying overly complicated scenarios. It’s also most likely to scale and thus continue withstanding cybercrime in the future. Nonetheless, it is crucial you select your cloud service carefully as not all are equal.

Source: http://www.dos-protection.co.uk/wp-admin/post-new.php

Copyright © 2014. DoS Protection UK. All Rights Reserved. Website Developed by: 6folds Marketing Inc. | Demo Test