The Norse Map is a Wargames-style visualization of ongoing attacks on servers around the world. Though it shows honeypots rather than actual private or government targets, the result is a live snapshot of trends in computer mischief.
Dubai seems to be getting quite a pounding today.
Read the rest
The internal records of Lizardsquad's Lizardstresser -- a service that would, for money, flood sites with traffic intended to knock them off the Internet -- were dumped to Mega by Doxbin's former operator, providing an unprecedented public look at the internal workings of booter.
Read the rest
Courts have appreciated that even distributed denial of service attacks can be legitimate form of public protest. Molly Sauter on the insane U.S. law used to criminalize them and other forms of online activism.
Yesterday, Microsoft convinced a judge to let it take over No-IP's DNS service, shutting down name service for many websites, in order to stop a malware attack. Today, the company fake-pologized.
Read the rest
Security journalist Brian Krebs documents a string of escalating extortion crimes perpetrated with help from the net, and proposes that the growth of extortion as a tactic preferred over traditional identity theft and botnetting is driven by Bitcoin, which provides a safe way for crooks to get payouts from their victims.
Read the rest
If you're a Basecamp user who couldn't get into your account yesterday, here's why
: the company refused to pay ransom to a criminal who hit them with a 20Gb/s denial-of-service flood, apparently by the same person who attacked Meetup, who uses gmail addresses in this pattern: "email@example.com." Read the rest
A new Snowden leak, reported by NBC, documents the UK spy agency Read the rest
The Internet has been groaning under the weight of a massive distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack on the Domain Name Service, apparently aimed at anti-spam vigilantes Spamhaus, in retaliation for their blacklisting of Dutch free speech hosting provider Cyberbunker. At 300 mbps, the DDoS is the worst in public Internet history.
“These things are essentially like nuclear bombs,” said Matthew Prince, chief executive of Cloudflare. “It’s so easy to cause so much damage.”
The so-called distributed denial of service, or DDoS, attacks have reached previously unknown magnitudes, growing to a data stream of 300 billion bits per second.
“It is a real number,” Mr. Gilmore said. “It is the largest publicly announced DDoS attack in the history of the Internet.”
Spamhaus, one of the most prominent groups tracking spammers on the Internet, uses volunteers to identify spammers and has been described as an online vigilante group.
In the past, blacklisted sites have retaliated against Spamhaus with denial-of-service attacks, in which they flood Spamhaus with traffic requests from personal computers until its servers become unreachable. But in recent weeks, the attackers hit back with a far more powerful strike that exploited the Internet’s core infrastructure, called the Domain Name System, or DNS.
As bad as this is, it could be a lot worse. An anonymous paper called Internet Census 2012: Port scanning /0 using insecure embedded devices reports on a researcher's project to scan every IPv4 address for publicly available machines that will accept a telnet connection and yield up a root login to a default password. Read the rest
It's been more than a year since the WSJ reported that Skype leaks its users' IP addresses and locations. Microsoft has done nothing to fix this since, and as Brian Krebs reports, the past year has seen the rise of several tools that let you figure out someone's IP address by searching for him on Skype, then automate launching denial-of-service attacks on that person's home.
In the above screen shot, we can see one such service being used to display the IP address most recently used by the Skype account “mailen_support” (this particular account belongs to the tech support contact for Mailien, a Russian pharmacy spam affiliate program by the same name).
Typically, these Skype resolvers are offered in tandem with “booter” or “stresser” services, online attack tools-for-hire than can be rented to launch denial-of-service attacks (one of these services was used in an attack on this Web site, and on that of Ars Technica last week). The idea being that if you want to knock someone offline but you don’t know their Internet address, you can simply search on Skype to see if they have an account. The resolvers work regardless of any privacy settings the target user may have selected within the Skype program’s configuration panel.
Beyond exposing one’s Internet connection to annoying and disruptive attacks, this vulnerability could allow stalkers or corporate rivals to track the movement of individuals and executives as they travel between cities and states.
Privacy 101: Skype Leaks Your Location
Read the rest
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published a comprehensive, multi-lingual guide to keeping sites that are undergoing distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks alive.
Denial of service (DoS) and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks are increasingly common phenomena, used by a variety of actors—from activists to governments—to temporarily or indefinitely prevent a site from functioning efficiently. Often, the attack saturates the target with server requests designed to flood its bandwidth, leaving the server unable to respond to legitimate traffic.
Though the owners of major sites often have the resources to fend off or even prevent such attacks, smaller sites—such as those belonging to small independent media or human rights organizations—are sometimes permanently disabled due to a lack of resources or knowledge.
This guide aims to assist the owners of such websites by providing advice on choosing an appropriate webhost, as well as a guide to mirroring and backing-up their websites so that the content can be made available elsewhere even if their site is taken down by a DoS or DDoS attack.
Keeping Your Site Alive
Read the rest
Make Magazine's just reprinted my column, "Moral Suasion," in its online edition. It's a discussion of the politics of cloud computing, including denial-of-service attacks against cloud providers who cave to government pressure:
I grew up in the antiwar movement and participated in my first sit-in when I was 12. Sit-ins are a sort of denial of service, but that's not why they work. What they do is convey the message: "I am willing to put myself in harm's way for my beliefs. I am willing to risk arrest and jail. This matters." This may not be convincing for people who strongly disagree with you, but it makes an impression on people who haven't been paying attention. Discovering that your neighbors are willing to be harmed, arrested, imprisoned, or even killed for their beliefs is a striking thing.
And that's a crucial difference between a DDoS and a sit-in: participants in a sit-in expect to get arrested. Participants in a DDoS do everything they can to avoid getting caught. If you want to draw a metaphor, DDoSers are like the animal rights activists who fill a lab's locks with super glue. This is effective at shutting down your opponent for a good while, but it's a lot less likely to draw sympathy from the public, who can dismiss it as vandalism.
(Image: Sit-in "Giornata degli studenti", a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (2.0) image from retestudentimassa's photostream)
Read the rest
The IRC servers used by AnonOps have been compromised and taken over by "Ryan," who is reportedly a young man in Essex, England. These servers were used to plan and coordinate many of the denial-of-service attacks that flew the Anonymous flag, including the recent attack on Sony. Ryan says he seized control of the servers and lots of other infrastructure in protest of a secretive cabal of Anonymous "leaders" whom, he claims, secretly steer Anonymous's debate over which targets to hit and for how long using private IRC channels.
Anonymous claims to have no leaders, but it also lacks any sort of structure through which such a claim could be made -- that is, lacking any constitution or formal decision-making structure, there is no clear way in which an official "no leaders" policy could be ratified and articulated. If no one can speak for Anonymous, can anyone say (on behalf of Anonymous), "We have no leaders?" It's the key question in this bit of drama, because the ousted "leaders" have made counterclaims that Ryan acted as he did in order to establish himself as leader of Anonymous.
Others argued against this equivalence. "Ryan was the dictator, not the one who decided to solve the dictator problem," said one. Another responded, "Lol, how do you know? For all you know, Owen and Ryan are just the classic generals duking out to take over."
Read the rest
For his part, Ryan told the UK's Thinq today that he shared the concerns over private decision making. Owen and the other leaders "crossed the barrier, involving themselves in a leadership role," Ryan said.
Last week, many news sources reported that the Anonymous movement had issued a threat against the notorious real-world trolls at the Westboro Baptist Church, comprised mainly of the extended family of Fred Phelps, who picket AIDS funerals with "God Hates Fags" signs, as well as trolling Jewish groups, military funerals, and other sensitive sites.
Now, some members of Anonymous have issued a press release disclaiming any threats against the Church. They claim that the Church had trumped up the threat in order to lure Anonymous supporters into launching a denial-of-service attack on the Church's site, which the Church could backtrack and use as the basis of a series of lawsuits against Anonymous participants.
I believe it. Close observers of the "Church" have opined that Phelps and his family have no particular strong beliefs, but that rather they are aggressive litigants who use shock tactics to lure private individuals and local police and governments into attacking them or abridging their rights. The family then brings lucrative civil action against all parties. It sounds like a sweet little racket if you're an utter sociopath.
If the threat from Anonymous was really trumped up, it's a pretty fine forgery, one that shows a high degree of attention and subtlety from the Phelps side -- someone there is a damned fine mimic of hacker bombast. It's also clever in that it attacks Anonymous in its weakest spot: the absence of any visible, formal governance structure makes it hard to sue or shutter Anonymous, but it also makes Anonymous vulnerable to these false-flag attacks and hoaxes (and it means that Anonymous has no institutional basis with which it might, for example, hire attorneys to sue Phelps or defend its members should Phelps sue them). Read the rest