A denial-of-service attack (DoS
attack) or distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS attack) is an attempt to
make a computer resource unavailable to its intended users. Although the means
to carry out, motives for, and targets of a DoS attack may vary, it generally
consists of the concerted efforts of a person or people to prevent an Internet
site or service from functioning efficiently or at all, temporarily or
indefinitely. Perpetrators of DoS attacks typically target sites or services
hosted on high-profile web servers such as banks, credit card payment gateways,
and even root nameservers. The term is generally used with regards to computer
networks, but is not limited to this field, for example, it is also used in
reference to CPU resource management.
There are two general forms of DoS
attacks: those that crash services and those that flood services. One common
method of attack involves saturating the target machine with external
communications requests, such that it cannot respond to legitimate traffic, or
responds so slowly as to be rendered effectively unavailable. In general terms,
DoS attacks are implemented by either forcing the targeted computer to reset,
or consuming its resources so that it can no longer provide its intended
service or obstructing the communication media between the intended users and
the victim so that they can no longer communicate adequately.
Symptoms
and Manifestations
The United States Computer Emergency
Response Team defines symptoms of denial-ofservice attacks to include:
Unusually slow network performance (opening
files or accessing web sites)·
Inability to access any web site· Unavailability of a particular web site ·
Dramatic increase in the number of spam emails
received—(this type of DoS attack is considered an e-mail bomb)·
Denial-of-service attacks can also
lead to problems in the network 'branches' around the actual computer being
attacked. For example, the bandwidth of a router between the Internet and a LAN
may be consumed by an attack, compromising not only the intended computer, but
also the entire network. If the attack is conducted on a sufficiently large
scale, entire geographical regions of Internet connectivity can be compromised
without the attacker's knowledge or intent by incorrectly configured or flimsy
network infrastructure equipment. Before I go on with DOS attacks, let me
explain some vulnerabilities in TCP/IP itself. Some common vulnerabilities are
Ping of Death, Teardrop, SYN attacks and Land Attacks.
Ping
of Death:
This vulnerability is quite well
known and was earlier commonly used to hang remote systems (or even force them
to reboot) so that no users can use its services. This exploit no longer works,
as almost all system administrators would have upgraded their systems making
them safe from such attacks. In this attack, the target system is pinged with a
data packet that exceeds the maximum bytes allowed by TCP/IP, which is 65 536.
This would have almost always caused the remote system to hang, reboot or
crash. This DOS attack could be carried out even through the command line, in
the following manner: The following Ping command creates a giant datagram of
the size 65540 for Ping. It might hang the victim's computer:
C:\windows>ping -l 65540
How to test if you're vulnerable
Unfortunately, this bug is really easy to exploit. Users are already trying it out
"just to see if it worked". So, to test if your machine is in danger,
find a Windows '95 or NT box (3.51 or 4), and run the following command:
ping -l 65550 your.host.ip.address
How to prevent people from breaking
your system
If no patch is available, and your
main concern are pings from users outside your network, it would seem the best
quick-fix solution is to block ping at the firewall. This is not a longterm
solution. If you have any services listening on any ports at all, they are
vulnerable. Be assured that sooner or later someone will come out with a
program which sends invalid packets to a web server, an ftp port. The only
solution is to patch your operating system. By blocking ping, you prevent
people from pinging you at all. This could possibly break some things that rely
on. A better solution than blocking all pings is to block only fragmented
pings. This will allow your common-or-garden 64 byte ping through on almost all
systems, while blocking any bigger than the MTU size of your link. (This varies,
but about 1k is a good bet).
Ping flood:
A ping flood is a simple
denial-of-service attack where the attacker overwhelms the victim with ICMP
Echo Request (ping) packets. It only succeeds if the attacker has more
bandwidth than the victim (for instance an attacker with a DSL line and the
victim on a dial-up modem). The attacker hopes that the victim will respond
with ICMP Echo Reply packets, thus consuming outgoing bandwidth as well as
incoming bandwidth. If the target system is slow enough, it is possible to
consume enough of its CPU cycles for a user to notice a significant slowdown.
There are two general forms of DoS attacks: those that crashes services and
those that flood services.
Teardrop:
The Teardrop attack exploits the
vulnerability present in the reassembling of data packets. Whenever data is
being sent over the Internet, it is broken down into smaller fragments at the
source system and put together at the destination system. Say you need to send
4000 bytes of data from one system to the other, then not all of the 4000 bytes
is sent at one go. This entire chunk of data is first broken down into smaller
parts and divided into a number of packets, with each packet carrying a
specified range of data. For Example, say 4000 bytes is divided into 3 packets,
then:
The first Packet will carry data
from 1 byte to 1500 bytes
The second Packet will carry data
from 1501 bytes to 3000 bytes
The third packet will carry data
from 3001 bytes to 4000 bytes
These packets have an OFFSET field
in their TCP header part. This Offset field specifies from which byte to which
byte does that particular data packet carries data or the range of data that it
is carrying. This along with the sequence numbers helps the destination system
to reassemble the data packets in the correct order. Now in this attack, a
series of data packets are sent to the target system with overlapping Offset
field values. As a result, the target system is not able to reassemble the
packets and is forced to crash, hang or reboot. Say for example, consider the
following scenario-: (Note: _ _ _ = 1 Data Packet) Normally a system receives
data packets in the following form, with no overlapping Offset values.
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
(1 to 1500 bytes)
(1501 to 3000 bytes)
(3001 to 4500 bytes)
Now in a Teardrop attack, the data packets are sent to the target computer in the following format:
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
(1 to 1500 bytes)
(1501 to 3000 bytes)
(3001 to 4500 bytes)
Now in a Teardrop attack, the data packets are sent to the target computer in the following format:
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
(1 to 1500 bytes)
(1500 to 3000 bytes)
(1001 to 3600 bytes)
When the target system receives something like the above, it simply cannot handle it and will crash or hang or reboot.
_ _ _
(1 to 1500 bytes)
(1500 to 3000 bytes)
(1001 to 3600 bytes)
When the target system receives something like the above, it simply cannot handle it and will crash or hang or reboot.
Distributed DOS Attacks:
DOS attacks are not new; in fact
they have been around for a long time. However there has been a recent wave of
Distributed Denial of Services attacks which pose a great threat to Security
and are on the verge of overtaking Viruses/Trojans to become the deadliest
threat to Internet Security. Now you see, in almost all of the above TCP/IP
vulnerabilities, which are being exploited by hackers, there is a huge chance
of the target's system administrator or the authorities tracing the attacks and
getting hold of the attacker.
Now what is commonly being done is,
say a group of 5 Hackers join and decide to bring a Fortune 500 company's
server down. Now each one of them breaks into a smaller less protected network
and takes over it. So now they have 5 networks and supposing there are around
20 systems in each network, it gives these Hackers, around 100 systems in all
to attack from. So they sitting on there home computer, connect to the hacked
less protected Network, install a Denial of Service Tool on these hacked
networks and using these hacked systems in the various networks launch Attacks
on the actual Fortune 500 Company.
This makes the hackers less easy to
detect and helps them to do what they wanted to do without getting caught. As
they have full control over the smaller less protected network they can easily
remove all traces before the authorities get there. Not even a single system
connected to the Internet is safe from such DDOS attacks. All platforms including
Unix, Windows NT are vulnerable to such attacks. Even MacOS has not been
spared, as some of them are being used to conduct such DDOS attacks.
Conclusion:
DDos attack tools are readily
available and any internet host is targetable as either a zombie or the ultimate
DDos focus. These attacks can be costly and frustrating and are difficult, if
not impossible to eradicate. The best defence is to hinder attackers through
vigilant system administration. Applying patches, updating anti-malicious
software programs, system monitoring, and reporting incidents go further than
retarding DDos attacks – these defences also protect against other attacks. The
Internet is not stable—it reforms itself rapidly. This means that DDoS
countermeasures quickly become obsolete.
New services are offered through the
Internet, and new attacks are deployed to prevent clients from accessing these
services. However, the basic issue is whether DDoS attacks represent a network
problem or an individual problem—or both. If attacks are mainly a network
problem, a solution could derive from alterations in Internet protocols.
Specifically, routers could filter malicious traffic, attackers could not spoof
IP addresses, and there would be no drawback in routing protocols. If attacks
are mostly the result of individual system weaknesses, the solution could
derive from an effective IDS system, from an antivirus, or from an invulnerable
firewall. Attackers then could not compromise systems in order to create a
"zombies" army. Obviously, it appears that both network and
individual hosts constitute the problem. Consequently, countermeasures should
be taken from both sides. Because attackers cooperate in order to build the
perfect attack methods, legitimate users and security developers should also
cooperate against the threat. The solution will arise from combining both
network and individual countermeasures.
Comments
Post a Comment