1 distributed denial of service attacks steven m. bellovin [email protected] smb

15
1 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Steven M. Bellovin [email protected] http://www.research.att.c om/~smb

Upload: kelley-chapman

Post on 04-Jan-2016

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 1 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Steven M. Bellovin smb@research.att.com smb

1

Distributed Denialof Service Attacks

Steven M. [email protected]

http://www.research.att.com/~smb

Page 2: 1 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Steven M. Bellovin smb@research.att.com smb

2

What Are DDoS Tools?

Clog victim’s network. Use many sources (“daemons”) for

attacking traffic. Use “master” machines to control

the daemon attackers. At least 4 different versions in use:

TFN, TFN2K, Trinoo, Stacheldraht.

Page 3: 1 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Steven M. Bellovin smb@research.att.com smb

3

How They Work

Victim

Daemon

Daemon

DaemonDaemon

Daemon

Master

Real Attacker

Page 4: 1 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Steven M. Bellovin smb@research.att.com smb

4

Agile Attackers

Attack daemons implement many different types of DoS.

“Smurf” – use directed broadcast to ask many remote machines to contact victim.

“SYN Flood” – block access to given port number.

UDP and ICMP flood – simply clog link.

Page 5: 1 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Steven M. Bellovin smb@research.att.com smb

5

Source-Address Spoofing

Every Internet packet carries a return address.

These tools use forged return addresses, partly to hide and (in one case) to trick other machines into attacking the victim.

Attacks from legal source addresses are relatively easy to block.

Page 6: 1 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Steven M. Bellovin smb@research.att.com smb

6

How They Talk

Trinoo: attacker uses TCP; masters and daemons use UDP; password authentication.

TFN: attacker uses shell to invoke master; masters and daemons use ICMP ECHOREPLY.

Stacheldraht: attacker uses encrypted TCP connection to master; masters and daemons use TCP and ICMP ECHO REPLY; rcp used for auto-update.

Page 7: 1 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Steven M. Bellovin smb@research.att.com smb

7

Deploying DDOS

Attackers seem to use standard, well-known holes (i.e., rpc.ttdbserver, amd, rpc.cmsd, rpc.mountd, rpc.statd, etc.).

They appear to have “auto-hack” tools – point, click, and invade.– Optional step: erase the log files; hide

program. Lesson: practice good computer

hygiene.

Page 8: 1 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Steven M. Bellovin smb@research.att.com smb

8

Detecting DDOS Tools

Most current intrusion detection systems notice the current generation of tools.

They work by looking for DDOS control messages.

Naturally, these will change over time; in particular, more such messages will be properly encrypted. (A hacker PKI?)

Page 9: 1 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Steven M. Bellovin smb@research.att.com smb

9

What are the Strong Defenses?

There aren’t any…

Page 10: 1 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Steven M. Bellovin smb@research.att.com smb

10

What Can ISPs Do?

Deploy source address anti-spoof filters (very important!).

Turn off directed broadcasts. Develop security relationships with

neighbor ISPs. Set up mechanism for handling customer

security complaints. Develop traffic volume monitoring

techniques.

Page 11: 1 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Steven M. Bellovin smb@research.att.com smb

11

Traffic Volume Monitoring

Look for too much traffic to a particular destination.

Learn to look for traffic to that destination at your border routers (access routers, peers, exchange points, etc.).

Can we automate the tools – too many queue drops on an access router will trigger source detection?

Page 12: 1 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Steven M. Bellovin smb@research.att.com smb

12

Can We Do Better Some Day?

ICMP Traceback message. Enhance newer congestion control

techniques, i.e., RED. Warning – both of these are untested

ideas. The second is a research topic.

Page 13: 1 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Steven M. Bellovin smb@research.att.com smb

13

ICMP Traceback

For a very few packets (about 1 in 20,000), each router will send the destination a new ICMP message indicating the previous hop for that packet.

Net traffic increase at endpoint is about .1% -- probably acceptable.

Issues: authentication, loss of traceback packets, load on routers.

Page 14: 1 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Steven M. Bellovin smb@research.att.com smb

14

Enhanced Congestion Control

Define an attack as “too many packets drops on a particular access line”.

Send upstream node a message telling it to drop more packets for this destination.

Traditional RED+penalty box works on flows; this works on destination alone.

Issues: authentication, fairness, effect on legitimate traffic, implementability, etc.

Page 15: 1 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Steven M. Bellovin smb@research.att.com smb

15

References

From CERT: CA-99-17, CA-2000-01, IN-99-07. http://www.cert.org/reports/dsit_workshop.pdf Dave Dittrich’s analyses:

– http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/misc/trinoo.analysis

– http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/misc/tfn.analysis– http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/misc/

stacheldraht.analysis Scanning tool: http://www.fbi.gov/nipc/trinoo.

htm IDS vendors, ICSA, etc.