In the Line of Fire-the Morphology of Cyber Attacks
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

In the Line of Fire-the Morphology of Cyber Attacks



David Hobbs’ Presentation from his series of presentations during SecureWorld that discusses Availability-based threats; Attacks on U.S. banks and others popular attack patterns & trends.

David Hobbs’ Presentation from his series of presentations during SecureWorld that discusses Availability-based threats; Attacks on U.S. banks and others popular attack patterns & trends.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 30 30


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • -This pic is from the very beginning of the video, stating “There is an angry mob in the middle of the street”*Notes -  On September 9, 2012, an excerpt of the YouTube video was broadcast on Al-Nas TV, an Egyptian Islamist television station.[11][12]Demonstrations and violent protests against the film broke out on September 11 in Egypt and spread to other Arab and Muslim nations and some western countries.
  • -Libyan riots top left - riots bottom left -
  • Links about Izz as-Din al-Quassam The preacher - *Notes - The Levant includes most of modern Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, State of Palestine, Israel, Cyprus, Hatay Province of Turkey, some regions of northwestern Iraq and theSinai Peninsula.Links about the Cyber hacker group - from -
  • Links for translation of ababil - pic from - of Iranian involvement -
  • Data taken from internal doc.
  • Pic taken from -
  • -Taken from internal report.
  • -Taken from internal report.
  • Reflective attack - Attackers send forged requests of some type to a very large number of computers that will reply to the requests. Using spoofed SRC IP’s of the victim, which means all the replies will go to (and flood) the target.
  • -Stateful inspection in the DNS area is limited. Was in smartdefense at CP, but how many people use it?-The server is forced to respond with ICMP packets “Destination Unreachable” (ICMP type3 Code 3) for port closed when udp packet arrives.-Returning ICMP type 3 further saturate (Packet size in return will be close to received packet).
  • -Internal data.
  • -The SYN flood attack simply sends a high rate of SYN’s with spoofed IP’s and the server is left waiting for the ACK.-This means the attacker needs much fewer hosts to exhaust target machine because no session is actually kept alive on the “Attackers” side.-You exhaust the Backlog of the TCP stack (Linux default is 3mins and Win2k is 45 sec. for half open timeouts, these can be changed). So the server can no longer accept a new connection.-
  • -Another reported attack technique that was allegedly used during this campaign is a custom version of the Mobile LOIC tool (aka Mobile LOIC - Apache Killer) which is designed to exploit a known vulnerability in Apache servers – corresponding to CVE-2011-3192.-This attack tool targets Apache servers using Apache HTTP server versions 1.3.x, 2.0.x through 2.0.64, and 2.2.x through 2.2.19.
  • Target URL- Specifies the URL of the attacked target. Must start with http://. Requests per second-Specifies the number of desired requests to be sent per second. Append message-Specifies the content for the “msg” parameter to be sent within the URL of HTTP requests
  • Resource internal.
  • -This value is unique since it seems to contain a typo which is caused by placing the “User Agent:” string inside the user agent value itself.Resource internal.
  • Resource internal.
  • Resource internal.
  • Internal resources.
  • -Taken from Radware internal resources.
  • The image above shows how the agent controls the Botnet: The „Today‟ and „Online‟ shows the number of computers under its control, the „URLs‟ specify the URLs to be attacked, the „Flows‟ specify the attack vector and attack intensity, and the „Start‟ and „Stop‟ allows the agent to inflict pain and voluntarily stop it.
  • Identification: referrer (ask the audience)

In the Line of Fire-the Morphology of Cyber Attacks In the Line of Fire-the Morphology of Cyber Attacks Presentation Transcript

  • In the Line of Fire -The Morphology ofCyber-AttacksDavid HobbsDirector of Security SolutionsEmergency Response TeamDavidH@Radware.comApril 2013Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • AGENDA2012 Availability-based threatsAttacks on the us banksOthers 2012 popular attack patterns & trends
  • Radware ERT SurveySlide 3Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • 2012 Attack Motivation - ERT SurveySlide 4Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • 2012 Target Trend - ERT SurveySlide 5Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • Main Bottlenecks During DoS Attacks - ERT SurveySlide 6Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • Attacks Campaigns DurationSlide 7Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • Attack Duration Requires IT to Develop New SkillsWar Room Skills Are RequiredSlide 8Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • Attacks Traverses CDNs (Dynamic Object Attacks)Slide 9Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • AGENDA2012 Availability-based threatsAttacks on the us banksOthers 2012 popular attack patterns & trends
  • “Overview”• What triggered the recent US attacks?• Who was involved in implementing the attacks and name of the operation?• How long were the attacks and how many attack vectors were involved?• How the attacks work and their effects.• How can we prepare ourselves in the future?Slide 11Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “What triggered the attacks on the US banks?”• Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (Alias- “Sam Bacile”), an Egyption born US residentcreated an anti Islam film.• Early September the publication of the „Innocence of Muslims‟ film on YouTubeinvokes demonstrations throughout the Muslim world.• The video was 14 minutes though a full length movie was released.Slide 12Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “Protests generated by the movie”Slide 13Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • The Cyber ResponseSlide 14Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “Who is the group behind the cyber response?”• A hacker group called “Izz as-Din al-Qassam Cyber fighters”.• Izz as-Din al-Qassam was a famous Muslim preacher who was a leader in thefight against the French, US and Zionist in the 1920‟s and 1930‟s.• The group claims not to be affiliated to any government or Anonymous.• This group claims to be independent, and it‟s goal is to defend Islam.Slide 15Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “Operation Ababil launched!”• “Operation Ababil” is the codename of the operation launched onSeptembetr18th 2012, by the group “Izz as-Din al-Qassam Cyber fighters”• The attackers announced they would attack “American and Zionist targets”.• “Ababil” translates to “swallow” from Persian. Until today the US thinks theIranian government may be behind the operation.• The operations goal is to have “Youtube” remove the anti-muslim film from it‟ssite. Until today the video has not been removed.Slide 16Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “The attack campaign in 2 phases”• The attack campaign was split into 2 phases, a pubic announcement was madein each phase.• The attacks lasted 10 days, from the 18th until the 28th of September.• Phase 1 - Targets > NYSE, BOA, JP Morgan.• Phase 2 – Targets > Wells Fargo, US Banks, PNC.Slide 17Radware Confidential Jan 2012New York StockExchange
  • The AttackVectors and Tactics!Slide 18
  • “Attack Vectors”• 5 Attack vectors were seen by the ERT team during Operation Ababil.1. UDP garbage flood.2. TCP SYN flood.3. Mobile LOIC (Apache killer version).4. HTTP Request flood.5. ICMP Reply flood. (*Unconfirmed but reported on).*Note: Data is gathered by Radware as well as it‟s partners.Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “UDP Garbage Flood”• Targeted the DNS servers of the organizations, also HTTP.• Up to 1Gbps volume (Possibly higher).• All attacks were identical in content and in size (Packet structure).• UDP packets sent to port 53 and 80.• Customer attacked Sep 18th and on the 19th.Slide 20Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “Tactics used in the UDP garbage flood”• Internal DNS servers were targeted , at a high rate.• Web servers were also targeted, at a high rate.• Spoofed IP‟s (But kept to just a few, this is unusual).• ~ 1Gbps.• Lasted more than 7 hours initially but still continues...Packet structureSlide 21Parameter Value Port 53 Value Port 80Packet size 1358 Bytes UnknownValue in Garbage ‘A’ (0x41) charactersrepeated“/http1”(x2fx68x74x74x70x31) - repetitiveRadware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “DNS Garbage flood packet extract”• Some reports of a DNS reflective attack was underway seem to be incorrect.• The packets are considered “Malformed” DNS packets, no relevant DNSheader.Slide 22Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “Attackers objective of the UDP Garbage flood”• Saturate bandwidth.• Attack will pass through firewall, since port is open.• Saturate session tables/CPU resources on any state -full device, L4 routingrules any router, FW session tables etc..• Returning ICMP type 3 further saturate upstream bandwidth.• All combined will lead to a DoS situation if bandwidth and infrastructure cannothandle the volume or packet processing.Slide 23Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “TCP SYN flood”• Targeted Port 53, 80 and 443.• The rate was around 100Mbps with around 135K PPS.• This lasted from the Sep 18th for more than 3 days.Slide 24Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “SYN flood Packet extract”Slide 25-All sources are spoofed.-Multiple SYN packets to port 443.Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “Attackers objective of the TCP SYN floods”• SYN floods are a well known attack vector.• Can be used to distract from more targeted attacks.• The effect of the SYN flood if it slips through can devastate state-full devicesquickly. This is done by filling up the session table.• All state-full device has some performance impact under such a flood.• Easy to implement.• Incorrect network architecture will quickly have issues.Slide 26Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “Mobile LOIC (Apache killer version)”• Mobile LOIC (Low Orbit Iron Cannon) is a DDoS tool written in HTML andJavascript.• This DDoS Tool does an HTTP GET flood.• The tool is designed to do HTTP floods.• We have no statistics on the exact traffic of mobile LOIC.Slide 27*Suspected*SuspectedRadware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “Mobile LOIC in a web browser”Slide 28Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “HTTP Request Flood”• Between 80K and 100K TPS (Transactions Per second)• Port 80• Followed the same patterns in the GET request (Except for the Inputparameter)• Dynamic user agentSlide 29Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “HTTP flood packet structure”• Sources worldwide (True sources most likely hidden).• User agent duplicated.• Attack time was short (No confirmed timeline)• Rates are unknown.• Dynamic Input parameters.GET Requests parametersSlide 30Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “HTTP flood packet parameters identified”Slide 31HTTP Request SamplesGET /financial-literacy/all-about-investing/etvs?2408bGET /financial-literacy/all-about-investing/bonds?4d094GET /inside-the-exchange/visiting?aad95GET /HTTP Request SamplesDoCoMo/2.0 SH902i (compatible; Y!J-SRD/1.0; ( (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR1.1.4322;)Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030505 Mozilla Firebird/0.6Opera/9.00 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en)User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;)msnbot-Products/1.0 (+ Confidential Jan 2012
  • “Identified locations of attacking IP‟s”Slide 32Worldwide!Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “Attackers objective of the HTTP flood”• Bypass CDN services by randomizing the input parameter and user agents.• Because of the double user agent there was an flaw in the programming behindthe attacking tool.• Saturating and exhausting web server resources by keeping session table andweb server connection limits occupied.• The attack takes more resources to implement than non connection orientatedattacks like TCP SYN floods and UDP garbage floods. This is because of theneed to establish a connection.Slide 33Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • Unconfirmed Vectors of attackSlide 34
  • “Unconfirmed attacks”• The following 2 attack vectors were reported to us by our customers howeverwe have no data internally to indicate these attacks took place.• The data was either gathered through intelligence the customer had (IRC chat,Forums etc..) or something they suspected and reported to Radware but neverprovided logs for.• The 2 other vectors suspected are:– ICMP Reply Flood.– Dirt Jumper.Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “ICMP Reply flood”• This attack was gathered through Cisco logs at the customers site.• We have no statistics on the attack.Slide 36Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “ICMP Reply Flood explained”• ICMP “Requests” (ICMP Type 8) are sent to the target in order to generate multiple ICMP“Reply” (ICMP Type 0) packets.• This can also be from spoofed IP‟s (Sent packets, ICMP Type 8).• This saturates bandwidth on the servers up/down stream as well as CPU processing toprocess the ICMP packets and respond.• To do a replay flood you just spoof the SRC IP of the ICMP request.Slide 37Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “Dirt Jumper”• Dirt Jumper is a BOT currently at version 5.• Dirt jumper is used in various HTTP floods.• POST, GET and download floods are supported by the latest version of DirtJumper.• User Agent and Referrer randomization are supported too.Slide 38Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • “Dirt Jumper C&C”Slide 39Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • AGENDA2012 Availability-based threatsAttacks on the us banksOthers 2012 popular attack patterns & trends
  • Availability-based Threats TreeSlide 41Availability-based ThreatsNetwork Floods(Volumetric)ApplicationFloodsLow-and-SlowSingle-packetDoSUPDFloodICMPFloodSYNFloodWebFloodDNS SMTPHTTPSRadware Confidential Jan 2012
  • Asymmetric AttacksSlide 42Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • HTTP Reflection AttackSlideWebsite A Website B(Victim)AttackerHTTPGETRadware Confidential Jan 2012
  • Slideiframe, width=1, height=1search.phpHTTP Reflection Attack ExampleRadware Confidential Jan 2012
  • HTTPS – SSL Re Negotiation AttackSlide 45THC-SSL DoSTHC-SSL DOS was developed by a hacking group called The Hacker‟s Choice (THC), as a proof-of-concept to encourage vendors to patch a serious SSL vulnerability. THC-SSL-DOS, as with other“low and slow” attacks, requires only a small number of packets to cause denial-of-service for afairly large server. It works by initiating a regular SSL handshake and then immediately requestingfor the renegotiation of the encryption key, constantly repeating this server resource-intensiverenegotiation request until all server resources have been exhausted.Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • Low & SlowSlide 46Availability-based ThreatsNetwork Floods(Volumetric)ApplicationFloodsLow-and-SlowSingle-packetDoSUPDFloodICMPFloodSYNFloodWebFloodDNS SMTPHTTPSLow-and-SlowRadware Confidential Jan 2012
  • Low & Slow• Slowloris• Sockstress• R.U.D.Y.• Simultaneous Connection SaturationSlide 47Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • R.U.D.Y (R-U-Dead-Yet)Slide 48R.U.D.Y. (R-U-Dead-Yet?)R.U.D.Y. (R-U-Dead-Yet?) is a slow-rate HTTP POST (Layer 7) denial-of-service tool created by Raviv Raz andnamed after the Children of Bodom album “Are You Dead Yet?” It achieves denial-of-service by using long formfield submissions. By injecting one byte of information into an application POST field at a time and then waiting,R.U.D.Y. causes application threads to await the end of never-ending posts in order to perform processing (thisbehavior is necessary in order to allow web servers to support users with slower connections). Since R.U.D.Y.causes the target webserver to hang while waiting for the rest of an HTTP POST request, by initiatingsimultaneous connections to the server the attacker is ultimately able to exhaust the server‟s connection table andcreate a denial-of-service condition.Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • SlowlorisSlide 49SlowlorisSlowloris is a denial-of-service (DoS) tool developed by the grey hat hacker “RSnake” that causes DoS by using a very slowHTTP request. By sending HTTP headers to the target site in tiny chunks as slow as possible (waiting to send the next tinychunk until just before the server would time out the request), the server is forced to continue to wait for the headers toarrive. If enough connections are opened to the server in this fashion, it is quickly unable to handle legitimate requests.Slowloris is cross-platform, except due to Windows’ ~130 simultaneous socket use limit, it is only effective from UNIX-basedsystems which allow for more connections to be opened in parallel to a target server (although a GUI Python version ofSlowloris dubbed PyLoris was able to overcome this limiting factor on Windows).Radware Confidential Jan 2012
  • Radware Security Products PortfolioSlide 50AppWallWeb Application Firewall (WAF)DefenseProNetwork & Server attack prevention deviceAPSolute VisionManagement and security reporting &compliance
  • Thank Youwww.radware.comRadware Confidential Jan 2012