Internet service providers responsibilities in botnet mitigation: a Nigerian perspective

Botnet-based attack is dangerous and extremely difficult to overcome as all the primary mitigation methods are passive and limited in focus. A combine efforts of internet service providers (ISPs) are better guides since they can monitor the traffic that traverse through their networks. However, ISPs are not legally banded to this role and may not view security as a primary concern. Towards understudying the involvement of ISPs in Botnet mitigation in Nigeria, this study elicited and summarized mitigation measures from scientific literatures to create a reference model which was validated by structured interview. Although, ISPs role is seen to be voluntary and poorly incentivized, the providers still take customers security very serious but concentrate more on the preventive and notification measures

Defending Against Denial of Service

Civil Society currently faces significant cyber threats. At the top of the list of those threats are Denial of Service (DoS) attacks. The websites of many organizations and individuals have already come under such attacks, and the frequency of those attacks are on the rise. Civil Society frequently does not have the kinds of resources or technical know-how that is available to commercial enterprise and government websites, and often have to exist in adverse political environments where every avenue available, both legal and illegal, is used against them. Therefore, the threat of DoS attacks is unlikely to go away any time soon.A Denial of Service (DoS) attack is any attack that overwhelms a website, causing the content normally provided by that website to no longer be available to regular visitors of the website. Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks are traffic volumebased attacks originating from a large number of computers, which are usually compromised workstations. These workstations, known as 'zombies', form a widely distributed attack network called a 'botnet'. While many modern Denial of Service attacks are Distributed Denial of Service attacks, this is certainly not true for all denials of service experienced by websites. Therefore, when users first start experiencing difficulty in getting to the website content, it should not be assumed that the site is under a DDoS attack. Many forms of DoS are far easier to implement than DDoS, and so these attacks are still used by parties with malicious intent. Many such DoS attacks are easier to defend against once the mechanism used to cause the denial of service is known. Therefore, it is paramount to do proper analysis of attack traffic when a site becomes unable to perform its normal function. There are two parts to this guide. The first part outlines preparatory steps that can be taken by Civil Society organizations to improve their website's resilience, should it come under attack. However, we do understand that most Civil Society organizations' first introduction to DoS attacks comes when they suddenly find themselves the victim of an attack. The second part of this guide provides a step-by-step process to assist the staff of NGOs to efficiently deal with that stressful situation

OnionBots: Subverting Privacy Infrastructure for Cyber Attacks

Over the last decade botnets survived by adopting a sequence of increasingly sophisticated strategies to evade detection and take overs, and to monetize their infrastructure. At the same time, the success of privacy infrastructures such as Tor opened the door to illegal activities, including botnets, ransomware, and a marketplace for drugs and contraband. We contend that the next waves of botnets will extensively subvert privacy infrastructure and cryptographic mechanisms. In this work we propose to preemptively investigate the design and mitigation of such botnets. We first, introduce OnionBots, what we believe will be the next generation of resilient, stealthy botnets. OnionBots use privacy infrastructures for cyber attacks by completely decoupling their operation from the infected host IP address and by carrying traffic that does not leak information about its source, destination, and nature. Such bots live symbiotically within the privacy infrastructures to evade detection, measurement, scale estimation, observation, and in general all IP-based current mitigation techniques. Furthermore, we show that with an adequate self-healing network maintenance scheme, that is simple to implement, OnionBots achieve a low diameter and a low degree and are robust to partitioning under node deletions. We developed a mitigation technique, called SOAP, that neutralizes the nodes of the basic OnionBots. We also outline and discuss a set of techniques that can enable subsequent waves of Super OnionBots. In light of the potential of such botnets, we believe that the research community should proactively develop detection and mitigation methods to thwart OnionBots, potentially making adjustments to privacy infrastructure.Comment: 12 pages, 8 figure

Adversarial behaviours knowledge area

The technological advancements witnessed by our society in recent decades have brought improvements in our quality of life, but they have also created a number of opportunities for attackers to cause harm. Before the Internet revolution, most crime and malicious activity generally required a victim and a perpetrator to come into physical contact, and this limited the reach that malicious parties had. Technology has removed the need for physical contact to perform many types of crime, and now attackers can reach victims anywhere in the world, as long as they are connected to the Internet. This has revolutionised the characteristics of crime and warfare, allowing operations that would not have been possible before. In this document, we provide an overview of the malicious operations that are happening on the Internet today. We first provide a taxonomy of malicious activities based on the attacker’s motivations and capabilities, and then move on to the technological and human elements that adversaries require to run a successful operation. We then discuss a number of frameworks that have been proposed to model malicious operations. Since adversarial behaviours are not a purely technical topic, we draw from research in a number of fields (computer science, criminology, war studies). While doing this, we discuss how these frameworks can be used by researchers and practitioners to develop effective mitigations against malicious online operations.Published versio

The Australian Cyber Security Centre threat report 2015

Introduction: The number, type and sophistication of cyber security threats to Australia and Australians are increasing. Due to the varied nature of motivations for cyber adversaries targeting Australian organisations, organisations could be a target for malicious activities even if they do not think the information held on their networks is valuable, or that their business would be of interest to cyber adversaries. This first unclassified report by the ACSC describes the range of cyber adversaries targeting Australian networks, explains their motivations, the malicious activities they are conducting and their impact, and provides specific examples of activity targeting Australian networks during 2014. This report also offers mitigation advice on how organisations can defend against these activities. The ACSC’s ability to detect and defend against sophisticated cyber threats continues to improve. But cyber adversaries are constantly improving their tradecraft in their attempts to defeat our network defences and exploit the new technologies we embrace. There are gaps in our understanding of the extent and nature of malicious activity, particularly against the business sector. The ACSC is reaching out to industry to build partnerships to improve our collective understanding. Future iterations of the Threat Report will benefit from these partnerships and help to close gaps in our knowledge

Security Reputation Metrics

Security reputation metrics (aka. security metrics) quantify the security levels of organization (e.g., hosting or Internet access providers) relative to comparable entities. They enable benchmarking and are essential tools for decision and policy-making in security, and may be used to govern and steer responsible parties towards investing in security when economic or other decision-making factors may drive them to do otherwise