COMMAND

    DDoS (Distributed DoS)

SYSTEMS AFFECTED

    All systems

PROBLEM

    To undestand following issue, please read following advisories:

        http://oliver.efri.hr/~crv/security/bugs/mUNIXes/dos3.html
        http://oliver.efri.hr/~crv/security/bugs/mUNIXes/dos5.html
        http://oliver.efri.hr/~crv/security/bugs/mUNIXes/dos6.html

    The problem with DDOS:

        - It is infeasible to secure the entire net.
        - Scanners for DDOS daemons are being built but still  require
          efforts from uniterested parties to run the scans. Frequency
          of scanning will be an issue too.
        - The  attackers  are  often  systems  that are unattended  or
          neglected as far as security.  This makes it even harder  to
          reach someone at the site to stop the attack.
        - The ones  who are motivated  to do something  about DDOS are
          the victims not the attack relays.
        - The  ISPs are  also greatly  motivated to  ensure that their
          services are not disrupted.
        - The problem with disabling the attack is that the victim has
          to contact many, many systems to notify them that they  have
          been  breached  and  convince  the  administrators  and take
          measures agains the attacker software now embedded in  their
          system.

    As this is an industry wide issue, it is doubtful a single  source
    commercial  antidote  to  all  the  potential DDOS problems can be
    found with a single  countermeasure. So I propose  a collaboration
    between service providers -  an Anti-ddos ISP Coalition  to remedy
    the problem.

    In  particular  these  attacks  were  of the bandwidth consumption
    type.  Some of the  network providers involved claim to  have been
    upwards of 1 Gb/s traffic.

SOLUTION

    A number  of meetings  have been  held to  discuss the attacks and
    search   for    possible   solutions.      These   include    CERT
    Distributed-Systems Intruder Tools  Workshop back in  November and
    the two recent  Birds of Feather  (BOF) sessions organized  by the
    ICSA at the RSA and NANOG conferences.

    You can find David's notes on the CERT workshop at:

        http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/talks/cert/

    You can find the results of the CERT workshop at:

        http://www.cert.org/reports/dsit_workshop.pdf

    CERT has also issued an advisory last month on the problem:

        http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2000-01.html

    These  attack  are  made  possible  because  of fundamental design
    decisions at  the IP  protocol level.  It does  not provide strong
    authentication of the source of  a packet, and it only  provides a
    best effort service with no resource allocation protocol.  To date
    no one has come up with a "silver bullet" solution to the problem.
    That  being  said,  the  are  a  number of options to mitigate it.
    Elias Levy mentioned a few following.

    Network Ingress Filtering:
    ==========================
    All  network  access  providers  should  implement network ingress
    filtering to stop any of their downstream networks from  injecting
    packets  with  faked  or  "spoofed"  addressed  into the Internet.
    Although this does not stop an attack from occurring it does  make
    it  much  easier  to  track  down  the  source  of  the attack and
    terminate  it  quickly.    For  information  on  network   ingress
    filtering read RFC 2267:

        http://info.internet.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc/files/rfc2267.txt

    Egress Filtering
    ================
    Chris Brenton  reminded us of the flip coin of ingress  filtering,
    egress filtering.   It can be  used by networks  connecting to the
    Internet to make  sure they are  not a source  of spoofed packets.
    You can find information about it at:

        http://www.sans.org/y2k/egress.htm

    Spoofed Packet Tracing
    ======================
    Chris also pointed out a  presentation by Robert Stone from  UUNET
    given at NANOG on CenterTrack.  CenterTrack is an overlay  network
    that allows you easily  determine the ingress network  edge router
    of  packets.   This  makes  it  easy  to  track down the source of
    spoofed packets.  You can find the presentation slides at:

        http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9910/robert.html

    Rate Limit Some Network Traffic:
    ================================
    A number of routers in  the market today have features  that allow
    you you  limit the  amount of  bandwidth some  type of traffic can
    consume.  This is sometimes referred to as "traffic shaping".   In
    Cisco IOS software  this feature is  called Committed Access  Rate
    (CAR).   CAR  allows  you  to  enforce  a bandwidth policy against
    network traffic that matches an access list.  This can be used  in
    a proactive way if you know  most of your network traffic will  be
    of some  particular type.  For example  if you  are running  a web
    farm you can configure the system such as any web traffic gets  as
    much bandwidth as it requires while limiting all other traffic  to
    smaller manageable rate.   It can also be  used in a reactive  way
    if  you  can  craft  an  access  rule  that will match some of the
    network traffic  using by  the DDOS  attack.   For example  if the
    attack is  employing ICMP  packets or  TCP SYN  packets you  could
    configure  the  system  to  specificly  limit  the bandwidth those
    types of  packets will  be allowed  to consume.   This will  allow
    some  of  these  packets  which  may  belong to legitimate network
    flows to go through.

    Because  of  the  avalanche  effect  of  the DDOS attacks for this
    option  to  be  effective  it  must  be deployed as depth into the
    network as possible (closer to the source of the attack  packets).
    You may  need to  ask your  network access  provider to  implement
    these  filters  for  you  in  their  routers.   This  will  not be
    possible for many organizations for a number of reasons.

    Furthermore, DDOS  attack tools  can generate  random packets such
    as that matching them with a  set of access list rules can  become
    difficult unless you  do so by  using negative space  (by defining
    normal traffic and assuming everything else is DDOS traffic).

    To find out more about CAR go to:

        http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/12cgcr/qos_c/qcpart4/qcpolts.htm
        http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/newsflash.html

    Intrusion Detection Systems
    ===========================
    Use an  Intrusion Detection  System to  detect attackers  that are
    communicating  with  the  "slave",  "master"  or "agent" machines.
    This will allow you to  know whether some machine in  your network
    is  being  used  to  launch  a  known attack but will probably not
    detect  new  variations  of  these  attacks  and  the  tools  that
    implement them.   Most IDS  vendors have  signatures available  to
    detect Trinoo, TNF or Stacheldraht network traffic.

    Axent has released an  updated signature for NetProwler  to detect
    DDOS attacks and communication with the DDOS agents.

        http://www2.axent.com/swat/3download_np.htm

    ISS's RealSecure 3.2.1 will detect DDOS attacks and  communication
    to with the DDOS agents.

    Host Auditing Tools
    ===================
    A number  of file  scanning tools  are available  that attempt  to
    detect the existence of known DDOS tool client and server binaries
    in  your  system.   A  number  of  host auditing tool vendors have
    updated  their  tools  to  include  these  signatures.   Just like
    antivirus software  the tools  become obsolete  as new  DDOS tools
    are developed or modified.

    The  NIPC  has  made  available  a  tool  called  "find_ddos" that
    searches  the   filesystem  for   the  Trinoo,   TNF,  TNF2K   and
    Stacheldraht DDOS tools.  The tool is available for Solaris (Sparc
    and Intel) and Linux (Intel)  operating systems.  Beware that  the
    NIPC does not provide source code  to this program.  You can  find
    the program at:

        http://www.fbi.gov/nipc/trinoo.htm

    Network Auditing Tools
    ======================
    A number of network scanning  tools are available that attempt  to
    detect  the  presence  of  DDOS  agents  running  on hosts on your
    network.  A number of  network auditing tool vendors have  updated
    their products to include the tests.  Just like antivirus software
    these tools  become obsolete  as new  DDOS tools  are developed or
    modified.

    Dave  Dittrich,  Marcus  Ranum,  and  others have developed "gag".
    This tool  detects Stacheldraht  agents.   Its available  for Unix
    systems.  You can find the program at:

        http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/misc/sickenscan.tar

    Dave Dittrich,  Marcus Ranum,  George Weaver,  David Brumley,  and
    others have developed  "dds".  This  tool detects Trinoo,  TFN and
    Stacheldraht agents.  You can find the program at:

        http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/misc/ddos_scan.tar

    David Brumley pointed out the is at least one other free  scanning
    tool called RID that will  detect the presence of Trinoo,  TFN, or
    Stacheldraht clients.  You can find this tool at:

        http://theorygroup.com/Software/RID/

    Axent has released an updated test for NetRecon to find hosts with
    DDOS agents.

        http://www2.axent.com/swat/News/nr30su1.htm

    ISS's Internet Scanner 6.01 will find hosts with DDOS agents.

    Automated Network Tracing Tools
    ===============================
    Tracing streams of packets  with faked or "spoof"  address through
    the  network  is  a  time   consuming  tasks  that  requires   the
    cooperation of all networks carrying the traffic and that must  be
    completed while the attack is in progress.

    If you  recall when  SYN flooding  DOS attacks  became fashionable
    back in 1997 MCI developed a tool called DoSTracker that automated
    a lot  of the  work required  for them  to trace  the source of an
    attack  through  their  network.   Tools  need  to be developed to
    automate  the  tracing  process  within  a  network under the same
    authority as well as tools that can request traces to be performed
    across network authority boundaries.

    Emergency Data Centers
    ======================
    One  can  also  think  of  these  attacks  as some type of natural
    disaster.   It  is  common  to  have  as  part  of  your  disaster
    contingency plans access to an offsite emergency data center  that
    can be brought online in a short period of time to resume  partial
    or full operational capacity.  Organizations with enough resources
    should consider such site as a mitigating factor to the risk of  a
    DDOS attack.

    Insurance
    =========
    A number  of insurance  companies are  now providing  computer and
    computer security related policies.  Under some circumstances this
    may provide a better return  on investment (ROI) that some  of the
    other measures  presented here.   Example of  companies  providing
    some type of computer security insurance are:

        http://www.tricityins.com/cc_insurance.htm
        http://www.securitydealers.com/protection/sedgwick.htm
        http://www.insuretrust.com/insurance.html
        http://www.aig.com/corpsite/pr2/pro04_17_97.html

    The Obvious
    ===========
    Secure your machines.  It won't stop you from being a victim of  a
    DDOS attack  but it  will stop  someone using  you as  a launching
    point for the attacks.   You may be found  liable if someone  uses
    your network and hosts to attack someone else.

    Snake Oil
    =========
    You should also be aware the  are a number of companies out  there
    that  claim  to  have  solutions  to  DDOS  attacks that they will
    happily sell you.   You should be  skeptical of anyone  peddling a
    "silver bullet" solution.  Caveat emptor.

    10  Proposed  'first-aid'  security  measures  against Distributed
    Denial Of Service attacks by Mixter:

        http://packetstorm.securify.com/distributed/firstaid.txt