Category Archives: Security Websies

Hong Kong Protests: Anonymous Hackers Leak Chinese Government Data, Shutdown Websites

Hundreds of phone numbers, names, IP addresses and email addresses from Chinese government websites have been leaked online by the hacktivist collective Anonymous in support of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. Anonymous first threatened the attack last week through its ‘Operation Hong Kong’ affiliated branch, promising to leak government email address details and to shut down state websites through a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack. Over the weekend, shortly after a government statement condemning the threat of attack, personal details taken from the Ningbo Free Trade Zone in Zhejiang province and a job-search site were released by the group. “We cannot be with you on the streets. We cannot fight the police that are arresting you. But they cannot arrest an idea,” Anonymous said in a statement. “We have effectively hacked and shutdown government websites and their supporters. Some noticeable Chinese and Hong Kong government domains and networks have already acquired American services for their domains.” The group claims that such actions by the Chinese government prove that the attacks carried out “cannot be handled” and that the involvement of US-based providers prove that US corporations are complicit in supporting Beijing policy. The hacker group first announced its support for the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong at the beginning of October, stating in a video at the time: “The time has come for democracy for the citizens of Hong Kong.” Five suspected members of Anonymous have since been arrested in the region in connection with hacking attacks. Due to the secretive nature of Anonymous, some security experts have said that it is difficult to prove that these attacks actually stem from them, rather than western governments. Protests in the former British colony started last month after Beijing decided it was to screen candidates for the first election in the territory in 2017. Source: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hong-kong-protests-anonymous-leaks-chinese-government-data-1469747

Read More:
Hong Kong Protests: Anonymous Hackers Leak Chinese Government Data, Shutdown Websites

Researcher makes the case for DDOS attacks

When you start with the premise that capitalism is illegitimate it’s easy to dismiss other people’s property rights. To some people, a political mission matters more than anything, including your rights. Such people (the Bolsheviks come to mind) have caused a great deal of damage and suffering throughout history, especially in the last 100 years or so. Now they’re taking their mission online. You better not get in their way. Molly Sauter, a doctoral student at the Berkman Center at Harvard (“exploring cyberspace, sharing its study & pioneering its development”), has a paper calling the use of DDOS (distributed denial of service) attacks a legitimate form of activism and protest. This can’t go unchallenged. Sauter notes the severe penalties for DDOS attacks under “…Title 18, Section 1030 (a)(5) of the US Code, otherwise known as the CFAA” (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act). This section is short enough that I may as well quote it here verbatim: (5)(A) [Whoever] knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; (B) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or (C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss. There are other problems with the CFAA with respect to some legitimate security research and whether it technically falls afoul of the act, but that’s not the issue here. Sauter goes on in some detail with the penalties under Federal law for violating this act and, no argument here, they are extreme and excessive. You can easily end up with many years in prison. This is, in fact, a problem generally true of Federal law, the number of crimes under which has grown insanely in the last 30 or so years, with the penalties growing proportionately. For an informed and intelligent rant on the problem I recommend Three Felonies a Day by Harvey Silverglate. Back to hacktivist DDOS attacks. She cites cases of DDOS attacks committed against Koch Industries, Paypal, the Church of Scientology and Lufthansa Airlines, some of these by the hacktivists who call themselves Anonymous. In the US cases of the attacks against Koch, Paypal and the Church, the attackers received prison time and large fines and restitution payments. In the Lufthansa case, in a German court, the attacker was sentenced to pay a fine or serve 90 days in jail; that sentence was overturned on appeal. The court ruled that “…the online demonstration did not constitute a show of force but was intended to influence public opinion.” This is the sort of progressive opinion, dismissive of property rights, that Sauter regrets is not happening here in the US. She notes, and this makes sense to me, that the draconian penalties in the CFAA induce guilty pleas from defendants, preventing the opportunity for a Lufthansa-like precedent. This is part and parcel of the same outrageous growth of Federal criminal law I mentioned earlier; you’ll find the same incentive to plead guilty, even if you’re just flat-out innocent, all over the US Code. I would join Sauter in calling for some sanity in the sentencing in the CFAA, but I part ways with her argument that political motives are a mitigating, even excusing factor. Sauter’s logic rises from a foundation of anti-capitalism: …it would appear that the online space is being or has already been abdicated to a capitalist-commercial governance structure, which happily merges the interests of corporate capitalism with those of the post-9/11 security state while eliding democratic values of political participation and protest, all in the name of ‘stability.’ Once you determine that capitalism is illegitimate, respect for other people’s property rights is no longer a problem. Fortunately, the law protects people against the likes of Anonymous and other anti-capitalist heroes of the far left. I would not have known or cared about Sauter’s article had it not been for a favorable link to it by Bruce Schneier. Schneier is a Fellow at the Berkman Center. Progressives and other leftists who think DDOS, i.e. impeding the business of a person or entity with whom you disagree in order to make a political point, should consider the shoe on the other foot. If I disagree with Schneier’s positions is it cool for me to crash his web site or those of other organizations with which he is affiliated, such as the Berkman Center, the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and BT (formerly British Telecom)? I could apply the same principle to anti-abortion protesters impeding access to a clinic. I’m disappointed with Schneier for implying with his link that it’s legitimate to engage in DDOS attacks for political purposes. It’s worth repeating that Sauter has a point about the CFAA, particularly with respect to the sentences. It does need to be reformed — along with a large chunk of other Federal law. The point of these laws is supposed to be to protect people against the offenses of others, not to protect the offender. Source: http://www.zdnet.com/researcher-makes-the-case-for-ddos-attacks-7000034560/

See the original article here:
Researcher makes the case for DDOS attacks

.Anonymous threatens China, Hong Kong authorities with website blackout for DDoS attacks

Anonymous, the nebulous online activist group that uses hacking to further causes it supports, has threatened a major blackout of Chinese and Hong Kong government websites, and to leak tens of thousands of government email address details. The group, under the banner of ‘Operation Hong Kong’ or ‘#OpHongKong’ and ‘#OpHK’ on Twitter, said on Friday it will launch a mass effort against Chinese government servers to bring down their websites via Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on Saturday. DDoS attacks attempt to cripple networks by overwhelming them with Internet traffic. “Here’s your heads up, prepare for us, try to stop it, the only success you will have will be taking all your sites offline,” an Anonymous statement posted online said. “China, you cannot stop us. You should have expected us before abusing your power against the citizens of Hong Kong.” Demonstrations in Hong Kong have seen the use of tear gas, violent clashes and mass disruptions to business and traffic as people campaign for the right to democratically elect the Asian financial hub’s leader. Hong Kong’s refusal so far to negotiate with protesters, and a police reaction that many labelled as heavy-handed, has sparked widespread condemnation that has now spread to Anonymous, which often campaigns for civil liberties by attacking people or institutions it sees as opponents of those rights. “If this is true, it will show that the Chinese government is a victim of internet hacking,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei at a daily news briefing. “ China has consistently stressed our opposition to all internet hacking attack activities. We rebuke the acts of this organisation.” The Chinese government’s Hong Kong Liaison Office also said its website had been attacked twice on Wednesday and Thursday, blocking visitors to the site for a time. “This kind of internet attack violates the law and social morals, and we have already reported it to the police,” it said, adding that the website was running normally again. Among the websites Anonymous said it would target are those of China’s Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Justice and Hong Kong police. “Prepping for massive DDoS attacks, Database dumps, etc… Will be destroying #China Government,” wrote one Anonymous participant on Twitter. China’s Defence Ministry, in a statement sent to Reuters, said its website was subject to numerous hacking attacks every day from both home and overseas. “We have taken necessary steps to protect the safe operation of the Defence Ministry website,” it added. The State Internet Information Office, China’s internet regulator, declined to comment. The Ministry of Public Security declined to immediately comment by telephone. The Hong Kong Police Force was not available for immediate comment. The Ministry of Justice said it was not aware of the threat from Anonymous, and that its website wasn’t its responsibility to maintain. The Legal Network Media Beijing Company, which maintains the Ministry of Justice site, said it had not had official notice about any attack, nor had it detected any attacks on the website so far. “If there are future hacking attacks, we have confidence they can be resolved,” said a technician at the company who gave his surname as Zhong.   Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/10/uk-china-hongkong-internet-idUKKCN0HZ0KY20141010

See the original article here:
.Anonymous threatens China, Hong Kong authorities with website blackout for DDoS attacks

DDoS Attacks Can Take Down Your Online Services Part 3: Defending Against DDoS Attacks

Various defense strategies can be invoked to defend against DDoS attacks. Many of these depend upon the intensity of the attack. We discuss some of these in this article. Mitigation Strategies Some protection from DDoS attacks can be provided by firewalls and intrusion-prevention systems (systems that monitor for malicious activity). When a DDoS attack begins, it is important to determine the method or methods that the attacker is using. The web site’s front-end networking devices and the server’s processing flow may be able to be reconfigured to stop the attack. UDP Attacks UDP (User Datagram Protocol) attacks send a mass of UDP requests to a victim system, which must respond to each request. One example is a ping attack. It is an enormous influx of ping requests from an attacker that requires the victim server to respond with ping responses. Another example of a UDP attack is when the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) must be used by the server to return error messages. The messages may indicate that a requested service is unavailable or that a host or router cannot be reached. An attacker may send UDP messages to random ports on the victim server, and the server must respond with a “port unreachable” ICMP message. Mitigation Strategy In the case of a UDP attack, the firewall could be configured to reject all UDP messages. True, this would prevent legitimate use of UDP messages, such as pings sent by monitoring services to measure the uptimes and response times of the web site. However, to be shown as failed by a monitoring service is much better than actually being down. SYN Attacks In a SYN attack, a mass of connection requests are sent to the victim server via SYN messages. Typically, the victim server will assign connection resources and will respond with SYN ACK messages. The server expects the requesting client to complete the connections with ACK messages. However, the attacker never completes the connections; and the server soon runs out of resources to handle further connection requests. Mitigation Strategy In this case, the server connection facility could be reconfigured so that it did not assign connection resources until it received the ACK from the client. This would slightly extend the time required to establish a connection but would protect the server from being overwhelmed by this sort of an attack. DNS Reflection Attack A DNS reflection attack allows an attacker to send a massive amount of malicious traffic to a victim server by generating a relatively small amount of traffic. DNS requests with a spoofed victim address are sent to multiple DNS systems to resolve a URL. The DNS servers respond to the victim system with DNS responses. What makes this sort of attack so efficient is that the DNS response is about 100 times as large as the DNS request. Therefore, the attacker only needs to generate 1% of the traffic that will be sent to the victim system. DNS reflection attacks depend upon DNS open resolvers that will accept requests from anywhere on the Internet. DNS open resolvers were supposed to have been removed from the Internet, but 27 million still remain. Mitigation Strategy A defense against DNS reflection attacks is to allow only DNS responses from the domain of the victim server to be passed to the server. Mitigation Services Given a sufficiently large DDoSattack, even the steps mentioned here may not protect a system. If nothing else, the attack can overwhelm the bandwidth of the victim’s connection to the Internet. In such cases, the next step is to use the services of a DDoS mitigation company with large data centers that can spread the attack volume over multiple data centers and can scrub the traffic to separate bad traffic from legitimate traffic. Prolexic, Tata Communications, AT&T, Verisign, CloudFare, and others are examples of DDoS mitigation providers. These services will also monitor the nature of the attack and will adjust their defenses to be effective in the face of an attacker that modifies its strategies as the attack progresses. Legality DDoS attacks are specifically outlawed by many countries. Violators in the U.K. can serve up to ten years in prison. The U.S. has similar penalties, as do most major countries. However, there are many countries from which DDoS attacks can be launched without penalty. With respect to the Spamhaus attack described in Part 1, the CEO of CyberBunker, a Dutch company, was arrested in Spain and was returned to the Netherlands for prosecution. Summary Companies must prepare for the likelihood of losing their public-facing web services and must make plans for how they will continue in operation if these services are taken down. This should be a major topic in their Business Continuity Plans. For instance, in the case of the bank attacks described in Part 1, many banks made plans to significantly increase their call center capabilities to handle customer services should their web sites be taken down by a DDoS attack. DDoS attacks are here to stay. They are motivated by too many factors – retaliation, political statements, aggressive competitors, ransom – and are fairly easy to launch. Botnets can be rented inexpensively. There are even sophisticated tools available on the darknet to launch significant attacks. The defenses against DDoS attacks are at best limited. The ultimate defense is to subscribe to a DDoS mitigation service that can be called upon when needed. Source: http://www.techproessentials.com/ddos-attacks-can-take-down-your-online-services-part-3-defending-against-ddos-attacks/

Read the article:
DDoS Attacks Can Take Down Your Online Services Part 3: Defending Against DDoS Attacks

Monster banking Trojan botnet claims 500,000 victims

This ain’t your father’s ZeuS Security researchers have uncovered the infrastructure behind one of largest and most voracious banking Trojan networks uncovered to date.…

See more here:
Monster banking Trojan botnet claims 500,000 victims

Will we ever can the spam monster?

An unending battle against email-borne nasties and botnets Spam may be the best known security threat in the world. Anyone with email or a Facebook account has experienced it, despite providers’ best efforts to block it from their inboxes.…

Continue Reading:
Will we ever can the spam monster?

MAC BOTNET uses REDDIT comments for directions

17,000 Macs compromised by malicious miscreants A zombie network that feasts on the computer brains of infected Macs has press-ganged 17,000 compromised machines into its ranks, Russian anti-virus firm Dr Web warns.…

Visit site:
MAC BOTNET uses REDDIT comments for directions

The History of DDoS Attacks as a Tool of Protest

Although the web is only a quarter of a century old, it already has a rich history as a platform for worldwide protest. One common tool used by online activists is the distributed denial of service attack, or DDoS: a technologically crude tactic that involves sending so many requests to a target website that it crashes. In recent years, politically motivated DDoS attacks have been launched on the websites of financial giants and local government departments. This year, websites affiliated with the football World Cup were brought down in protest against FIFA. “DDoS has been around as an activist tactic probably since the early 90s,” Molly Sauter, a research affiliate at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society and doctoral student at McGill University, told me. Sauter is the author of the upcoming book The Coming Swarm: DDoS Actions, Hacktivism and Civil Disobedience , which details the history of the DDoS attack from an obscure, insular activity carried out by artists and intellectuals to a hallmark of 21 st century protest. The earliest example of a DDoS attack that Sauter found in her research was implemented by the Strano Network, an Italian collective that launched an attack in 1995 to protest against the French government’s nuclear policy. Back then, DDoS attacks were laborious, manual affairs, requiring participants to constantly remain at their computer. And because having an internet connection was relatively expensive, they couldn’t last for long. The attack in this case only endured for about an hour. The next major milestone was the use of DDoS by the Electronic Disturbance Theater (EDT). Originating in the 90s, and attracting the attention of the media by the end of the decade, the hacktivist group described DDoS as akin to a “virtual sit-in.” One thing that separated them from their predecessors was their use of tools developed in-house, which allowed anyone outside of the organisation to join in. Their kit, called FloodNet, directed a user’s traffic to a target predetermined by the EDT, which included the websites of politicians and the White House. Those wishing to join the “sit-in” simply selected their target from a drop down menu, clicked attack, and relaxed while FloodNet automatically bombarded the offending server. The well-known hacker collective Anonymous took this idea of crowd-sourced activism further, and popularised the idea of voluntary botnets. Often used by criminals, a botnet is a large number of systems, all linked together, which give whoever is in charge of them a whole lot of processing power to wield. DDoS is incredibly simplistic, at a purely technological level. By using the hacker-designed software Low Orbit Ion Cannon, and its subsequent upgrades, participants could connect their computer to a vast network and have it donate resources to DDoS attacks. And that pretty much brings us up to today. “DDoS is incredibly simplistic, at a purely technological level,” Sauter said. “While there might be individual innovations in ways of masking or multiplying traffic, it’s not actually going to get much more advanced than that.” But it’s not just the technical details of DDoS that have mutated over the years. The scale of attacks using the device has developed, too. “Groups have become better at attracting, acknowledging and manipulating media coverage in order to attract more participants,” Sauter explained. While earlier groups just did their own thing, Anonymous managed to engage those outside of their immediate cohort more readily. With their iconic imagery, popular Twitter accounts and evocative videos, the media had a lot of material to work with. The press lacked any sort of official spokesperson of Anonymous to talk to—“So they just tended to reproduce these artifacts in media coverage, which did the work of recruitment for Anonymous,” Sauter observed. “Anonymous didn’t have to do a lot of ‘active’ outreach. That was being done for them.” What actually constitutes a ‘successful’ DDoS attack has also changed. “In the 90s, you could sit in front of your computer with your friends, go to whitehouse.gov, click refresh a bunch of times, and you had a significant chance of the website crashing,” said Sauter. An industry has since emerged to offer protection from DDoS attacks, so crashing a major service today is rarer, though still possible with some serious fire-power. But there’s another way to measure the success of DDoS actions than just website down time. Sauter explained that, when it comes to activism in general, “The logic of change is that you have an action, you get covered in the press, then politicians and the public react to the press coverage, not so much the action itself.” This overall impact is perhaps more important than how long a specific website is technically inaccessible. As Sauter said, “The question of what success means is fairly up in the air.” Some argue that DDoS as a protest tool should be formally recognised as political speech, and enjoy the same free-speech protections as street marches, for example. Jay Leiderman, a criminal defense lawyer, has argued that DDoS is a first amendment issue in defence of the “PayPal 14,” a group of WikiLeaks supporters involved in a DDoS attack against the e-commerce business. Attorney Stanley Cohen, who represented one of the accused, described the act as an “electronic sit in,” and members of Anonymous also created a petition, pushing for politically motivated DDoS to be legalised. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND OTHER TYPES OF ORGANISED LAW BREAKING ONLINE ARE STILL CONSIDERED VERY MUCH FRINGE ACTIVITIES. But DDoS can of course also be used for much less sympathetic purposes. “The biggest problem that activist DDoS faces in terms of its fight for legitimacy is criminal DDoS,” said Sauter. “DDoS is a very popular tactic in terms of harassment, extortion and other criminality.” For example, botnets for DDoSing purposes are reportedly already being created to exploit the Shell Shock bug, a recently revealed weakness in Linux and Unix operating systems. Furthermore, Sauter suggested that online activism in general still isn’t really accepted because it remains an alien concept to many people. “Civil disobedience and other types of organised law breaking online are still considered very much fringe activities because there isn’t an understanding that civil disobedience is something that you can do on the internet,” Sauter said. “That I hope is something that will change, but it will take a legal challenge.” But Sauter feels that political DDoS will continue to gain popularity when it comes to activism, and that it might even have something more to give. Whether it’s the Electronic Disturbance Theater protesting against neoliberalism, or Anonymous rising up to fight what they see as injustices, DDoS actions do not exist in a vacuum. Today, politically motivated DDoS is often part of a broader activist culture in the information age. Sauter suggested it could therefore introduce activists to other ideas, “such as information exfiltration, and leaking, and the construction of alternative infrastructures to replace the corporate-dominated and government-surveilled that are currently the main ways of socialising and communicating online.” In short, DDoS attacks in activist circles can be about more than just crashing a few servers. Source: http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/history-of-the-ddos-attack

Visit link:
The History of DDoS Attacks as a Tool of Protest

Global DDoS attack numbers decline, attacks from China rise

In the second quarter of 2014, Akamai observed attack traffic originating from 161 unique countries/regions, which was 33 fewer than the first quarter of the year. The highest concentration of attacks…

Read More:
Global DDoS attack numbers decline, attacks from China rise

Shellshock: ‘LARGER SCALE ATTACK’ on its way, warn securo-bods

Not just web servers under threat – though TENS of THOUSANDS have been hit The Shellshock vulnerability has already become the focus for malicious scanning and at least one botnet but crooks are still testing the waters with the vulnerability and much worse could follow, security watchers warn.…

Follow this link:
Shellshock: ‘LARGER SCALE ATTACK’ on its way, warn securo-bods