Introduction

The distributed denial
of service attacks during the week of February 7 highlighted security
weaknesses in hosts and software used in the Internet that put electronic
commerce at risk. These attacks also illuminated several recent trends and
served as a warning for the kinds of high-impact attacks that we may see in the
near future. This document outlines key trends and other factors that have
exacerbated these Internet security problems, summarizes near-term activities
that can be taken to help reduce the threat, and suggests research and
development directions that will be required to manage the emerging risks and
keep them within more tolerable bounds. For the problems described, activities are
listed for user organizations, Internet service providers, network
manufacturers, and system software providers.

Key Trends and Factors

The recent attacks
against e-commerce sites demonstrate the opportunities that attackers now have
because of several Internet trends and related factors:

  • Attack technology is
    developing in an open-source environment and is evolving rapidly. Technology
    producers, system administrators, and users are improving their ability to
    react to emerging problems, but they are behind and significant damage to
    systems and infrastructure can occur before effective defenses can be
    implemented. As long as defensive strategies are reactionary, this situation
    will worsen. Currently, there are tens of thousands – perhaps even millions – of
    systems with weak security connected to the Internet. Attackers are (and will)
    compromising these machines and building attack networks. Attack technology
    takes advantage of the power of the Internet to exploit its own weaknesses and
    overcome defenses.
  • Increasingly complex
    software is being written by programmers who have no training in writing secure
    code and are working in organizations that sacrifice the safety of their
    clients for speed to market. This complex software is then being deployed in
    security-critical environments and applications, to the detriment of all users.
  • User demand for new
    software features instead of safety, coupled with industry response to that
    demand, has resulted in software that is increasingly supportive of subversion,
    computer viruses, data theft, and other malicious acts.
  • Because of the scope
    and variety of the Internet, changing any particular piece of technology
    usually cannot eliminate newly emerging problems; broad community action is
    required. While point solutions can help dampen the effects of attacks, robust
    solutions will come only with concentrated effort over several years.
  • The explosion in use
    of the Internet is straining our scarce technical talent. The average level of
    system administrator technical competence has decreased dramatically in the
    last 5 years as non-technical people are pressed into service as system
    administrators. Additionally, there has been little organized support of higher
    education programs that can train and produce new scientists and educators with
    meaningful experience and expertise in this emerging discipline.
  • The evolution of
    attack technology and the deployment of attack tools transcend geography and
    national boundaries. Solutions must be international in scope.
  • The difficulty of criminal
    investigation of cybercrime coupled with the complexity of international law
    mean that successful apprehension and prosecution of computer crime is
    unlikely, and thus little deterrent value is realized.
  • The number of directly
    connected homes, schools, libraries and other venues without trained system
    administration and security staff is rapidly increasing. These “always-on,
    rarely-protected” systems allow attackers to continue to add new systems
    to their arsenal of captured weapons.

Immediate Steps to
Reduce Risk and Dampen the Effects of Attacks

There are several
steps that can be taken immediately by user organizations, Internet service
providers, network manufacturers, and system software providers to reduce risk
and decrease the impact of attacks. We hope that major users, including the
governments (around the world) will lead the user community by setting examples
– taking the necessary steps to protect their computers. And we hope that
industry and government will cooperate to educate the community of users –
about threats and potential courses of action – through public information
campaigns and technical education programs.

In all of these
recommendations, there may be instances where some steps are not feasible, but
these will be rare and requests for waivers within organizations should be
granted only on the basis of substantive proof validated by independent
security experts.

Problem 1: Spoofing

Attackers often hide
the identity of machines used to carry out an attack by falsifying the source
address of the network communication. This makes it more difficult to identity
the sources of attack traffic and sometimes shifts attention onto innocent
third parties. Limiting the ability of an attacker to spoof IP source addresses
will not stop attacks, but will dramatically shorten the time needed to trace
an attack back to its origins.

Solutions:

  • User organizations and
    Internet service providers can ensure that traffic exiting an organization’s
    site, or entering an ISP’s network from a site, carries a source address
    consistent with the set of addresses for that site. Although this would still
    allow addresses to be spoofed within a site, it would allow tracing of attack
    traffic to the site from which it emanated, substantially assisting in the
    process of locating and isolating attacks traffic sources. Specifically user
    organizations should ensure that all packets leaving their sites carry source
    addresses within the address range of those sites. They should also ensure that
    no traffic from “unroutable addresses” listed in RFC 1918 are sent
    from their sites. This activity is often called egress filtering. User
    organizations should take the lead in stopping this traffic because they have
    the capacity on their routers to handle the load. ISPs can provide backup to
    pick up spoofed traffic that is not caught by user filters. ISPs may also be
    able to stop spoofing by accepting traffic (and passing it along) only if it
    comes from authorized sources. This activity is often called ingress filtering.
  • Dial-up users are the
    source of some attacks. Stopping spoofing by these users is also an important
    step. ISPs, universities, libraries and others that serve dial-up users should
    ensure that proper filters are in place to prevent dial-up connections from using
    spoofed addresses. Network equipment vendors should ensure that no-IP-spoofing
    is a user setting, and the default setting, on their dial-up equipment.

Problem 2: Broadcast
Amplification

In a common attack,
the malicious user generates packets with a source address of the site he
wishes to attack (site A) (using spoofing as described in problem 1) and then
sends a series of network packets to an organization with lots of computers
(Site B), using an address that broadcasts the packets to every machine at site
B. Unless precautions have been taken, every machine at Site B will respond to
the packets and send data to the organization (Site A) that was the target of
the attack. The target will be flooded and people at Site A may blame the
people at Site B. Attacks of this type often are referred to as Smurf attacks.
In addition, the echo and chargen services can be used to create oscillation
attacks similar in effect to Smurf.

Solutions:

  • Unless an organization
    is aware of a legitimate need to support broadcast or multicast traffic within
    its environment, the forwarding of directed broadcasts should be turned off.
    Even when broadcast applications are legitimate, an organization should block
    certain types of traffic sent to “broadcast” addresses (e.g., ICMP Echo
    Reply) messages so that its systems cannot be used to effect these Smurf
    attacks. Network hardware vendors should ensure that routers can turn off the
    forwarding of IP directed broadcast packets as described in RFC 2644 and that
    this is the default configuration of every router.
  • Users should turn off
    echo and chargen services unless they have a specific need for those services.
    (This is good advice, in general, for all network services – they should be
    disabled unless known to be needed.)

Problem 3: Lack of
Appropriate Response To Attacks

Many organizations do
not respond to complaints of attacks originating from their sites or to attacks
against their sites, or respond in a haphazard manner. This makes containment
and eradication of attacks difficult. Further, many organizations fail to share
information about attacks, giving the attacker community the advantage of
better intelligence sharing.

Solutions:

  • User organizations
    should establish incident response policies and teams with clearly defined
    responsibilities and procedures. ISPs should establish methods of responding
    quickly and staffing to support those methods when their systems are found to
    have been used for attacks on other organizations.
  • User organizations
    should encourage system administrators to participate in industry-wide early
    warning systems, where their corporate identities can be protected (if
    necessary), to counter rapid dissemination of information among the attack
    community.
  • Attacks and system
    flaws should be reported to appropriate authorities (e.g., vendors, response
    teams) so that the information can be applied to defenses for other users.

Problem 4: Unprotected
Computers

Many computers are
vulnerable to take-over for distributed denial of service attacks because of
inadequate implementation of well-known “best practices.” When those
computers are used in attacks, the carelessness of their owners is instantly
converted to major costs, headaches, and embarrassment for the owners of
computers being attacked. Furthermore, once a computer has been compromised,
the data may be copied, altered or destroyed, programs changed, and the system
disabled.

Solutions:

  • User organizations
    should check their systems periodically to determine whether they have had
    malicious software installed, including DDOS Trojan Horse programs. If such
    software is found, the system should be restored to a known good state.
  • User organizations
    should reduce the vulnerability of their systems by installing firewalls with
    rule sets that tightly limit transmission across the site’s periphery (e.g.
    deny traffic, both incoming and outgoing, unless given specific instructions to
    allow it).
  • All machines, routers,
    and other Internet-accessible equipment should be periodically checked to
    verify that all recommended security patches have been installed.
  • The security community
    should maintain and publicize a current “Top-20 Exploited
    vulnerabilities” and the “Top 20 Attacks” list of currently
    most-often-exploited vulnerabilities to help system administrators set
    priorities.
  • Users should turn off
    services that are not required and limit access to vulnerable management
    services (e.g., RPC-based services).
  • Users and vendors
    should cooperate to create “system-hardening” scripts that can be
    used by less sophisticated users to close known holes and tighten settings to
    make their systems more secure. Users should employ these tools when they are
    available.
  • System software
    vendors should ship systems where security defaults are set to the highest
    level of security rather than the lowest level of security. These “secure
    out-of –the-box” configurations will greatly aid novice users and system
    administrators. They will furthermore save critically-scarce time for even the
    most experienced security professionals.
  • System administrators
    should deploy “best practice” tools including firewalls (as described
    above), intrusion detection systems, virus detection software, and software to
    detect unauthorized changes to files. This will reduce the risk that systems
    are compromised and used as a base for launching attacks. It will increase
    confidence in the correct functioning of the systems. Use of software to detect
    unauthorized changes may also be helpful in restoring compromised systems to
    normal function.
  • System and network
    administrators should be given time and support for training and enhancement of
    their skills. System administrators and auditors should be periodically certified
    to verify that their security knowledge and skills are current.

Longer Term Efforts to
Provide Adequate Safeguards

The steps listed above
are needed now to allow us to begin to move away from the extremely vulnerable
state we are in. While these steps will help, they will not adequately reduce
the risk given the trends listed above. These trends hint at new security
requirements that will only be met if information technology and community
attitudes about the Internet are changed in fundamental ways. In addition,
research is needed in the areas of policy and law to enable us to deal with
aspects of the problem that technology improvements will not be able to address
by themselves. The following are some of the items that should be considered:

  • Establish load and
    traffic volume monitoring at ISPs to provide early warning of attacks.
  • Accelerate the
    adoption of the IPsec components of Internet Protocol Version 6 and Secure
    Domain Name System.
  • Increase the emphasis
    on security in the research and development of Internet II.
  • Support the
    development of tools that automatically generate router access control lists
    for firewall and router policy.
  • Encourage the
    development of software and hardware that is engineered for safety with
    possibly vulnerable settings and services turned off, and encourage vendors to
    automate security updating for their clients.
  • Sponsor research in
    network protocols and infrastructure to implement real-time flow analysis and
    flow control.
  • Encourage wider
    adoption of routers and switches that can perform sophisticated filtering with
    minimal performance degradation.
  • Sponsor continuing
    topological studies of the Internet to understand the nature of “choke
    points.”
  • Test deployment and
    continue research in anomaly-based, and other forms of intrusion detection.
  • Support community-wide
    consensus of uniform security policies to protect systems and to outline
    security responsibilities of network operators, Internet service providers, and
    Internet users.
  • Encourage development
    and deployment of a secure communications infrastructure that can be used by
    network operators and Internet service providers to enable real-time
    collaboration when dealing with attacks.
  • Sponsor research and
    development leading to safer operating systems that are also easier to maintain
    and manage.
  • Sponsor research into
    survivable systems that are better able to resist, recognize, and recover from
    attacks while still providing critical functionality.
  • Sponsor research into
    better forensic tools and methods to trace and apprehend malicious users
    without forcing the adoption of privacy-invading monitoring.
  • Provide meaningful
    infrastructure support for centers of excellence in information security
    education and research to produce a new generation of leaders in the field.

Consider changes in
government procurement policy to emphasize security and safety rather than
simply cost when acquiring information systems, and to hold managers
accountable for poor security.

Send your feedbacks

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s