http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid14_gci12555
48,00.html


Experts doubt Russian government launched DDoS attacks

  <file:///C:/spacer.gif>       

By Bill Brenner, Senior News Writer
18 May 2007 | SearchSecurity.com 

Some experts are dismissing speculation earlier this week that hackers
sponsored by the Russian government were behind a series of blistering
distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks in the Baltic country of
Estonia.

The attacks left Web sites for Estonia's prime minister, banks and schools
in disarray and some observers pointed fingers at Russia, given its apparent
anger over Estonia's decision to remove a bronze statue of a Soviet-era
soldier that was part of a World War II memorial. 


But information security experts now say it's very unlikely this was a case
of one government launching a coordinated cyberattack against another. It
was more likely the work of smaller organized groups in control of hijacked
computers from around the world, they said.

"Attributing a distributed denial-of-service attack like this to a
government is hard," Johannes Ullrich, chief research officer of the
Bethesda, Md.-based SANS Internet Storm Center (ISC), said in an email
exchange. "It may as well be a group of bot herders showing 'patriotism,'
kind of like what we had with Web defacements during the US-China spy-plane
crisis [in 2001]."

Hillar Aarelaid, chief security officer for Estonia's Computer Emergency
Response Team (CERT), said in published reports Thursday that most of the
affected Web sites have been restored to normal service. He also expressed
skepticism that the attacks were from the Russian government, noting that
Estonians were also divided on whether it was right to remove the statue.
And since the attacks began, investigators have found evidence that while
Russian hackers may be involved, malicious activity also originated from
computers in the U.S., Brazil, Canada and Vietnam.

"I think it is extremely unlikely that the attacks are being sponsored by
the Russian government," Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant for
UK-based security software company Sophos, said in an email exchange. "The
fact that DDoS attacks may be coming from Russian authority computers does
not necessarily mean that the Russian authorities have endorsed the attacks.
Indeed, it's quite possible that these are PCs which have been taken over by
remote hackers."

There have been many instances in the past where hackers have gained access
to poorly-defended government and military computers in order to cause
mischief, Cluley added.

"If you were the Russian government and wanted to launch an attack against
Estonian authority Web sites -- knowing that the world would take a keen
interest -- would you really use your own PCs to do it?" Cluley said. "It is
quite possible that this is a small group of politically motivated hackers
who have a grievance against the Estonian authorities who have taken remote
control of PCs to attack Estonian Web sites."

While that may be the case, industry experts said the incident is yet
another example of what can happen if governments don't do more to secure
their IT infrastructure. The U.S., for example, has come under scrutiny for
not doing more to harden its systems.

When a
<http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid14_gci1252
968,00.html> White House ID theft task force released recommendations to
better protect people from online fraud last month, for example, the Cyber
Security Industry Alliance (CSIA) said the document was short on guidelines
to help federal agencies address their own security shortcomings.

The U.S. government learned how vulnerable its systems can be two years ago
when it learned of ongoing attacks that were eventually dubbed
<http://security.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/05/18/a-snapshot-of-the-chinese-h
acking-scene/> Titan Rain. In those attacks, Chinese Web sites targeted
computer networks in the Defense Department and other U.S. agencies,
compromising hundreds of unclassified networks. Though classified
information wasn't taken, officials worried that even small, seemingly
insignificant bits of information can paint a valuable picture of an
adversary's strengths and weaknesses when pulled together.

Ullrich doesn't believe government networks are being defended well enough,
given the steady stream of news reports about compromised networks. But, he
added, defending against the kind of attack Estonia suffered is no easy
task.

"Defending against a DDoS is very hard if you are running a large government
network across globally-shared media," he said. "The best defense against a
DDoS is a contingency plan. [Governments] have to plan for widespread
network disruption. Once the attack is under way, critical records such as
phone lists may no longer be reachable." Any good disaster recovery plan
should cover these scenarios, he said.

John LaCour, a CISSP and director of product management for San
Francisco-based security firm MarkMonitor Inc., said it's equally important
for private enterprises to prepare for these kinds of attacks. After all, he
said, companies remain a bigger target than government systems.

"Virtually all American businesses are connected to the Internet so there's
an endless opportunity to go after private companies," he said. "But while
the government is on the Internet, classified systems are more restricted
and guarded. Often, cyberattacks are initiated by political groups who are
not necessarily state sponsored. As part of their method of operation, it's
about targeting the commercial interests."

Should there be escalating cyberattacks against first-world countries, he
said, attacks against commercial entities will also be more prevalent.
Therefore, enterprises need to have a response plan. 

"Often, organizations won't be able to defend against it on their own so
they should have a coordinated battle plan with their ISPs and others,"
LaCour said. "The big problem with DDoS attacks is the potential for
collateral damage beyond the prime target."

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Reply via email to