case study: time line of ddos campaigns against mit issue date · signatures from other ddos attack...

10
1 Case Study: Time Line of DDoS campaigns against MIT Authored by Wilber Mejia, Akamai SIRT 1.0 / OVERVIEW / This publication details a series of DDoS attack campaigns against the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) network. So far in 2016, MIT has received more than 35 DDoS campaigns against several different targets which have been mitigated by at least one of our cloud solutions. Further investigation by Akamai Security Intelligence Response Team (SIRT) revealed that close to 43% of attack vectors leveraged during these campaigns included DDoS reflection and amplification. The full vector list consisted of ACK , CHARGEN, DNS, GET, ICMP, NTP, NETBIOS, RESERVE protocol, SNMP, SSDP, SYN, TCP anomaly, UDP, and UDP FRAGMENT floods. Attackers targeted multiple destination IPs within the MIT network during the campaigns. Attacks originated from a combination of devices vulnerable to reflection abuse and spoofed IP sources. The full vector distribution breakdown for all attacks is listed in Figure 4. The analysis is based on fingerprinted signatures collected from attack reports as well as the source IPs from our mitigation devices. The largest attack campaign peaked at 295 Gbps and consisted of only a UDP flood attack vector. Prior to that, the largest attack peaked at 89.35 Gbps using a combination of UDP flood, DNS flood, and UDP fragment attack vectors. During this campaign, attackers targeted a total of three destination IP addresses. These attack types have commonly been included in sites offering so-called booter or stresser services. UDP and DNS reflections attack vectors generated the majority of attack traffic from the investigated campaigns. However, on May 6, 2015, MIT experienced a very large DDoS campaign which included a specific padded SYN flood. Additional information surrounding this campaign is described in more detail within the 2015 attacks section of the State of the Internet - Security Report. 2.0 / HIGHLIGHTED ATTACK CAMPAIGN ATTRIBUTES / Although Xor DDoS BOTNET attacks were persistent, they did not produce the largest amount of malicious traffic against MIT. As mentioned previously, the largest attack peaked at 295 Gbps | 58.6 Mpps while the attack peaked at 89.35 Gbps | 8.37 Mpps. The latter attack was launched using attacks and tools commonly offered in booter/stresser suites. The 295 Gbps attack was comprised of a specific UDP flood signature which is believed to be part of a malware variant known as STD/Kaiten. An ongoing investigation is being conducted by Akamai SIRT regarding this malware. Listed below are some campaign highlights: TLP: WHITE Issue Date: 7.22.2016

Upload: others

Post on 26-Aug-2020

15 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Case Study: Time Line of DDoS campaigns against MIT Issue Date · signatures from other DDoS attack campaigns launched against MIT. Some of these are attributed to specific attack

1

CaseStudy:Time LineofDDoScampaignsagainstMITAuthoredbyWilberMejia,AkamaiSIRT

1.0/OVERVIEW/This publicationdetailsaseriesofDDoSattackcampaignsagainsttheMIT(MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology)network.Sofarin2016,MIThasreceivedmorethan35DDoScampaignsagainstseveraldifferenttargetswhichhavebeenmitigatedbyatleastoneofourcloudsolutions.

FurtherinvestigationbyAkamaiSecurity Intelligence Response Team (SIRT) revealedthatcloseto43%ofattackvectorsleveragedduringthesecampaignsincludedDDoSreflectionandamplification.ThefullvectorlistconsistedofACK,CHARGEN,DNS,GET,ICMP,NTP,NETBIOS,RESERVEprotocol,SNMP,SSDP,SYN,TCPanomaly,UDP,andUDPFRAGMENTfloods.AttackerstargetedmultipledestinationIPswithintheMITnetworkduringthecampaigns.AttacksoriginatedfromacombinationofdevicesvulnerabletoreflectionabuseandspoofedIPsources.ThefullvectordistributionbreakdownforallattacksislistedinFigure4.

TheanalysisisbasedonfingerprintedsignaturescollectedfromattackreportsaswellasthesourceIPsfromourmitigationdevices.Thelargestattackcampaignpeakedat295Gbpsand consistedofonlyaUDPfloodattackvector.Priortothat,thelargestattackpeakedat89.35 GbpsusingacombinationofUDPflood,DNSflood,andUDPfragmentattackvectors.Duringthiscampaign,attackerstargetedatotalofthreedestinationIPaddresses.Theseattacktypeshavecommonlybeenincludedinsitesofferingso-calledbooterorstresserservices.

UDPandDNSreflectionsattackvectorsgeneratedthemajorityofattacktrafficfromtheinvestigatedcampaigns.However,onMay6, 2015,MITexperiencedaverylargeDDoScampaignwhichincludedaspecificpaddedSYNflood.Additionalinformationsurroundingthiscampaignisdescribedinmoredetailwithinthe2015attackssectionoftheStateoftheInternet-SecurityReport.

2.0/HIGHLIGHTEDATTACKCAMPAIGNATTRIBUTES/AlthoughXorDDoSBOTNETattackswerepersistent,theydidnotproducethelargestamountofmalicioustrafficagainstMIT.Asmentionedpreviously,thelargestattackpeakedat295Gbps|58.6Mppswhiletheattackpeakedat89.35Gbps|8.37Mpps.Thelatterattackwaslaunchedusingattacksandtoolscommonlyofferedinbooter/stressersuites.The295GbpsattackwascomprisedofaspecificUDPfloodsignaturewhichisbelievedtobepartofamalwarevariantknownasSTD/Kaiten.AnongoinginvestigationisbeingconductedbyAkamaiSIRTregardingthismalware.Listedbelowaresomecampaignhighlights:

TLP:WHITE

IssueDate:7.22.2016

Page 2: Case Study: Time Line of DDoS campaigns against MIT Issue Date · signatures from other DDoS attack campaigns launched against MIT. Some of these are attributed to specific attack

2

LARGESTATTACKCAMPAIGN ● EventTimeStart:June7,201622:48:55UTC● EventTimeEnd:June8,201617:04:04UTC● Peakbandwidth:295Gigabitspersecond● Peakpacketspersecond:58.6MillionPacketspersecond● AttackVector:UDPFlood,UDPFragment,DNSFlood● Sourceport:randomized● Destinationport:80

UDPFlood: 22:48:55.057813IPx.x.x.x.48679>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length600 22:48:55.057815IPx.x.x.x.46076>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length600 22:48:55.057819IPx.x.x.x.34698>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length600 22:48:55.057848IP181.136.97.12.34161>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length600 22:48:55.057853IP181.136.97.12.34161>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length600 22:48:55.057863IP201.232.6.199.44219>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length600

23:58:08.871990IPx.x.x.x.4751>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length1 23:58:08.871999IPx.x.x.x.4751>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length1 23:58:08.872005IPx.x.x.x.4751>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length1 23:58:08.872011IPx.x.x.x.4751>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length1 23:58:08.872014IPx.x.x.x.4751>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length1 23:58:08.875194IPx.x.x.x.4751>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length1 Figure1:LargestdocumentedUDPFloodcampaignagainstMIT

SECOND-LARGESTATTACKCAMPAIGN

● EventTimeStart:April2,201604:17:00UTC● EventTimeEnd:April2,201614:45:11UTC● Peakbandwidth:89.35Gigabitspersecond● Peakpacketspersecond:8.37MillionPacketspersecond● AttackVector:UDPFlood,UDPFragment,DNSFlood● Sourceport:53,randomized● Destinationport:randomized

UnlikeXor,thesekindsofattacksaremoreaccessibletoamuchlargerpopulationofmaliciousactors.Thefact,isalmostanyonewithmotivationandenoughknowledgetodeterminetheIPoftheirtargetcanlaunchtheseattacksatlowcost.ArecentlookatpricingonpopularsitesofferingDDoS“stresser”servicesshowthis attackcanbeperformedforaslittleas$19.99USD/month.

Page 3: Case Study: Time Line of DDoS campaigns against MIT Issue Date · signatures from other DDoS attack campaigns launched against MIT. Some of these are attributed to specific attack

3

Figure2:Examplebootersitepricingplans

Figure3containsall oftheattacksignaturesusedinthespecifiedDDoSattack.Inparticular,thesignaturerevealsthedomainsabusedfor theamplificaitonofattackreponsesincludedcpsc.govandisc.org.Inaddition,thesedomainsmakeuseofDNSSEC.ArecentAkamaiSIRTadvisorydetailstheincreasesinuseofDNSSEC-poweredreflectionattacks.TheseDNSattackshavebeenwidespreadacrossmultipleindustriesincludinggamingandfinancialservices.Thedomainownersthemselvesarenotatfaultanddon'tfeeltheeffectsoftheseattacks.AttackersabuseopenresolversbysendingabarrageofspoofedDNSquerieswheretheIPsourceissettobetheMITtargetIP.Mostoftheseserverswillcachetheinitialresponsesomultiplequeriesarenotmadetotheauthoritativenameservers.

DNSreflectionflood 04:17:11.736254IPx.x.x.x.53>x.x.x.x6007:45488|22/0/0DNSKEY,AAAA2600:803:240::2,A63.74.109.2,TXT"v=spf1ip4:63.74.109.6ip4:x.x.x.xip4:x.x.x.xmxa:REDACTED

04:17:11.736257IPx.x.x.x.53>x.x.x.x.30267:43542/2/0NSREDACTED.(105)

04:17:11.736276IPx.x.x.x.53>x.x.x.x7519:45488|22/0/0Type51,RRSIG,DNSKEY,DNSKEY,DNSKEY,DNSKEY[|domain]

04:17:11.736287IPx.x.x.x.53>x.x.x.x.44609:4354|22/0/0RRSIG,A63.74.109.2,TXT"v=spf1

04:20:08.919421IPx.x.x.x.53>x.x.x.x.51286:5215613/4/2SPF,DNSKEY,DNSKEY,NAPTR,TXT"v=spf1amxip4:x.x.x.x/21ip4:x.x.x.x/16ip6:2001:04F8::0/32ip6:xxx:xxx:xx::xx/128~all",REDACTED

04:20:08.920044IPx.x.x.x.53>x.x.x.x.15097:6481213/4/2MX)REDACTED

UDPfragmentflood 04:17:11.736255IPx.x.x.x>x.x.x.x:udp 04:17:11.736279IPx.x.x.x>x.x.x.x:udp 04:32:25.135792IPx.x.x.x>x.x.x.x:udp 04:32:25.135794IPx.x.x.x>x.x.x.x:udp Figure3:Second-largestdocumentedDNSreflectioncampaignagainstMIT

AllthreeidentifiedsignaturesarerelatedtotheuseofDNSreflectionandamplification.Thelargestresponsesizeofdomainsusedintheattackarelargerthan4,000bytes.ThiscausesfragmentedUDPresponsesduetosurpassingtheMTUsizelimit.Inaddition,theopenresolversatsomepointresponded

Page 4: Case Study: Time Line of DDoS campaigns against MIT Issue Date · signatures from other DDoS attack campaigns launched against MIT. Some of these are attributed to specific attack

4

onrandomsourceports,creatingwhatappearedtobeaUDPflood.ThisfloodcontainedpartsoftheDNSresponsesaswell.

3.0/SAMPLESIGNATURESFROMALLATTACKCAMPAIGNS/InFigure4wehaveincludedattacksignaturesfromotherDDoSattackcampaignslaunchedagainstMIT.Someoftheseareattributedtospecificattacktoolsormalwareasnotedwithintheassociatedheading.Allofthereflectionattacksincludedtypicallyhaveknownattackscriptsnamedaftertheprotocolbeingabusedforreflection.AkamaiSIRThasidentifiedseveral attack scriptsbasedonactivereflectedDDoScampaignsmitigatedthroughouttheyears.

tcpanomaly(noflagflood) 06:16:47.376148IPx.x.x.x.14009>x.x.x.x.63774:Flags[],win16384,length0 06:16:47.376167IPx.x.x.x.42368>x.x.x.x.14547:Flags[],win16384,length0

udpflood 00:09:07.369811IPx.x.x.x.54235>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length1 00:09:07.369815IPx.x.x.x.34839>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length1

udpflood-ValveSourceEngineserverattack 05:12:50.302018IPx.x.x.x.10900>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length25 .e..E(.5......7F.,1...4Z*..P.!......TSourceEngineQuery. 05:12:50.302023IPx.x.x.x.50567>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length25 .e..E(.5/.............4Z...P.!......TSourceEngineQuery.

udpflood-KaitenIRCbot 01:21:07.454468IPx.x.x.x.48969>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length50 ....E..NkI@.=...mW....4d.I.P.:..std.PRIVMSG%s:[STD]Donehitting%s! ..PRIVMSG%s 01:21:07.454578IPx.x.x.x.45279>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length50 ....E..N..@.:.&.[..k..4d...P.:.gstd.PRIVMSG%s:[STD]Donehitting%s! ..PRIVMSG%s reservedprotocolflood 09:05:17.104369IPx.x.x.x>x.x.x.x:ip-proto-25540 09:05:17.104391IPx.x.x.x>x.x.x.x:ip-proto-25540

icmpflood 05:56:30.132249IPx.x.x.x>x.x.x.x:ICMPechorequest,id0,seq0,length1052 05:56:30.132318IPx.x.x.x>x.x.x.x:ICMPechorequest,id0,seq0,length33 05:56:30.132327IPx.x.x.x>x.x.x.x:ICMPechorequest,id0,seq0,length33

ackflood 21:26:26.747124IPx.x.x.x.1313>x.x.x.x.64:.ack1599122023win65535 21:26:26.747126IPx.x.x.x.1299>x.x.x.x.54:.ack2431016982win65535

synflood 19:41:27.945435IPx.x.x.x.30739>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[S],seq3212705792,win0,length0 19:41:27.945449IPx.x.x.x.14150>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[S],seq2408579072,win0,length0

04:00:29.021344IPx.x.x.x.834>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[S],seq674742734,win16384,length0 04:00:29.021350IPx.x.x.x.834>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[S],seq674742744,win16384,length0

Page 5: Case Study: Time Line of DDoS campaigns against MIT Issue Date · signatures from other DDoS attack campaigns launched against MIT. Some of these are attributed to specific attack

5

synflood-dominateattackscript 22:46:18.939811IPx.x.x.x.50991>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[SEW],seq2223243264,win65535,length0 22:46:18.939817IPx.x.x.x.5076>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[SEW],seq3714842624,win65535,length0

Reflectionbasedattacks(notincludingDNS)

ntpflood 03:10:07.762377IPx.x.x.x.123>x.x.x.x.59007:NTPv2,Reserved,length440 03:10:07.762520IPx.x.x.x.123>x.x.x.x.3955:NTPv2,Reserved,length440

ssdpflood 04:32:27.704362IPx.x.x.x.1900>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length326 04:32:27.704387IPx.x.x.x.1900>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length314 04:32:27.704411IPx.x.x.x.1900>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length268 04:32:27.704436IPx.x.x.x.1900>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length268 04:32:27.704461IPx.x.x.x.1900>x.x.x.x.80:UDP,length290

snmpflood 00:37:05.109903IPx.x.x.x.161>x.x.x.x.80:[len1468x.x.x.x.80:[len1468.U.....P...0.......public.....S.........0..0-..+........!EdgeOSv1.7.0.4783374.150622.15340...+........ ..+.......C..0........C.SD.h0...+........."[email protected]"0...+.........router-sflanxxxx...+........

chargenflood 16:11:12.127001IPx.x.x.x>x.x.x.x:udp [email protected]_STUVWX pqrstuvwxyz{|}!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY qrstuvwxyz{|}!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ rstuvwxyz{|}!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[ stuvwxyz{|}!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\ tuvwxyz{|}!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\] uvwxyz{|}!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^ vwxyz{|}!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_ wxyz{|}!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_` xyz{|}!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`a

netbiosflood 15:41:44.528687IPx.x.x.x.137>x.x.x.x.80:NBTUDPPACKET(137):QUERY;POSITIVE;RESPONSE;UNICAST 15:41:44.528706IPx.x.x.x.137>x.x.x.x.80:NBTUDPPACKET(137):QUERY;POSITIVE;RESPONSE;UNICAST Figure4:Attack-signaturesamplesforcampaignslaunchedagainstMIT

BetweenthetimeframeofAugust2013-April2016,MIThasreceivedatotalof74DDoScampaignswithacombinationof121attackvectors.InFigure5weseethebreakdownofallthevectorsleveraged.

Page 6: Case Study: Time Line of DDoS campaigns against MIT Issue Date · signatures from other DDoS attack campaigns launched against MIT. Some of these are attributed to specific attack

6

Figure5:Attackvectorpercentagebreakdown

Agoodportionoftheseattacksusedreflection-basedattackvectors.Thesereflectorsarenotnecessarilyownedoracquiredbythemaliciousactors,rathertheyareabusedforuseintheseattacks.ForattacksagainstMIT,thereflectorpopulationwasmostlyconcentratedinChina.InFigure6,thedistributionshownisbasedon18,825uniquesourcesofreflectorsobservedduringMITattacksandtheircountryoforigin.Chinaalonehadthehighestnumberofreflectorsforasinglecountryinrelationtoallothercountrieswherereflectorsweresourced.

Figure6:Distributionofreflectorswhichtotaled18,825uniquesources

Page 7: Case Study: Time Line of DDoS campaigns against MIT Issue Date · signatures from other DDoS attack campaigns launched against MIT. Some of these are attributed to specific attack

7

4.0/ATTACKCAMPAIGNSIN2015/In2015,30DDoScampaignsweredetectedandmitigatedoverourdistributedscrubbingcenters.OneofthelargestDDoSattackcampaignsoccurredonMay5,2015consistingofanXorbotnetSYNFlood.

● EventTimeStart:May5,201500:00:00UTC● EventTimeEnd:May6,201501:16:48UTC● Peakbandwidth:41.5Gigabitspersecond● Peakpacketspersecond:5.5MillionPacketspersecond● AttackVector:SYNFlood● Sourceport:Random● Destinationport:80

ThisvectorisconfirmedtobeproducedbytheXorDDoSmalware.Thiswasthelastofaseriesof4attacksfromthisbotnet.AlaterattackfollowedinDecember.InparticularthemalwareisofChineseorigin.AttacksmatchingthispayloadhavemostlytargetedorganizationsinAsia.ThefewcasesofattacksoutofAsiaindicatethebotnetwasundercontrolbymaliciousactorsoperatingoutofChina.ThisbotnetwasbelievedtohavebeentakendownfollowingreportsofarrestsmadeinChinaregardingtheuseofthebotnetinattacks.

Althoughattacksdidstopshortlyafterthosereports,someattacksusingthismalwarearestartingtooccuragainthisyear,althoughatamuchlowerbandwidthpeaks.Figure7providesbandwidthandtimelineofXor-specificattacks.ThebotnetattacksconsistedofSYNfloodtraffic.

Fig7-xorattacktimelinewithpeakGbpsandMpps

5.0/ATTACKTOOLS-XORDDOSANDOTHERS/AkamaiSIRTwasabletoobtainandanalyzeasampleofthexorDDoSmalwaresampleusedintheSYNfloodattackcampaignagainstMIT.AfullcopyoftheXorDDoSthreatadvisorycanbefoundhere.

Page 8: Case Study: Time Line of DDoS campaigns against MIT Issue Date · signatures from other DDoS attack campaigns launched against MIT. Some of these are attributed to specific attack

8

Thefollowingrepresentsapacketsampleasseeninthewiresharkprotocolanalysistool.Thecharacteristicsobservedmatchedexactlywiththexorpayloadattacks.

Figure8:Xorpacketsamplewith3flagsset.

XORSYNFlood 07:43:00.790843IPx.x.x.x.29868>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[S],seq1957463376:1957464272,win65535,length89607:43:00.790843IPx.x.x.x.63903>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[S],seq4188011121:4188012017,win65535,length89607:43:00.790844IPx.x.x.x.44652>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[S],seq2926328590:2926329486,win65535,length89607:43:00.790846IPx.x.x.x.14450>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[S],seq947050872:947051768,win65535,length89607:43:00.847578IPx.x.x.x.52587>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[S],seq3446345520:3446346416,win65535,length89607:43:00.847579IPx.x.x.x.36150>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[SE],seq2369138793:2369139689,win65535,length89607:43:00.847579IPx.x.x.x.25421>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[S],seq1666031903:1666032799,win65535,length89607:43:00.847581IPx.x.x.x.18694>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[SE],seq1225191529:1225192425,win65535,length89607:43:00.847581IPx.x.x.x.45937>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[SW],seq3010528554:3010529450,win65535,length89607:43:00.847582IPx.x.x.x.20853>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[SEW],seq1366671372:1366672268,win65535,length89607:43:00.847582IPx.x.x.x.7638>x.x.x.x.80:Flags[SEW],seq500597574:500598470,win65535,length896

Fig9-Attackpayloadtrafficsamples-XorSYNflood

TheintentionofthemalwarecreatorwastocreateapaddedSYNflood.Insomecases,variousotherflagsareappliedtotheTCPheader.TheextraflagsthatoccurareduetoerrorsintheconstructionoftheTCPheader.TheTCPheaderoptionsarealwaysstaticbutaresometimesplacedinthewronglocationsduetoheadersizecalculationerrors.

Asidefromthexormalware,mostoftheattackscriptsavailablearewrittenintheCprogramminglanguage.ThevariousSYNfloodattackscriptsseemtobebasedonorsharethesamecode.Thesearethetypesofattackstypicallyavailableonbooter/stressersites.CommonSYNfloodscriptsincludeESYN,XSYN,andDOMINATE.OneobviousexampleofsharedorreusedcodeisobservedinacommentwithintheDOMINATEscript.Figure10containsthecommentfoundinoneofthescripts,indicatinghowsimilartheseare.

Page 9: Case Study: Time Line of DDoS campaigns against MIT Issue Date · signatures from other DDoS attack campaigns launched against MIT. Some of these are attributed to specific attack

9

/*"DOMINATE"AttackScript,thisscriptwassodifficulttomake,itrequiredtakingtheverypublicESSYN attackscript,andreplacing"tcph->res2=1;"to"tcph->res2=3;"inthe"setup_tcp_header"function. Anybodywhopurchasedthisscriptfor$300BTC,yup,it'sliterallychanginga1toa3.

Leaked/MadebyAndyQuez,Arealmexianhero. */ Figure10:DOMINATEattackscriptcommentindicatingcodere-use.

Inaddition,allscriptsrandomlygeneratespoofedsourceaddressesandinmostcasesrandomizesourceports.

For UDP-based reflection attacks, the various attack script code also borrows from other reflectionattack scripts. For example, in the next figure themost common change is the request payload anddestinationport.

SSDPattackscriptquery: udph->dest=htons(1900); udph->check=0; strcpy((void*)udph+sizeof(structudphdr),"M-SEARCH*HTTP/1.1\r\nHost:239.255.255.250:1900\r\nST:ssdp:all\r\nMan:\"ssdp:discover\"\r\nMX:3\r\n\r\n");

Netbiosattackscriptquery: udph->dest=htons(137); udph->check=0; memcpy((void*)udph+sizeof(structudphdr),"\xe5\xd8\x00\x00\x00\x01\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x20\x43\x4b\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x41\x00\x00\x21\x00\x01",50); Figure11:SSDPandNetbiosreflectionscriptpayloadsections.

6.0/CONCLUSION/Whileanalyzingattacks,itisusuallyverydifficulttoobtainattribution.InthecaseofXor,it'spossiblethatthisbotnetwasunderthecontrolofagroupinChinaasperthearrestsinthisreport.Noattacksfromxorwereobservedduringaperiodoftimefollowingthisnews.Otherattackmethods,mostlyavailableinbootersites,addalargerpoolofpotentialactors.Asmoredataiscollectedfromattacks,itmaybepossibletonarrowitdownfurtherbybootersite.AkamaiSIRTwillprovideupdatesasavailable.

CustomerswhobelievetheyareatriskandneedadditionaldirectioncancontactAkamaidirectlythroughCCareat1-877-4-AKATEC(U.S.AndCanada)or617-444-4699(International),theirEngagementManager,ortheiraccountteam.

Toaccessotherwhitepapers,threatadvisoriesandsecurityresearchpublications,pleasevisitourSecurityResearchandIntelligencesectiononAkamaiCommunity.

Page 10: Case Study: Time Line of DDoS campaigns against MIT Issue Date · signatures from other DDoS attack campaigns launched against MIT. Some of these are attributed to specific attack

10

AboutAkamaiSecurityIntelligenceResponseTeam(SIRT)Focusesonmitigatingmaliciousglobalcyberthreatsandvulnerabilities,theAkamaiSecurityIntelligenceResponseTeam(SIRT)conductsandsharesdigitalforensicsandpost-eventanalysiswiththesecuritycommunitytoproactivelyprotectagainstthreatsandattacks.Aspartofitsmission,theAkamaiSIRTmaintainsclosecontactwithpeerorganizationsaroundtheworldandtrainsAkamai’sProfessionalServicesandCustomerCaretramtobothrecognizeandcounterattacksfromawiderangeofadversies.TheresearchperformedbytheAkamaiSIRTisintendedtohelpensureAkamai’scloudsecurityproductsarebestofbreedandcanprotectagainstanyofthelatestthreatsimpactingtheindustry.

AboutAkamaiAsthegloballeaderinContentDeliveryNetwork(CDN)services,AkamaimakestheInternetfast,reliableandsecureforitscustomers.Thecompany'sadvancedwebperformance,mobileperformance,cloudsecurityandmediadeliverysolutionsarerevolutionizinghowbusinessesoptimizeconsumer,enterpriseandentertainmentexperiencesforanydevice,anywhere.TolearnhowAkamaisolutionsanditsteamofInternetexpertsarehelpingbusinessesmovefasterforward,pleasevisitwww.akamai.comorblogs.akamai.com,andfollow@AkamaionTwitter.

AkamaiisheadquartedinCambridge,MassachusettsintheUnitedStatswithoperationsinmorethan40officesaroundtheworld.OurservicesandrenowenedcustomercareenablebusinessestoprovideanunparalleledInternetexperiencefortheircustomersworldwide.Addresses,phonenumbersandcontactinformationforalllocationsarelistedonwww.akamai.com/locations

©2016AkamaiTechnologies,Inc.AllRightsReserved.Reproductioninwholeorinpartinanyformormediumwithoutexpresswrittenpermissionisprohibited.AkamaiandtheAkamaiwavelogoareregisteredtrademarks.Othertrademarkscontainedhereinarethepropertyoftheirrespectiveowners.Akamaibelievesthattheinformationinthispublicationisaccurateofit’spublicationdate;suchinformationissubjecttochangewithoutnotice.Published07/16