Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
3/21/2017 11:21:44 PM EDT
How many internet connected home gadgets do you have?

The relentless push to add connectivity to home gadgets is creating dangerous side effects that figure to get even worse.


This map shows the extent of some of the Internet outages caused by denial-of-service attacks on Dyn on October 21, 2016. Dyn operates domain-name servers that connect end users to websites.

Botnets have existed for at least a decade. As early as 2000, hackers were breaking into computers over the Internet and controlling them en masse from centralized systems. Among other things, the hackers used the combined computing power of these botnets to launch distributed denial-of-service attacks, which flood websites with traffic to take them down.

But now the problem is getting worse, thanks to a flood of cheap webcams, digital video recorders, and other gadgets in the “Internet of things.” Because these devices typically have little or no security, hackers can take them over with little effort. And that makes it easier than ever to build huge botnets that take down much more than one site at a time.

In October, a botnet made up of 100,000 compromised gadgets knocked an Internet infrastructure provider partially offline. Taking down that provider, Dyn, resulted in a cascade of effects that ultimately caused a long list of high-profile websites, including Twitter and Netflix, to temporarily disappear from the Internet. More attacks are sure to follow: the botnet that attacked Dyn was created with publicly available malware called Mirai that largely automates the process of coöpting computers.

The best defense would be for everything online to run only secure software, so botnets couldn’t be created in the first place. This isn’t going to happen anytime soon. Internet of things devices are not designed with security in mind and often have no way of being patched. The things that have become part of Mirai botnets, for example, will be vulnerable until their owners throw them away. Botnets will get larger and more powerful simply because the number of vulnerable devices will go up by orders of magnitude over the next few years.

What do hackers do with them? Many things.

Botnets are used to commit click fraud. Click fraud is a scheme to fool advertisers into thinking that people are clicking on, or viewing, their ads. There are lots of ways to commit click fraud, but the easiest is probably for the attacker to embed a Google ad in a Web page he owns. Google ads pay a site owner according to the number of people who click on them. The attacker instructs all the computers on his botnet to repeatedly visit the Web page and click on the ad. Dot, dot, dot, PROFIT! If the botnet makers figure out more effective ways to siphon revenue from big companies online, we could see the whole advertising model of the Internet crumble.

Similarly, botnets can be used to evade spam filters, which work partly by knowing which computers are sending millions of e-mails. They can speed up password guessing to break into online accounts, mine bitcoins, and do anything else that requires a large network of computers. This is why botnets are big businesses. Criminal organizations rent time on them.

But the botnet activities that most often make headlines are denial-of-service attacks. Dyn seems to have been the victim of some angry hackers, but more financially motivated groups use these attacks as a form of extortion. Political groups use them to silence websites they don’t like. Such attacks will certainly be a tactic in any future cyberwar.

Once you know a botnet exists, you can attack its command-and-control system. When botnets were rare, this tactic was effective. As they get more common, this piecemeal defense will become less so. You can also secure yourself against the effects of botnets. For example, several companies sell defenses against denial-of-service attacks. Their effectiveness varies, depending on the severity of the attack and the type of service.

But overall, the trends favor the attacker. Expect more attacks like the one against Dyn in the coming year.
View Quote
3/21/2017 11:29:25 PM EDT
[#1]
Upgradable open source operating systems on these devices would solve a lot of these problems.

But consumers are fucking morons so we get a less secure internet and an inevitable government overreach when they try to fix it with legislation.
3/21/2017 11:31:17 PM EDT
[#2]
Manufacturers create these things and sell them. There is no return on investment on software updates.
3/21/2017 11:32:36 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote History
Quoted:
Manufacturers create these things and sell them. There is no return on investment on software updates.
View Quote
I think snappy core is designed to solve this problem.  Wouldn't that be essentially free to manufacturers?
3/21/2017 11:40:35 PM EDT
[#4]
Great, now I have to worry about being attack by my refrigerator.
3/21/2017 11:55:12 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote History
Quoted:
Upgradable open source operating systems on these devices would solve a lot of these problems.

But consumers are fucking morons so we get a less secure internet and an inevitable government overreach when they try to fix it with legislation.
View Quote
I put it squarely onto the manufacturers.

From the start of this IoT stuff, everyone's been "security and privacy has to be baked into the core otherwise it'll turn to shit."

Guess what shipped in the race to be first?

I was giving a talk to the crypto engineering group of a midsize (mumble-mumble billions) chip manufacturer just when this was getting legs.  They told me a story about a chip that could go out with or without crypto functionality.  Difference in cost was single-digit cents.  Guess what was made and shipped?

Dunno that consumers are morons, but how many have the background//time to look at the engineering details of a consumer product.  Nest thermostat, sounds great, ...
3/22/2017 10:34:51 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote History
Quoted:


I think snappy core is designed to solve this problem.  Wouldn't that be essentially free to manufacturers?
View Quote
Linux is already to free to them and many manufacturers use it. Its not cost of the embedded software its the cost of the manpower for them to put out updates. Understand that there is the free OS but then there is their custom software that has to be adjusted for underlying OS updates and any vulnerabilities in their own custom software. Also embedded hardware doesn't tend to have a standard way in which it works so often the OS requires custom modifications that are device specific. Not to mention hardware drivers for the device itself.

I don't foresee a future where the manufacturer can make a device and then be hand-off for future updates.