madison

Networking

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

How to crash the Internet

By | February 13, 2011, 10:39am PST

Summary: The Internet was designed to survive a nuclear war, but researchers claim they’ve found a way to take down the Internet.

We know you can take down Web sites with Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks. We know that a country, like Egypt, can knock down a country’s entire Internet infrastructure. And, we thought we knew that you couldn’t take down the entire Internet. It turns out we could be wrong.

In a report from New Scientist, Max Schuchard a computer science graduate student and his buddies claim they’ve found a way to launch DDoS attacks on Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) network routers that could crash the Internet.

BGP is an essential Internet protocol. It’s the routing protocol used to exchange routing information across the Internet. Without it ISPs couldn’t connect to each other and you couldn’t connect Web sites and services outside of your local intranet. Because network connections and routers are constantly changing, BGP routers and switches are constantly working to keep current route maps of the Internet. In short, you don’t want to mess it.

In an Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) paper, Losing control of the Internet: using the data plane to attack the control plane, Schuchard describes the theoretical assault as “the Coordinated Cross Plane Session Termination, or CXPST, attack, a distributed denial of service attack that attacks the control plane of the Internet. CXPST extends previous work that demonstrates a vulnerability in routers that allows an adversary to disconnect a pair of routers using only data plane traffic. By carefully choosing BGP sessions to terminate, CXPST generates a surge of BGP updates that are seen by nearly all core routers on the Internet. This surge of updates surpasses the computational capacity of affected routers, crippling their ability to make routing decisions”

Here’s how it would work. The CXPST attack would use approximately 250,000 PCs in a botnet to launch the attack. Does that sound unreasonably large number of computers to you? It shouldn’t. Thanks to Windows’ built-in insecurity, its easy to create huge Windows botnets. We know for a fact that the Mariposa botnet alone was made up of 12.7-Million Windows PCs. The 250,000 PCs that a CXPST-style attack would require is nothing in botnet terms.

Once a CXPST botnet was set-up, it would use what Schuchard calls, ZMW, after its authors, Zhang, Mao and Wang. This trio of researchers described their attack in the paper: A Low-Rate TCP-Targeted DoS Attack Disrupts Internet Routing (PDF Link).

They found that “BGP routing sessions on the current commercial routers are susceptible to such low-rate attacks launched remotely, leading to session resets and delayed routing convergence, seriously impacting routing stability and network reachability.” They also discovered that “low-rate TCP attacks can severely degrade TCP throughput by sending pulses of traffic leading to repeated TCP retransmission timeout.” So far, this was just a new, but rather ordinary, DDoS technique.

The researchers also found though that “Aside from the potential impact is whether such attacks are powerful enough to reset BGP’s routing session as a result of a sufficiently large number of consecutive packet drops. If the session is reset, it can have serious impact on the Internet in the form of routing in- stability, unreachable destinations, and traffic performance degradation.” OK, now we were officially into “this is bad news” territory. Such an attack would be hard to spot and if could easily knock out a corporate, school, or even a national intranet.

Page 2: [Breaking the Internet] »

Topics

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system

Disclosure

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is a freelance writer. He does not own stocks or other investments in any technology company.

Biography

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system; 300bps was a fast Internet connection; WordStar was the state of the art word processor; and we liked it.

His work has been published in everything from highly technical publications (IEEE Computer, ACM NetWorker, Byte) to business publications (eWEEK, InformationWeek, ZDNet) to popular technology (Computer Shopper, PC Magazine, PC World) to the mainstream press (Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, BusinessWeek).

Talkback Most Recent of 64 Talkback(s)

  • The authors ignore one problem.
    When the routers cannot route traffic, they also cannot route the packets that implement the attack.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Anne Nonymous
    13th Feb 2011
  • ZDNet Gravatar
    mike2k
    13th Feb 2011
  • ZDNet Blogger

    RE: How to crash the Internet
    @Anne Nonymous When the net is no longer routing traffic, I think we can safely say that the attack has accomplished its mission.

    Steven
    ZDNet Gravatar
    sjvn@...
    13th Feb 2011
  • Re: Routing and BotNets
    @Anne Nonymous
    Um - if you're able to manage 250K machines at a whim, I am pretty sure you can *plan*which part of the fabric you attack, and when. Make a list of targets, once it's unavailable, move to the next in the list. Check back every once in a while to the top of the list, if it's awake, start over at the top.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    briank@...
    14th Feb 2011
  • Authors ignore more than one problem
    Which is the problem when you get a bunch of academics together....

    You could most assuredly knock a router offline, but not crash it. Between rate limiting and preferential routes in BGP, the attacks could play some havoc, but this scenario doesn't pass the smell test.

    Besides, try to do a trace lately? Since it's based on ICMP and older DDOS are also ICMP based, many routers now ignore this traffic. So much for the "traceroute" analysis.

    Look, you can easily knock my edge routers off the internet, but you can't crash them. They're hardened, as most routers are these days are.

    Interesting idea though.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Takalok
    15th Feb 2011
  • Windows insecurity?
    You're a legend in your own mind right?

    Now we get trolls actually doing the blog.

    Windows insecurity as compared to what? Linking to your own previous blogs doesn't count I'm afraid.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    tonymcs@...
    13th Feb 2011
  • agree
    @tonymcs@...
    ZDNet Gravatar
    FADS_z
    13th Feb 2011
  • RE: How to crash the Internet
    @tonymcs@...

    I agree. The fact is that Windows is no more 'insecure' than OSX or Linux are, when it comes down to brass tacks.

    The real issue is that this idiot assumes that Windows is insecure if you can run ANY code whatsoever on the machine.

    He shouldn't even be a ZDNet blogger or paid analyist, he is too hung up on the deficiencies of Windows (yes, it has them... especially Windows XP!) and not looking at the deficiencies of other operating systems.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Lerianis10
    14th Feb 2011
  • Exactly
    @Lerianis10

    Windows is insecure but it isn't the only OS that is easily hacked.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pwn2own-mac-hack,2254.html

    Charlie Miller's own words referring to Macs:

    "I like them and they also happen to be pretty easy to break!"

    Three years in a row of breaking Macs in the Pwn2own contest.

    Seems like OSX is just as insecure by design.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    dragosani
    14th Feb 2011
  • ...Said as you use AV.
    @Lerianis10 ---> Why is it so difficult to ask yourself?

    If you have to use AV on your "Secure" system, it is NOT secure.

    I've never used AV and I am secure, where's the problem?

    Run your system every day for 8 years without AV.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Joe.Smetona
    15th Feb 2011
  • RE: How to crash the Internet
    @Lerianis10 Windows comprises the botnets. The article is about how a botnet could take down the internet. it's not about the insecurities in other operating systems. Why do they need to mention other operating systems if they have nothing to do with that? I guess to not hurt the feelings of windows and their astroturfers.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Brian David
    16th Feb 2011
  • RE: How to crash the Internet
    @Lerianis10
    The real issue is that this entire thread is about one, single line, written by the author.

    Get over your Windows love and realize that's not what this is about. He mentioned one line, with an article to back it up, and that makes him hung up? I've seen your name on more Linux articles than I care to count. In all of them, you're attempting to bash Linux or praising Windows. He's not hung up on anything, you are.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    tmsbrdrs
    4th May
  • RE: How to crash the Internet
    @tonymcs@...
    Tony, when dealing with any M$ bias simply point out the overwhelming target share. Any MAC cheerleader is far more familiar and capable of wielding their bitterness than you will ever be. As I mentioned in another comment botnets generally target Windows because it's the majority of what's connected to the internet... I've seen a good share of *nix zombies - aaaaaand the first case of international espionage involved a GNU EMACs vulnerability. Generally it takes longer to convince a non Windows user they have a problem than it does to fix it...
    ZDNet Gravatar
    ITSamurai
    14th Feb 2011
  • Some truth to it, with qualification.
    @tonymcs@...

    The issue addressed (but inaccurately explained) in the links is the level of system access allowed for applications in the Win32 APIs up to and including XP. It was, frankly, a horrendous design decision to allow software to run as administrator by default just like in the DOS days. The same article gives short shrift to the significance of UAC, i.e. restricting system access for user space processes per TCI standards. But acknowledging the significance of changes in Windows security since Vista would make Windows bashing much less fun.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Lester Young
    14th Feb 2011
  • Right, there's no problem
    Steven writes:
    "Thanks to Windows? built-in insecurity, its easy to create huge Windows botnets."

    How could anyone disagree with the comment? Millions of infected windows computers is his evidence.

    The statement doesn't mean other desktops are perfect. Mac OS X security could be much improved for example. However denying windows desktops are the backbone of today's botnet is delusional (hmmm tonymcs).
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Richard Flude
    14th Feb 2011

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
Click Here

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources