Attack tools In cases such as
MyDoom and
Slowloris, the tools are embedded in
malware and launch their attacks without the knowledge of the system owner.
Stacheldraht is a classic example of a DDoS tool. It uses a layered structure where the attacker uses a
client program to connect to handlers which are compromised systems that issue commands to the
zombie agents which in turn facilitate the DDoS attack. Agents are compromised via the handlers by the attacker using automated routines to exploit vulnerabilities in programs that accept remote connections running on the targeted remote hosts. Each handler can control up to a thousand agents.
Slow DoS attacks implement an application-layer attack. Examples of threats are Slowloris, establishing pending connections with the victim, or
SlowDroid, an attack running on mobile devices. Another target of DDoS attacks may be to produce added costs for the application operator, when the latter uses resources based on
cloud computing. In this case, normally application-used resources are tied to a needed quality of service (QoS) level (e.g. responses should be less than 200 ms) and this rule is usually linked to automated software (e.g. Amazon CloudWatch) to raise more virtual resources from the provider to meet the defined QoS levels for the increased requests. The main incentive behind such attacks may be to drive the application owner to raise the elasticity levels to handle the increased application traffic, to cause financial losses, or force them to become less competitive. A
banana attack is another particular type of DoS. It involves redirecting outgoing messages from the client back onto the client, preventing outside access, as well as flooding the client with the sent packets. A
LAND attack is of this type.
Degradation-of-service attacks Pulsing zombies are compromised computers that are directed to launch intermittent and short-lived floodings of victim websites with the intent of merely slowing it rather than crashing it. This type of attack, referred to as
degradation-of-service, can be more difficult to detect and can disrupt and hamper connection to websites for prolonged periods of time, potentially causing more overall disruption than a denial-of-service attack. Exposure of degradation-of-service attacks is complicated further by the matter of discerning whether the server is really being attacked or is experiencing higher than normal legitimate traffic loads.
Distributed DoS attack If an attacker mounts an attack from a single host, it would be classified as a DoS attack. Any attack against availability would be classed as a denial-of-service attack. On the other hand, if an attacker uses many systems to simultaneously launch attacks against a remote host, this would be classified as a DDoS attack.
Malware can carry DDoS attack mechanisms; one of the better-known examples of this was
MyDoom. Its DoS mechanism was triggered on a specific date and time. This type of DDoS involved hardcoding the target
IP address before releasing the malware and no further interaction was necessary to launch the attack. A system may also be compromised with a
trojan containing a
zombie agent. Attackers can also break into systems using automated tools that exploit flaws in programs that listen for connections from remote hosts. This scenario primarily concerns systems acting as servers on the web.
Stacheldraht is a classic example of a DDoS tool. It uses a layered structure where the attacker uses a
client program to connect to handlers, which are compromised systems that issue commands to the zombie agents, which in turn facilitate the DDoS attack. Agents are compromised via the handlers by the attacker. Each handler can control up to a thousand agents. In some cases a machine may become part of a DDoS attack with the owner's consent, for example, in
Operation Payback, organized by the group
Anonymous. These attacks can use different types of internet packets such as
TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc. These collections of compromised systems are known as
botnets. DDoS tools like
Stacheldraht still use classic DoS attack methods centered on
IP spoofing and amplification like
smurf attacks and
fraggle attacks (types of bandwidth consumption attacks).
SYN floods (a resource starvation attack) may also be used. Newer tools can use DNS servers for DoS purposes. Unlike MyDoom's DDoS mechanism, botnets can be turned against any IP address.
Script kiddies use them to deny the availability of well known websites to legitimate users. More sophisticated attackers use DDoS tools for the purposes of
extortionincluding against their business rivals. It has been reported that there are new attacks from
internet of things (IoT) devices that have been involved in denial of service attacks. In one noted attack that was made peaked at around 20,000 requests per second which came from around 900 CCTV cameras. UK's
GCHQ has tools built for DDoS, named PREDATORS FACE and ROLLING THUNDER. Simple attacks such as SYN floods may appear with a wide range of source IP addresses, giving the appearance of a distributed DoS. These flood attacks do not require completion of the TCP
three-way handshake and attempt to exhaust the destination SYN queue or the server bandwidth. Because the source IP addresses can be trivially spoofed, an attack could come from a limited set of sources, or may even originate from a single host. Stack enhancements such as
SYN cookies may be effective mitigation against SYN queue flooding but do not address bandwidth exhaustion. In 2022, TCP attacks were the leading method in DDoS incidents, accounting for 63% of all DDoS activity. This includes tactics like
TCP SYN, TCP ACK, and TCP floods. With TCP being the most widespread networking protocol, its attacks are expected to remain prevalent in the DDoS threat scene. Cyber-extortionists typically begin with a low-level attack and a warning that a larger attack will be carried out if a ransom is not paid in
bitcoin. Security experts recommend targeted websites to not pay the ransom. The attackers tend to get into an extended extortion scheme once they recognize that the target is ready to pay.
HTTP slow POST DoS attack First discovered in 2009, the HTTP slow POST attack sends a complete, legitimate
HTTP POST header, which includes a
Content-Length field to specify the size of the message body to follow. However, the attacker then proceeds to send the actual message body at an extremely slow rate (e.g. 1 byte/110 seconds). Due to the entire message being correct and complete, the target server will attempt to obey the
Content-Length field in the header, and wait for the entire body of the message to be transmitted, which can take a very long time. The attacker establishes hundreds or even thousands of such connections until all resources for incoming connections on the victim server are exhausted, making any further connections impossible until all data has been sent. It is notable that unlike many other DDoS or DDoS attacks, which try to subdue the server by overloading its network or CPU, an HTTP slow POST attack targets the
logical resources of the victim, which means the victim would still have enough network bandwidth and processing power to operate. Combined with the fact that the
Apache HTTP Server will, by default, accept requests up to 2GB in size, this attack can be particularly powerful. HTTP slow POST attacks are difficult to differentiate from legitimate connections and are therefore able to bypass some protection systems.
OWASP, an
open source web application security project, released a tool to test the security of servers against this type of attack.
Challenge Collapsar (CC) attack A Challenge Collapsar (CC) attack is an attack where standard HTTP requests are sent to a targeted web server frequently. The
Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) in the requests require complicated time-consuming algorithms or database operations which may exhaust the resources of the targeted web server. In 2004, a Chinese hacker nicknamed KiKi invented a hacking tool to send these kinds of requests to attack a NSFOCUS firewall named Collapsar, and thus the hacking tool was known as Challenge Collapsar, or
CC for short. Consequently, this type of attack got the name
CC attack.
Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) flood A
smurf attack relies on misconfigured network devices that allow packets to be sent to all computer hosts on a particular network via the
broadcast address of the network, rather than a specific machine. The attacker will send large numbers of
IP packets with the source address faked to appear to be the address of the victim. Most devices on a network will, by default, respond to this by sending a reply to the source IP address. If the number of machines on the network that receive and respond to these packets is very large, the victim's computer will be flooded with traffic. This overloads the victim's computer and can even make it unusable during such an attack.
Ping flood is based on sending the victim an overwhelming number of
ping packets, usually using the
ping command from
Unix-like hosts. It is very simple to launch, the primary requirement being access to greater
bandwidth than the victim.
Ping of death is based on sending the victim a malformed ping packet, which will lead to a system crash on a vulnerable system. The
BlackNurse attack is an example of an attack taking advantage of the required Destination Port Unreachable ICMP packets.
Nuke A nuke is an old-fashioned denial-of-service attack against
computer networks consisting of fragmented or otherwise invalid
ICMP packets sent to the target, achieved by using a modified
ping utility to repeatedly send this
corrupt data, thus slowing down the affected computer until it comes to a complete stop. A specific example of a nuke attack that gained some prominence is the
WinNuke, which exploited the vulnerability in the
NetBIOS handler in
Windows 95. A string of out-of-band data was sent to
TCP port 139 of the victim's machine, causing it to lock up and display a
Blue Screen of Death.
Peer-to-peer attacks Attackers have found a way to exploit a number of bugs in
peer-to-peer servers to initiate DDoS attacks. The most aggressive of these peer-to-peer-DDoS attacks exploits the
DC++ file sharing network.
Permanent denial-of-service attacks Permanent denial-of-service (PDoS), also known loosely as phlashing, is an attack that damages a system so badly that it requires replacement or reinstallation of hardware. Unlike the distributed denial-of-service attack, a PDoS attack exploits security flaws which allow remote administration on the management interfaces of the victim's hardware, such as
routers, printers, or other
networking hardware. The attacker uses these
vulnerabilities to replace a device's
firmware with a modified, corrupt, or defective firmware image—a process which when done legitimately is known as
flashing. The intent is to
brick the device, rendering it unusable for its original purpose until it can be repaired or replaced. The PDoS is a pure hardware-targeted attack that can be much faster and requires fewer resources than using a botnet in a DDoS attack. Because of these features, and the potential and high probability of security exploits on network-enabled embedded devices, this technique has come to the attention of numerous hacking communities.
BrickerBot, a piece of malware that targeted IoT devices, used PDoS attacks to disable its targets. PhlashDance is a tool created by Rich Smith (an employee of
Hewlett-Packard's Systems Security Lab) used to detect and demonstrate PDoS vulnerabilities at the 2008 EUSecWest Applied Security Conference in London, UK.
Reflected attack A distributed denial-of-service attack may involve sending forged requests of some type to a very large number of computers that will reply to the requests. Using
Internet Protocol address spoofing, the source address is set to that of the targeted victim, which means all the replies will go to (and flood) the target. This reflected attack form is sometimes called a distributed reflective denial-of-service (DRDoS) attack.
ICMP echo request attacks (
Smurf attacks) can be considered one form of reflected attack, as the flooding hosts send Echo Requests to the broadcast addresses of mis-configured networks, thereby enticing hosts to send Echo Reply packets to the victim. Some early DDoS programs implemented a distributed form of this attack.
Amplification Amplification attacks are used to magnify the bandwidth that is sent to a victim. Many services can be exploited to act as reflectors, some harder to block than others. US-CERT have observed that different services may result in different amplification factors, as tabulated below:
DNS amplification attacks involves an attacker sending a DNS name lookup request to one or more public DNS servers, spoofing the source IP address of the targeted victim. The attacker tries to request as much information as possible, thus amplifying the DNS response that is sent to the targeted victim. Since the size of the request is significantly smaller than the response, the attacker is easily able to increase the amount of traffic directed at the target.
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) and
Network Time Protocol (NTP) can also be exploited as reflectors in an amplification attack. An example of an amplified DDoS attack through the NTP is through a command called monlist, which sends the details of the last 600 hosts that have requested the time from the NTP server back to the requester. A small request to this time server can be sent using a spoofed source IP address of some victim, which results in a response 556.9 times the size of the request being sent to the victim. This becomes amplified when using botnets that all send requests with the same spoofed IP source, which will result in a massive amount of data being sent back to the victim. It is very difficult to defend against these types of attacks because the response data is coming from legitimate servers. These attack requests are also sent through UDP, which does not require a connection to the server. This means that the source IP is not verified when a request is received by the server. To bring awareness of these vulnerabilities, campaigns have been started that are dedicated to finding amplification vectors which have led to people fixing their resolvers or having the resolvers shut down completely.
Mirai botnet The
Mirai botnet works by using a
computer worm to infect hundreds of thousands of IoT devices across the internet. The worm propagates through networks and systems taking control of poorly protected IoT devices such as thermostats, Wi-Fi-enabled clocks, and washing machines. The owner or user will usually have no immediate indication of when the device becomes infected. The IoT device itself is not the direct target of the attack, it is used as a part of a larger attack. Once the hacker has enslaved the desired number of devices, they instruct the devices to try to contact an ISP. In October 2016, a Mirai botnet
attacked Dyn which is the ISP for sites such as
Twitter,
Netflix, etc.
SACK Panic Manipulating
maximum segment size and
selective acknowledgement (SACK) may be used by a remote peer to cause a denial of service by an
integer overflow in the Linux kernel, potentially causing a
kernel panic. Jonathan Looney discovered on June 17, 2019.
Shrew attack The shrew attack is a denial-of-service attack on the
Transmission Control Protocol where the attacker employs
man-in-the-middle techniques. It exploits a weakness in TCP's re-transmission timeout mechanism, using short synchronized bursts of traffic to disrupt TCP connections on the same link.
Slow read attack A slow read attack sends legitimate application layer requests, but reads responses very slowly, keeping connections open longer hoping to exhaust the server's connection pool. The slow read is achieved by advertising a very small number for the TCP Receive Window size, and at the same time emptying clients' TCP receive buffer slowly, which causes a very low data flow rate.
Sophisticated low-bandwidth Distributed Denial-of-Service Attack A sophisticated low-bandwidth DDoS attack is a form of DoS that uses less traffic and increases its effectiveness by aiming at a weak point in the victim's system design, i.e., the attacker sends traffic consisting of complicated requests to the system. Essentially, a sophisticated DDoS attack is lower in cost due to its use of less traffic, is smaller in size making it more difficult to identify, and it has the ability to hurt systems which are protected by flow control mechanisms.
SYN flood A
SYN flood occurs when a host sends a flood of TCP/SYN packets, often with a forged sender address. Each of these packets is handled like a connection request, causing the server to spawn a
half-open connection, send back a TCP/SYN-ACK packet, and wait for a packet in response from the sender address. However, because the sender's address is forged, the response never comes. These half-open connections exhaust the available connections the server can make, keeping it from responding to legitimate requests until after the attack ends.
Teardrop attacks A
teardrop attack involves sending
mangled IP fragments with overlapping, oversized payloads to the target machine. This can crash various operating systems because of a bug in their
TCP/IP fragmentation re-assembly code.
Windows 3.1x,
Windows 95 and
Windows NT operating systems, as well as versions of
Linux prior to versions 2.0.32 and 2.1.63 are vulnerable to this attack. One of the fields in an
IP header is the
fragment offset field, indicating the starting position, or offset, of the data contained in a fragmented packet relative to the data in the original packet. If the sum of the offset and size of one fragmented packet differs from that of the next fragmented packet, the packets overlap. When this happens, a server vulnerable to teardrop attacks is unable to reassemble the packets resulting in a denial-of-service condition.
Telephony denial-of-service Voice over IP has made abusive origination of large numbers of
telephone voice calls inexpensive and easily automated while permitting call origins to be misrepresented through
caller ID spoofing. According to the US
Federal Bureau of Investigation, telephony denial-of-service (TDoS) has appeared as part of various fraudulent schemes: • A scammer contacts the victim's banker or broker, impersonating the victim to request a funds transfer. The banker's attempt to contact the victim for verification of the transfer fails as the victim's telephone lines are being flooded with bogus calls, rendering the victim unreachable. • A scammer contacts consumers with a bogus claim to collect an outstanding
payday loan for thousands of dollars. When the consumer objects, the scammer retaliates by flooding the victim's employer with automated calls. In some cases, the displayed caller ID is spoofed to impersonate police or law enforcement agencies. •
Swatting: A scammer contacts consumers with a bogus debt collection demand and threatens to send police; when the victim balks, the scammer floods local police numbers with calls on which caller ID is spoofed to display the victim's number. Police soon arrive at the victim's residence attempting to find the origin of the calls. TDoS can exist even without
Internet telephony. In the
2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal,
telemarketers were used to flood political opponents with spurious calls to jam phone banks on election day. Widespread publication of a number can also flood it with enough calls to render it unusable, as happened by accident in 1981 with multiple +1-
area code-867-5309 subscribers inundated by hundreds of calls daily in response to the song "
867-5309/Jenny". TDoS differs from other
telephone harassment (such as
prank calls and
obscene phone calls) by the number of calls originated. By occupying lines continuously with repeated automated calls, the victim is prevented from making or receiving both routine and emergency telephone calls. Related exploits include SMS flooding attacks and
black fax or continuous fax transmission by using a loop of paper at the sender.
TTL expiry attack It takes more router resources to drop a packet with a
TTL value of 1 or less than it does to forward a packet with a higher TTL value. When a packet is dropped due to TTL expiry, the router CPU must generate and send an
ICMP time exceeded response. Generating many of these responses can overload the router's CPU.
UPnP attack A UPnP attack uses an existing vulnerability in
Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) protocol to get past network security and flood a target's network and servers. The attack is based on a DNS amplification technique, but the attack mechanism is a UPnP router that forwards requests from one outer source to another. The UPnP router returns the data on an unexpected UDP port from a bogus IP address, making it harder to take simple action to shut down the traffic flood. According to the
Imperva researchers, the most effective way to stop this attack is for companies to lock down UPnP routers.
SSDP reflection attack In 2014, it was discovered that
Simple Service Discovery Protocol (SSDP) was being used in
DDoS attacks known as an
SSDP reflection attack with amplification. Many devices, including some residential routers, have a vulnerability in the UPnP software that allows an attacker to get replies from
UDP port 1900 to a destination address of their choice. With a
botnet of thousands of devices, the attackers can generate sufficient packet rates and occupy bandwidth to saturate links, causing the denial of services. Because of this weakness, the network company
Cloudflare has described SSDP as the "Stupidly Simple DDoS Protocol".
ARP spoofing ARP spoofing is a common DoS attack that involves a vulnerability in the ARP protocol that allows an attacker to associate their
MAC address to the IP address of another computer or
gateway, causing traffic intended for the original authentic IP to be re-routed to that of the attacker, causing a denial of service. ==Defense techniques==