Nick Feamster Georgia Tech

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved Fig 2.1 Chapter 2.
Advertisements

BGP01 An Examination of the Internets BGP Table Behaviour in 2001 Geoff Huston Telstra.
ARIN Public Policy Meeting
1 An Update on Multihoming in IPv6 Report on IETF Activity IPv6 Technical SIG 1 Sept 2004 APNIC18, Nadi, Fiji Geoff Huston.
BGP Status Update Geoff Huston September What Happening (AS4637) Date.
Network Monitoring System In CSTNET Long Chun China Science & Technology Network.
Network Security Problems Nick Feamster
Filtering: Sharpening Both Sides of the Double-Edged Sword Prof. Nick Feamster Georgia Tech feamster cc.gatech.edu.
Revealing Botnet Membership Using DNSBL Counter-Intelligence Anirudh Ramachandran, Nick Feamster, David Dagon College of Computing, Georgia Tech.
Wenke Lee and Nick Feamster Georgia Tech Botnet and Spam Detection in High-Speed Networks.
Unwanted Network Traffic: Threats and Countermeasures
Dynamics of Online Scam Hosting Infrastructure
11/20/09 ONR MURI Project Kick-Off 1 Network-Level Monitoring for Tracking Botnets Nick Feamster School of Computer Science Georgia Institute of Technology.
Wenke Lee and Nick Feamster Georgia Tech Botnet and Spam Detection in High-Speed Networks.
Challenges in Making Tomography Practical
Understanding the Network- Level Behavior of Spammers Anirudh Ramachandran Nick Feamster Georgia Tech.
Network-Level Spam Filtering Nick Feamster Georgia Tech with Anirudh Ramachandran, Shuang Hao, Maria Konte, Nadeem Syed, Alex Gray, Santosh Vempala, Jaeyeon.
Spam and Botnets: Characterization and Mitigation Nick Feamster Anirudh Ramachandran David Dagon Georgia Tech.
Usage-Based DHCP Lease- Time Optmization Manas Khadilkar, Nick Feamster, Russ Clark, Matt Sanders Georgia Tech.
Research Summary Nick Feamster. The Big Picture Improving Internet availability by making networks easier to operate Three approaches –From the ground.
Internet Availability Nick Feamster Georgia Tech.
Spamming with BGP Spectrum Agility Anirudh Ramachandran Nick Feamster Georgia Tech.
Spamming with BGP Spectrum Agility Anirudh Ramachandran Nick Feamster Georgia Tech.
Understanding the Network- Level Behavior of Spammers Anirudh Ramachandran Nick Feamster Georgia Tech.
Network-Based Spam Filtering Anirudh Ramachandran Nick Feamster Georgia Tech.
Multihoming and Multi-path Routing
Network-Based Spam Filtering Nick Feamster Georgia Tech Joint work with Anirudh Ramachandran and Santosh Vempala.
The Datapository Dave Andersen, CMU James Moss, CMU Nick Feamster, Georgia Tech
1 Dynamics of Online Scam Hosting Infrastructure Maria Konte, Nick Feamster Georgia Tech Jaeyeon Jung Intel Research.
1 Resonance: Dynamic Access Control in Enterprise Networks Ankur Nayak, Alex Reimers, Nick Feamster, Russ Clark School of Computer Science Georgia Institute.
Network Operations Nick Feamster
1 Network-Level Spam Detection Nick Feamster Georgia Tech.
Spam Sinkholing Nick Feamster. Introduction Goal: Identify bots (and botnets) by observing second-order effects –Observe application behavior thats likely.
Spamming with BGP Spectrum Agility Anirudh Ramachandran Nick Feamster Georgia Tech.
Network Operations Research Nick Feamster
Network-Based Spam Filtering Nick Feamster Georgia Tech with Anirudh Ramachandran, Nadeem Syed, Alex Gray, Sven Krasser, Santosh Vempala.
Multihoming and Multi-path Routing
Network-Level Spam Defenses Nick Feamster Georgia Tech with Anirudh Ramachandran, Shuang Hao, Alex Gray, Santosh Vempala.
Business Transaction Management Software for Application Coordination 1 Business Processes and Coordination.
Jeopardy Q 1 Q 6 Q 11 Q 16 Q 21 Q 2 Q 7 Q 12 Q 17 Q 22 Q 3 Q 8 Q 13
Jeopardy Q 1 Q 6 Q 11 Q 16 Q 21 Q 2 Q 7 Q 12 Q 17 Q 22 Q 3 Q 8 Q 13
0 - 0.
DIVIDING INTEGERS 1. IF THE SIGNS ARE THE SAME THE ANSWER IS POSITIVE 2. IF THE SIGNS ARE DIFFERENT THE ANSWER IS NEGATIVE.
Addition Facts
Year 6 mental test 5 second questions
Zhiyun Qian, Z. Morley Mao (University of Michigan)
Squares and Square Root WALK. Solve each problem REVIEW:
Executional Architecture
BGP Overview Processing BGP Routes.
IPv6 deployment metrics using.JP domain APNIC February 2004 Kenichi Kanayama Intec NetCore, Inc.
Addition 1’s to 20.
25 seconds left…...
Measurement: Techniques, Strategies, and Pitfalls Nick Feamster CS 7260 February 7, 2007.
Test B, 100 Subtraction Facts
Detecting Spam Zombies by Monitoring Outgoing Messages Zhenhai Duan Department of Computer Science Florida State University.
Week 1.
We will resume in: 25 Minutes.
Spam Sagar Vemuri slides courtesy: Anirudh Ramachandran Nick Feamster.
Understanding the Network-Level Behavior of Spammers Anirudh Ramachandran Nick Feamster.
Network Security: Spam Nick Feamster Georgia Tech CS 6250 Joint work with Anirudh Ramachanrdan, Shuang Hao, Santosh Vempala, Alex Gray.
Understanding the Network-Level Behavior of Spammers Mike Delahunty Bryan Lutz Kimberly Peng Kevin Kazmierski John Thykattil By Anirudh Ramachandran and.
Measurement and Monitoring Nick Feamster Georgia Tech.
Can DNS Blacklists Keep Up With Bots? Anirudh Ramachandran, David Dagon, and Nick Feamster College of Computing, Georgia Tech.
Fighting Spam, Phishing and Online Scams at the Network Level Nick Feamster Georgia Tech with Anirudh Ramachandran, Shuang Hao, Nadeem Syed, Alex Gray,
Team Excel What is SPAM ?. Spam Offense Team Excel '‘a distinctive chopped pork shoulder and ham mixture'' Image Source:Appscout.com.
Detecting Spammers with SNARE: Spatio-temporal Network-level Automatic Reputation Engine Shuang Hao, Nadeem Ahmed Syed, Nick Feamster, Alexander G. Gray,
Revealing Botnet Membership Using DNSBL Counter-Intelligence David Dagon Anirudh Ramachandran, Nick Feamster, College of Computing,
Understanding the Network-Level Behavior of Spammers Best Student Paper, ACM Sigcomm 2006 Anirudh Ramachandran and Nick Feamster Ye Wang (sando)
Understanding the Network-Level Behavior of Spammers Author: Anirudh Ramachandran, Nick Feamster SIGCOMM ’ 06, September 11-16, 2006, Pisa, Italy Presenter:
Understanding the network level behavior of spammers Published by :Anirudh Ramachandran, Nick Feamster Published in :ACMSIGCOMM 2006 Presented by: Bharat.
Presentation transcript:

Nick Feamster Georgia Tech Spam, BGP, and Bogons Nick Feamster Georgia Tech

Two Small Parts Interaction of spam and BGP Summary of spam study New phenomenon: BGP “spectrum agility” Historical study of BGP “bogon” route advertisements

State-of-the-art: Content-based filtering Spam Unsolicited commercial email As of about February 2005, estimates indicate that about 90% of all email is spam Common spam filtering techniques Content-based filters DNS Blacklist (DNSBL) lookups: Significant fraction of today’s DNS traffic! State-of-the-art: Content-based filtering

Studying Sending Patterns Network-level properties of spam arrival From where? What IP address space? ASes? What OSes? What techniques? Botnets Short-lived route announcements Shady ISPs Capabilities and limitations? Bandwidth Size of botnet army

Collection Two domains instrumented with MailAvenger (both on same network) Sinkhole domain #1 Continuous spam collection since Aug 2004 No real email addresses---sink everything 10 million+ pieces of spam Sinkhole domain #2 Recently registered domain (Nov 2005) “Clean control” – domain posted at a few places Not much spam yet…perhaps we are being too conservative Monitoring BGP route advertisements from same network Also capturing traceroutes, DNSBL results, passive TCP host fingerprinting simultaneous with spam arrival (results in this talk focus on BGP+spam only)

Spamming Techniques Mostly botnets, of course How we’re doing this DNS hijack to get botnet topology and geography How we’re doing this Correlation with Bobax victims from Georgia Tech botnet sinkhole Heuristics Distance in IP space of Client IP from MX record Coordinated, low-bandwidth sending A less popular, but sometimes more effective technique: Short-lived BGP routing announcements

A small club of persistent players appears to be using this technique. BGP Spectrum Agility Log IP addresses of SMTP relays Join with BGP route advertisements seen at network where spam trap is co-located. A small club of persistent players appears to be using this technique. Common short-lived prefixes and ASes 61.0.0.0/8 4678 66.0.0.0/8 21562 82.0.0.0/8 8717 ~ 10 minutes Somewhere between 1-10% of all spam (some clearly intentional, others might be flapping)

A Slightly Different Pattern

Why Such Big Prefixes? “Agility” Flexibility: Client IPs can be scattered throughout dark space within a large /8 Same sender usually returns with different IP addresses Visibility: Route typically won’t be filtered (nice and short)

Characteristics of IP-Agile Senders IP addresses are widely distributed across the /8 space IP addresses typically appear only once at our sinkhole Depending on which /8, 60-80% of these IP addresses were not reachable by traceroute when we spot-checked Some IP addresses were in allocated, albeing unannounced space Some AS paths associated with the routes contained reserved AS numbers

Some evidence that it’s working Spam from IP-agile senders tend to be listed in fewer blacklists Vs. ~80% on average Only about half of the IPs spamming from short-lived BGP are listed in any blacklist

Thanks Randy Bush David Mazieres More information: Anirudh Ramachandran and Nick Feamster, Understanding the Network-Level Behavior of Spammers Send mail to Nick Feamster (username: feamster, domain: cc.gatech.edu) for a copy of the draft.

Length of short-lived BGP epochs 1 day ~ 10% of spam coming from short-lived BGP announcements (upper bound) Epoch length

An Empirical Study of BGP “Bogon” Route Advertisements

What are “bogon” routes? Routes for prefixes that are not allocated to any registry As of December 2004, 94 /8 prefixes not allocated to any registry ASes should filter routes for these prefixes from neighboring ASes

Questions: 15-Month Study How often do bogon route announcements appear (prevalence),and how long do they last (persistence)? Are there certain bogon routes (i.e., bogon prexes and address space) that are leaked by more than one AS? How are bogon announcements distributed across the ASes that originate them, and how often does each AS leak bogon routes? When an AS leaks bogon routes, how many bogon routes are leaked at once? Do ASes update their route filters when IP address space is allocated from previously unallocated space?

Measurement Setup iBGP monitors at 8 distributed vantage points in the RON testbed Updates logged continuously for 15 months

Prevalence 110 origin ASes 403 invalid routes 13,000 updates About once every 2 days on average Prefix-based event: Begins with an announcement, ends with a withdrawal Origin-AS based: Begins with an announcement at any monitor, ends when no monitors see any bogons for 60+ minutes

Persistence 47% of prefix-based events lasted longer than 1 hour 57% lasted longer than one day

Common Prefixes Leaked 70% of invalid announcements, half of origin AS-based events involved three portions of address space: 172.16.0.0/12, 192.0.2.0/24, and 10.0.0.0/8 Routes from the space 0.0.0.0/7 were leaked by 71 different origin ASes

Bogon Routes Leaked per Event The majority of events only leaked a single prefix, and two-thirds leaked two prefixes or fewer. 14 events where a single AS originated more than 100 invalid prefixes.

Do ASes Update Their Filters?