Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Worm Defense Alexander Chang CS239 – Network Security 05/01/2006.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Worm Defense Alexander Chang CS239 – Network Security 05/01/2006."— Presentation transcript:

1 Worm Defense Alexander Chang CS239 – Network Security 05/01/2006

2 What is a worm? Self-replicating/self-propagating programs Spread from system to system without user interaction Finds vulnerabilities in systems and uses them to spread Spread via network Different from virus which requires user interaction

3 Danger? Take over systems Access sensitive information  Passwords, credit card numbers, patient records, emails Disrupts system functions  Government, nuclear power plants, hospitals DDoS attack Bandwidth saturation

4 Code Red (CRv1) July 13 th, 2001 Exploit Microsoft IIS vulnerabilities Each infected system scans random 32bit IP addresses to attack Bug in the random generator resulting linear spread

5 Code Red I (CRv2) July 19 th, 2001 Same as CRv1 but with random generator bug fix DDoS payload targeting IP address of www.whitehouse.gov Bug in the code made it die for date >= 20 th of the month

6 Code Red II August 4 th, 2001 Not related to Code Red (just comment says Code Red) Exploit buffer overflow in MS IIS web server Installed remote root backdoor which can be used for anything

7 Nimda September 18 th, 2001 Multiple method of spreading  MS IIS vulnerability  Email  Copying over network shares  Webpage infection  Scan backdoor left by Code Red II From no probing to 100 probes/sec in just 30 minutes

8 Sapphire/Slammer/SQLSlammer January 25 th, 2003 Exploit MS SQL Server buffer overflow Fastest spreading worm Peak rate of 55million scans/sec after just 3 min Rate slowed down because bandwidth saturation No malicious payload, just saturated bandwidth causing many servers out of connection

9 Slammer effect : Before and after 30 minutes What if Slammer had malicious payload?

10 Used Techniques Random scanning  Code Red, Code Red I Localized scanning  Code Red II  Machines in the same network are more likely to run the same software Multi-vector  Nimda  Several methods of spreading

11 Possible Techniques 1 Hit-list scanning  First 10k infection is the hardest  Use a list of 10~50k vulnerable machines  Several methods to generate the list Stealthy scan: random scan taking several months Distributed scan: using already compromised hosts DNS search: already known servers such as mail/web servers Just listening: P2P networks advertise their servers, previous worms advertised many servers

12 Possible Techniques 2 Permutation Scanning  Random scan probes same host multiple times  Permutation of IP addresses  When an infected host is found, start from random point in the permutation  Self-coordinated, comprehensive scanning  Very high infection rate

13 Possible Techniques 3 Warhol Worm Hit-list and permutation scanning combined Start off quickly and high infection rate Simulation shows 99.99% of 300k hosts infected in less t han 15 min. Many other techniques  Topological scanning – use info from the infected machine to spread machines in the same subnet  Flash worm – using high band width with compressed hit-list  Stealth worms – web servers to clients, P2P

14 Dealing with worm threat Prevention  Prevent vulnerability by Secure coding practices  Patching software  Heterogeneity of network Treatment  Patching after breakout  Virus scanning Containment

15 Incoming  Black list  Signature based detection  Identify scanning characteristics of worms Outgoing  TCP connection threshold  Use worm signature for outbound traffic

16 Detection – signature based Attack Signature:  A description which represents a particular attack or action Eg, a classic antivirus signature Vulnerability Signature:  A description of the class of vulnerable systems Eg, “Windows XP, SP2, not patched since 10/1/2004”  A description of how to exploit a particular vulnerability Behavioral Signatures:  A behavior necessary for a class of worms (E.G. Scanning)  A behavior common to many implementations (half-open connec tions)

17 Detection – runtime analysis Mark all the data from unsafe source and derived data to be dirty Any execution attempts are signaled as possible threat Generate Self-Certifying Allerts and distribute to peers u sing overlay – peers only run overlay code so less susce ptible to attacks Each host verifies alert in a VM and if the vulnerability is found, generates filter Multiple filters to prevent false positive  Generic filter – disjunction of multiple specific conditions  Specific filter – more stringent conditions

18 Thoughts Detection  Polymorphic worms Obfuscation, encryption  False positive Attacker generates suspicious traffic with byte strings that are common in normal traffic  Signature generation time  Dynamic taint analysis – expensive or low coverage a nd resource-hungry

19 Thoughts Distribution/deployment  Pervasive P2P collaboration E2E detection and distribution  Secure communication Overlay? Intrusion detection systems? Honeypots, honeyfarms?

20 Remarks Future worms will be more aggressive Need automatic detection mechanisms  No global answer, need to apply all the techniques Network level detections have limitations becaus e of limited/no knowledge of software vulnerabilit ies E2E detection, secure P2P distribution of worm i nformation


Download ppt "Worm Defense Alexander Chang CS239 – Network Security 05/01/2006."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google