Ramblings of an old Doc
But, it isn't
Published on February 13, 2011 By DrJBHL In Personal Computing

 

 

                                                                

 

"A new cyberweapon could take down the entire internet – and there's not much that current defences can do to stop it."

So say Max Schuchard at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and his colleagues, the masterminds who have created the digital ordnance.

So, what is it and how does it work?

The Way The Internet Works:

We have a “smart” system. Not all the connections work all the time. In reality, there are routers on the net which are ‘up’ and ‘down’ all the time.

Any given “message” is broken up into packets which are shuttled around the blocked spots because the net is made to check if the immediate next router is up or down and if down is rerouted. At the final step, the packets are reassembled into the original message. When a communication path changes, nearby routers inform their neighbors through a system known as the border gateway protocol (BGP). These routers inform other neighbors in turn, eventually spreading knowledge of the new path throughout the internet.

The Method of Attack:

A previously discovered method of attack, named ZMW – after its three creators Zhang, Mao and Wang, researchers in the US who came up with their version four years ago – disrupts the connection between two routers by causing the ‘sending’ router to think the ‘receiving’ router is ‘down’.

When enough computers on the net are infected and made part of a huge “botnet”, the internet will be “down”, although in reality, it’s perfectly capable of transmitting information. How large a botnet is required? Schuchard has calculated approximately 250,000. This wouldn’t be the run of the mill DDoS attack which swamps servers with traffic. This would be the opposite.

Here the botnet would map and identify central “choke” points and cut there. Rerouting traffic would only replicate the original process of mapping and cutting in waves because of the BGP protocol which takes time to propagate. The backlog would become so great, the net would collapse. With every router in the world preoccupied, natural routing outages wouldn't be fixed, and eventually the internet would be so full of holes that communication would become impossible. Shuchard thinks it would take days to recover.

So, what’s the defense? Well, an “off switch”. “But no such thing exists”, we all say. Sure it does: Just by adjusting the BGP from short to long.

This is how to launch a cyberattack and protect one’s own country’s net from attack. Egypt did exactly that.

Impractical solution number two: Send BGPs by a separate ‘shadownet’. Impractical because that would require a second Internet to be built. Another solution is to have 10% of operators monitoring the health of the Internet by alternative means, and that probably would prove difficult despite what was seen with the net disruptions caused by the Slammer Worm in 2003.

Source: Gizmodo


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Feb 13, 2011

2. Doc I never said you said there wasn't such a thing as an off switch and know you only asked if there should be one. I have read it all over the Internet on many different sites a couple said there was and some said no such thing was available.

That's ok, Dave: I read what you wrote as referring to my prior article. No biggy.

3. Hell I may not be here after I post this. Something may just fly out of my computer and suck my brain out (such as it is but won't be getting much information), one never knows.

Yep...gotta beware of them flyin' brain suckers.

on Feb 13, 2011

Thanks for the pic. Now I really have something to worry about knowing that thing is out there.

on Feb 13, 2011

Power is one thing.

But deception is everything.

There is only one "other-ment".

-.-

on Feb 14, 2011

Can somebody explain the OP in a simple way to me?

It's too wordy.

on Feb 14, 2011

Basically, drJBHL is presenting a possible scenario where an off-switch (a theoretical button turning off major parts of the internet) would be the ideal solution to hackers trying to do damage to crucial infrastructure.

The counter-argument, now as before, is not that the button would be ineffective against countering a supposed threat. The argument is that it will be used for other ends, and that the government cannot be trusted with that power.

on Feb 14, 2011

"Can somebody explain the OP in a simple way to me?

It's too wordy."

 

We are ALL going to die.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[yes, I know....that's a given]....

on Feb 14, 2011

Campaigner
Can somebody explain the OP in a simple way to me?

It's too wordy.

Looks pretty simple to me....  

on Feb 14, 2011

I am not surprised by the discovery of this attack vector. Every programmer should understand that all things can and will break eventually. This particular vector of attack aims at disrupting the redundancies built into the protocol to handle single router failures. However, as the OP points out, such an attack would require a large amount of well orchestrated disruptions in order to take down the entire internet, and even then, this would only cause a temporary outage while the routers were reset. One should remember that router outages are rare to the individual router, but quite common when considering all routers. Thus, a router which finds itself cut off without being somehow disabled would still invoke its routines for creating a new route map and would send out the appropriate messages. The real problem is these message which would flood the various networks causing large scale congestion. However, this congestion would tend to be localized and would probably be at its worst for only a few hours following the conclusion of the attack. From what I know of BGP, this type of attack would be highly unlikely on this scale as one would have to perform the attack from many locations at once while also not disrupting the internet enough to disrupt the attack itself before it has had time to effect such a large number of BGP routers, which are not exactly simple store bought routers.

on Feb 14, 2011

Yeah, BGP has its downfalls. But its far from being only routing protocol on the net. In fact, there are dozens of them, and some of them have a way to counter such attacks.

Moreover, many backbones use static routing tables instead of any dynamic protocol and are not affected by this at all.

Such articles just spread FUD around, trying to scare people who dont understand the technology and believe them w/out doubt.

on Feb 14, 2011

DrJBHL

Looks pretty simple to me....  

 

You're a native englishspeaker (an arrogant one). I'm not.

 

Thanks Heaven

on Feb 14, 2011

Campaigner

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 22
Looks pretty simple to me....  
 

You're a native englishspeaker (an arrogant one). I'm not.

 

Thanks Heaven

I find most (read: almost all) non-native English speakers to be much better at English then I am at their language.

Best regards,
Steven.

on Feb 14, 2011

I'd suggest you edit your reply, Campaigner. The Terms of Service here on WinCustomize forbids personal attacks.

Also, if you expect special consideration as a non native English speaker, you should state "I am a non native English speaker" in your replies. Since your previous reply had no errors in English, one could not be expected to guess that fact.

If there is something you do not understand, you can send a pm by clicking on the nickname above the avatar (picture) whose post/reply you did not understand and choosing "Personal Message".

The way your reply #19 was worded, it merely appeared to be rude.

on Feb 14, 2011

StevenAus
I find most (read: almost all) non-native English speakers to be much better at English then I am at their language.

Since when has Aussies ever spoken English well

on Feb 14, 2011

Since when have Americans ever spoken actual English??

on Feb 14, 2011

I think what I said is relevant, no matter which country that does or doesn't have mostly native English speakers in it is referred to.  People who grew up in native-English-speaking countries don't need to ever learn another language if they don't want to - people who did not learn English in their early formative years (which are the best for learning languages) are basically forced to learn it, and get criticized when they don't learn it perfectly.  However native English speakers rarely know English perfectly themselves anyway, so I admire those who can speak English reasonably well when they had to learn it later, as well as being fluent in their own native languages.

Best regards,
Steven.

3 Pages1 2 3