Re: [Full-disclosure] Arbitrary DDoS PoC

[Terrence <secretpackets@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just by glancing at the tool I would bet that this tool has the http
headers misordered too. Its all good this tool would not be a very
effective dos tool but keep up the good work and nice choice of the
starfox quote.

--
tuna
65617420646120706f6f20706f6f



On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:48, adam <adam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have to admit that I've only read the posts here, haven't actually
> followed the link, but in response to Gage:
>
> It entirely depends on how it's being done, specifically: what
> services/applications are being targeted and in what way. If he's proxying
> through "big" servers such as those owned by Facebook, Google, Wikipedia,
> etc: then it definitely does make a difference. You're assuming that his
> network speed would be the bottleneck, but to make that assumption, you
> first have to assume that he's actually waiting around for response data.
>
> Maybe it's too early to convey this in an understandable way, I don't know.
> An example scenario that would be effective though: imagine that you run a
> web server, also imagine that there's a resource (CPU/bandwidth) intensive
> script/page on that server. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that my
> home internet speed is 1/10 of your server. We can also probably assume that
> your server's network speed is 1/10 of Google's. If I can force Google's
> server to request that page, that automatically puts me at an advantage
> (especially if I close the connection before Google can send the response
> back to me).
>
> Even if you're correct about his particular script, the logic behind your
> response is flawed. In the above example, one could use multithreading to
> cycle requests to your server through Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, whoever.
> As soon as the request has been sent, the connection could be terminated. If
> that for some reason wouldn't work, the script could wait until one byte
> is received (e.g. the "2" in "200 OK") and close the connection then. At
> that point, the bandwidth/resources would have already been used.
>
> The bottom line is that you could easily use the above concepts (and likely
> what the OP has designed) to overpower a server/service while using very
> little resources of your own. It's all circumstantial anyway though. My
> overall point, specifics aside, is that being able to use Google or
> Facebook's resources against a target is definitely beneficial and has all
> kinds of advantages.
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Gage Bystrom <themadichib0d@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> Uhh...looks pretty standard boss. You aren't going to DoS a halfway decent
>> server with that using a single box. Sending your request through multiple
>> proxies does not magically increase the resource usage of the target, its
>> still your output power vs their input pipe. Sure it gives a slight boost in
>> anonymity and obfuscation but does not actually increase effectiveness. It
>> would even decrease effectiveness because you bear the burden of having to
>> send to a proxy, giving them ample time to recover from a given request.
>>
>> Even if you look at it as a tactic to bypass blacklisting, you still
>> aren't going to overwhelm the server. That means you need more pawns to do
>> your bidding. This creates a bit of a problem however as then all your
>> slaves are running through a limited selection of proxies, reducing the
>> amount of threats the server needs to blacklist. The circumvention is quite
>> obvious, which is to not utilize proxies for the pawns....and rely on shear
>> numbers and/or superior resource exhaustion methods....
>>
>> On Feb 13, 2012 4:37 AM, "Lucas Fernando Amorim" <lf.amorim@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> With the recent wave of DDoS, a concern that was not taken is the model
>>> where the zombies were not compromised by a Trojan. In the standard
>>> modeling of DDoS attack, the machines are purchased, usually in a VPS,
>>> or are obtained through Trojans, thus forming a botnet. But the
>>> arbitrary shape doesn't need acquire a collection of computers.
>>> Programs, servers and protocols are used to arbitrarily make requests on
>>> the target. P2P programs are especially vulnerable, DNS, internet
>>> proxies, and many sites that make requests of user like Facebook or W3C,
>>> also are.
>>>
>>> Precisely I made a proof-of-concept script of 60 lines hitting most of
>>> HTTP servers on the Internet, even if they have protections likely
>>> mod_security, mod_evasive. This can be found on this link [1] at GitHub.
>>> The solution of the problem depends only on the reformulation of
>>> protocols and limitations on the number of concurrent requests and
>>> totals by proxies and programs for a given site, when exceeded returning
>>> a cached copy of the last request.
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/lfamorim/barrelroll
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Lucas Fernando Amorim
>>> http://twitter.com/lfamorim
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/