Posts Tagged ‘internet’

Lawmakers giving Obama the right to shutdown the internet

Tags: , ,

The second draft of a Senate cybersecurity bill appears to tone down language that would grant President Obama the power to shut down the Internet.

The Senate bill, first introduced in April by Senator John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), does, however, still include language that gives Obama the authority to direct responses to cyber attacks and declare a cyber emergency.

The bill also gives the President 180 days, as opposed to one year outlined in the bill’s first draft, to implement a cybersecurity strategy from the day the bill is passed, which for now could be a long way off.

But the language in the first draft of the bill, which has yet to make it out of Rockefeller’s Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and onto the Senate floor, has been rewritten regarding the President’s authority to shut down both public and private networks including Internet traffic coming to and from compromised systems.

Critics contend sweeping presidential power isn’t good news since private networks could be shut down by government order. In addition, those same networks could be subject to government mandated security standards and technical configurations.

The original bill included the words: “The President may….order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network.

The second draft, which has not been released publicly, rearranges those words, according to text of the bill posted by CNet.

The second draft contains more convoluted language concerning the President’s control over computer networks and it deletes reference to the Internet.

It qualifies his authority to include “strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network,” but says he may “direct the national response to the cyber threat” in coordination with “relevant industry sectors.”

The reference to relevant industry sectors is new in the second draft.

The bill still includes language that would have the President directing the “timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network.”

Earlier this year, critics expressed concern over potentially giving the President power to tell private network operators when they could turn their systems back on after a cybersecurity threat.
Proponents, however, including officials from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), are on record as saying the legislation is comprehensive and strong and reflects the need for thorough debate around digital security that is long overdue.

The original bill proposed by Rockefeller, and now co-sponsored by Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), touched off a storm of debate over how much power the President should have to control the operation of “critical infrastructure.”

When the bill was release in April, Leslie Harris, president and CEO at the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), which promotes democratic values and constitutional liberties for the digital age, told Network World: “We are confident that the communication networks and the Internet would be so designated [as critical infrastructure], so in the interest of national security the president could order them disconnected.”

Network World sources said Rockefeller’s Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee, which includes Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), spent much of the recent Senate recess meeting with stakeholders and groups that had problems with the first draft of the bill.

Those meetings are intended to help complete a second draft, which has yet to be introduced formally by the committee.

While the sources did not say who was part of those meetings, stakeholders could conceivably extend to large service provider networks such as those run by Google, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo and others that offer online services and applications to corporations and consumers.

In April, Google confirmed it was studying the legislation.

The cybersecurity bill is very much in the early stages and the second draft represents progress in drafting the bill’s language for the committee to debate.

Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee.

As with any law, both the House and Senate would have to pass the bill and the President would have to sign it.

CEO of Myspace has agreed to step down

Tags: ,

Chris DeWolfe, CEO and co-founder of MySpace, has agreed to step down from his position and stay on as a “strategic advisor.” News Corp., which owns MySpace, did not name a replacement but the buzz on the All Things Digital blog today has been hinting at Owen Van Nutta, former Facebook COO, as a replacement.

The blog is also reporting that company president and co-founder Tom Anderson may also be pushed aside or at least placed into a different position.

Clearly, as momentum in social networking has moved toward sites such as Facebook and, more recently, Twitter, executives at News Corp. are interested in breathing new life into MySpace, once the king of the social networks.

DOD is always under cyberattack

Tags: ,

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that the United States is “under cyberattack virtually all the time, every day” and that the Defense Department plans to more than quadruple the number of cyber experts it employs to ward off such attacks.

In an interview for an upcoming edition of 60 Minutes, CBS News anchor Katie Couric asked Gates about the nation’s cybersecurity after hackers stole specifications from a $300 billion fighter jet development program as well as other sensitive information.

In a series of spy attacks, hackers stole information about the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project and the Air Force’s air traffic control system, according to a Wall Street Journal report Tuesday.

The computer spies copied several terabytes of data from the Joint Strike Fighter project, the most expensive in Defense Department history, pertaining to the electronics and design systems of the aircraft, several current and former officials told the Journal.

Officials said the separate incursion into the air traffic control system could allow intruders to interfere with military aircraft.

Gates would not discuss the specifics of the attacks, but said, “I believe we still have security of the sensitive systems.”

Generally, “We think we have pretty good control of our sensitive information both with respect to intelligence and equipment systems, but we, like everybody else, is under attack. Banks are under attack. Every country is under attack,” Gates told Couric.

But, he said, “It’s sometimes very difficult to figure out a home address on these attacks so one of the things that I am doing in the budget is significantly increasing the resources for cyber experts. We’re going to more than quadruple the number of experts that we have in this area. We’re devoting a lot more money to it.”

The source of the espionage appears to be China, according to a former official, though the origin of any attacks could be masked. Chinese officials deny any involvement and say U.S. suspicion is the result of a “Cold War mentality.”

Similar attacks have become more frequent in recent months, underscoring the increasingly heated battles taking place in cyberspace. Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that Russian and Chinese spies gained access to the U.S. electrical grid, inserting software that could disrupt the system.

In the Joint Strike Fighter attack, officials said that while spies made off with some data, the most sensitive information is stored on separate, non-networked computers. But the vulnerability lies in the Pentagon’s reliance on private defense contractors, some foreign, who have less-than-secure networks. The breaches apparently took place in Turkey and another U.S. ally nation, according to the report.

While there is no U.S. agency currently dedicated solely to cybersecurity, the Obama administration is expected to propose a senior White House post to coordinate military efforts to guard against further breaches. The White House may also look to extend a $17 billion security initiative originally planned by the Bush administration.

“This is going to be an enduring problem and it is going to be a challenge not just for the Department of Defense but for the entirety of the United States,” Gates said.

Tax free internet may end soon

Tags: ,

A bill expected to be introduced in the U.S. Congress as early as Monday would rewrite the ground rules for mail order and Internet sales by eliminating what its supporters view as a “loophole” that, in many cases, allows Americans to shop over the Internet without paying sales taxes.

Currently, Americans who shop over the Internet from out-of-state vendors aren’t always required to pay sales taxes at the time of purchase. Californians buying books from Amazon.com or cameras from Manhattan’s B&H Photo, for example, won’t pay sales taxes at checkout time that they would if shopping at a local mall.

“We will have the bill ready for introduction by next Monday,” said Neal Osten of the National Conference of State Legislatures. “We finalized the language and now we’re working out the remaining issues and adding some new provisions at the request of various stakeholders.”

This is hardly a new debate: pro-tax officials and state governments have been pressing Congress to enact such a law for at least seven years. They argue that reduced sales tax revenue threatens budgets for schools and police, and say that, as a matter of fairness, online retailers should be forced to collect the same taxes that brick-and-mortar retailers do.

Even though those arguments have been unsuccessful so far, the National Conference of State Legislatures and its allies believe the recession has sliced into sales tax revenue so much that Congress will have to act. A report this week from the Rockefeller Institute says that sales taxes have declined by 6.1 percent, the largest decline in half a century.

“One of the big things the states have learned in the recession is they have declining revenues,” said Scott Peterson, executive director of the Streamlined Sales Tax Project, which counts state politicians and tax collectors on its governing board. “We’re very optimistic about Congress this year. We think we are within a day or two of finalizing the legislation.”

The final legislation is expected to be introduced by Sen. Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, and Rep. Bill Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, who have championed similar proposals in the past. Delahunt’s office on Wednesday confirmed he was interested; Enzi’s did not respond.

On the other side are the Direct Marketing Association, the Electronic Retailing Association, and companies including eBay, L.L. Bean, and Overstock.com. One of their biggest objections to the idea of collecting sales taxes on out-of-state shipments is the dizzying complexity of state laws.

Take candy, which would seem to be a straightforward item to tax. It isn’t. During a 2003 discussion of tax policy, a representative of Indiana, James Turner, noted that a proposed definition of candy would have taxed the Milky Way Midnight candy bar but not the original Milky Way bar.

But further investigation showed that Turner’s counter-proposal would have treated “certain flavors of Pop Tarts” and Cookies and Twix Crunchy Cookie Bars as candy–but not Cookies and Snickers Crunchy Cookie Bars. Peanut butter Girl Scout cookies would be candy, but Thin Mints or Caramel deLites would be classified as food.

Bizarre distinctions like this, coupled with the existence of more than 7,000 different tax agencies, are why the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that out-of-state retailers generally couldn’t be obligated to collect sales taxes unless Congress changes the law. The justices noted in a 1992 case called Quill v. North Dakota: “Congress is now free to decide whether, when, and to what extent the States may burden interstate mail order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes.”

One exception to that rule is a legal concept called “nexus,” which means a company can be forced to collect sales taxes if it has a sufficient business presence. If Amazon had an office in California, it already would be collecting sales tax for Golden State residents. (Another exception is the sale of cigarettes, which is covered by the Jenkins Act.)

In response to complexity concerns, the pro-tax forces have offered a proposal that they hope Congress can be persuaded to adopt. The concept is called the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement, invented in 2002 by state tax officials hoping to straighten out some of sales tax laws’ most notorious convolutions.

Since 2003, more than 20 states have signed on, either wholly or partially, to the agreement, meaning they agree to simplify their tax codes and make them uniform. If enough states participate, proponents believe it will be easier to convince Congress to make sales collection mandatory for out-of-state retailers.

“You’ll see governors from states who are active participants pushing the Hill to move the issue forward–Kansas has been a long-standing leader. North Dakota, Iowa, Oklahoma, those are some with members on the governing board,” said David Quam, director of the office of federal regulations at the National Governors Association. “The states have done the heavy lifting of coming up with a voluntary system that makes sense. Now it’s Congress’ turn to grant states the authority to collect this.”

Representatives of the Streamlined Sales Tax Project are gathering in Washington, D.C. next month for a three-day governing board meeting, including a “lobbying day” that’s scheduled for May 13.

Under existing law, the caveat is that online purchases from sites like Amazon and eBay only seem to arrive tax-free. Legally, however, purchasers are required to pay their own state’s sales tax rate–the concept is called a “use tax”–and then voluntarily report the amount owed at tax time.

California residents, for instance, are now burdened with a sales and use tax of at least 8.25 percent. State law is strict: if Californians travel to a state with a 5 percent tax and shop there, the law requires them to cough up the 3.25 percent difference when they return. Online purchases are taxed as well.

But compliance is spotty at best. California’s Board of Equalization estimates the state lost $1.34 billion in 2003 because residents aren’t paying use taxes–and attributes $208 million of that to online purchases.

“There’s no member of NRF that does not support” the forthcoming legislation, said Maureen Riehl, vice president of government relations at the National Retail Federation. “The sooner we can get it done the better, as far as retailers are concerned.”

Online retailers tend to disagree. If the Streamlined Sales Tax Project (SSTP) were actually simple and easy for a shipper to work with, they might be more willing to compromise, but that may not be the case.

“The states are desperate for new revenue and I think they realize they’re straying far from the simplification they originally promised,” said Steve DelBianco, executive director of NetChoice, which counts as members AOL, eBay, NewsCorp, Oracle, Verisign, and Yahoo. “That creates an urgency on their part–to get the federal mandate before it becomes clear they have no intention to simplify.”

“They have no real intention of simplifying or compensating sellers for the burdens of collecting,” DelBianco said. “It’s a shell game.”

Among his complaints: That states are unwilling to compensate sellers for the burden of sales tax collection; that small businesses with minimal sales should be exempt; that only one state (as opposed to all states) should be able to audit a business; that participating states are not paying attention to the idea of simplification and are actually making definitions more complex.

Bill would give Obama power to shut down Internet

Tags: ,

Federal legislation introduced in the Senate this week would give President Obama the power to declare a cybersecurity emergency and then shut down both public and private networks including Internet traffic coming to and from compromised systems.

The proposed legislation, introduced April 1, also would give the President the power to “order the disconnection of any Federal government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security.”

The bill was introduced by West Virginia Democratic Sen. John Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Republican from Maine.

Want to compare security products? Visit the IT Product Guides now.Rockefeller said in a statement the bill loosely parallels the recommendations presented in December to Obama by a CSIS panel. The panel recommended naming an assistant for cyberspace and a National Security Council (NSC) director to coordinate government response to cyber threats.

The 51-page Rockefeller/Snowe bill calls for the appointment of a National Cybersecurity Advisor that reports directly to the President.

“[Rockefeller/Snowe] got input form a lot of sources, including the CSIS report, so there is more there than we had laid out. It’s a strong bill,” said Jim Lewis, director and senior fellow in the technology and public policy program at CSIS.

Rockefeller says the legislation addresses the threat to private sector infrastructure such as banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, and telecommunications.

But even Rockefeller said the bill was a starting point and not a finished product.

“This legislation is the beginning of the process – the objective of this cybersecurity bill is to start the debate and chairman Rockefeller welcomes comments from all parties, he is sitting down with stakeholders already and he welcomes input from all those supportive of the legislation and those with concerns,” said Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation.

CDT’s Harris said there is likely to be much concern from the private sector. In CDT’s evaluation of the bill’s language, Harris says “We read this bill to say it sets a technical standard and one way to do things.”

She says the government could establish standards on how to configure software and on security configurations that would apply to anything the President says is critical infrastructure.

“If you are a bank or a communications network and you are critical infrastructure you have to meet those standards,” says Harris. Such a mandate, she says, would undermine innovation and weaken security because all critical infrastructure would be running the same technology that once compromised would see networks fall like dominoes.

“We are confident that the communication networks and the Internet would be so designated [as critical infrastructure], so in the interest of national security the president could order them disconnected.,” said Leslie Harris, president and CEO at the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), , which promotes democratic values and constitutional liberties for the digital age.

The bill says the president must have a comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy in place 12 months after the bill passes.

“This is pretty sweeping legislation,” says Harris. “Seems the President could turn off the Internet completely or tell someone like Verizon to limit or block certain traffic,” she said. “There is a lot to worry about in this bill.”

In addition, an agency appointed by the President would control how and when systems are restored.

The power could conceivably extend to large service provider networks such as those run by Google, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo and others who offer online services and applications to corporations and consumers.

“We are currently studying this legislation,” said Dan Martin, a spokesman for Google. “Security has been a priority at Google from the beginning of the company – we recognize that secure products are instrumental in maintaining the trust our users place in us.”

Proponents including officials from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) say the legislation is comprehensive and strong and reflects the need for thorough debate around digital security that is long overdue.

But it is that kind of input, says CSIS Lewis, that the bill is designed to draw out.

Want to compare security products? Visit the IT Product Guides now.“It takes a broad brush approach,” he says. “It’s got sections on organization, strategy, education, technology standards, public private partnership and a little regulatory authority. No previous U.S. effort has been as comprehensive, and that’s one of the main reasons all our previous efforts failed. This is a big step forward,” said Lewis.

But he added that all that might add up to the bill never getting passed. “But it’s good to put people on notice that the standard half-baked or half-witted solutions won’t cut it.”

Printer dots raise privacy concerns around security

Tags: , ,

 

” The affordability and growing popularity of color laser printers is raising concerns among civil liberties advocates that your privacy may not be worth the paper you’re printing on.

More manufacturers are outfitting greater numbers of laser printers with technology that leaves microscopic yellow dots on each printed page to identify the printer’s serial number — and ultimately, you, says the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, one of the leading watchdogs of electronic privacy.

The technology has been around for years, but the declining price of laser printers and the increasing number of models with this feature is causing renewed concerns.

The dots, invisible to the naked eye, can be seen using a blue LED light and are used by authorities such as the Secret Service to investigate counterfeit bills made with laser printers, says Lorelei Pagano, director of the Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group.

Privacy advocates worry that the little-known technology could ensnare political dissidents, whistle-blowers or anyone who prints materials that authorities want to track”…

Security is a big part of the IT world as new technologies and projects emerge the more we will see our daily hardware being tracked either by dots or embedded code using our registration, ip address and even down to the browser type. Great example is google analytics. I can track people down to their OS, Browser and even city and ISP were someone  is viewing my page fr0m.


 

What is IP Spoofing in Cisco terms

Tags: , ,

The Internet Protocol, or IP, is the main protocol used to route information across the Internet. The role of IP is to provide best-effort services for the delivery of information to its destination. IP depends on upper-level TCP/IP suite layers to provide accountability and reliability. The heart of IP is the IP datagram, a packet sent over the Internet in a connectionless manner. An IP datagram carries enough information about the network to get forwarded to its destination; it consists of a header followed by bytes of data . The header contains information about the type of IP datagram, how long the datagram should stay on the network (or how many hops it should be forwarded to), special flags indicating any special purpose the datagram is supposed to serve, the destination and source addresses, and several other fields, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The IP Header

Layers above IP use the source address in an incoming packet to identify the sender. To communicate with the sender, the receiving station sends a reply by using the source address in the datagram. Because IP makes no effort to validate whether the source address in the packet generated by a node is actually the source address of the node, you can spoof the source address and the receiver will think the packet is coming from that spoofed address. Many programs for preparing spoofed IP datagrams are available for free on the Internet; for example, hping lets you prepare spoofed IP datagrams with just a one-line command, and you can send them to almost anybody in the world. You can spoof at various network layers; for example, you can use Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) spoofing to divert the traffic intended for one station to someone else. The Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) is also a target for spoofing; because SMTP does not verify the sender’s address, you can send any e-mail to anybody pretending to be someone else. This article focuses on the various types of attacks that involve IP spoofing on networks, and the techniques and approaches that experts in the field suggest to contend with this problem.

Spoofing IP datagrams is a well-known problem that has been addressed in various research papers. Most spoofing is done for illegitimate purposes—attackers usually want to hide their own identity and somehow damage the IP packet destination. This article discusses ways of spoofing IP datagrams, various attacks that involve spoofed IP packets, and techniques to detect spoofed packets and trace them back to their original source; spoofing concerns for IPv6 are briefly addressed.

Spoofing an IP Datagram

IP packets are used in applications that use the Internet as their communications medium. Usually they are generated automatically for the user, behind the scenes; the user just sees the information exchange in the application. These IP packets have the proper source and destination addresses for reliable exchange of data between two applications. The IP stack in the operating system takes care of the header for the IP datagram. However, you can override this function by inserting a custom header and informing the operating system that the packet does not need any headers. You can use raw sockets in UNIX-like systems to send spoofed IP datagrams, and you can use packet drivers such as WinPcap on Windows . Some socket programming knowledge is enough to write a program for generating crafted IP packets. You can insert any kind of header, so, for example, you can also create Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) headers. If you do not want to program or have no knowledge of programming, you can use tools such as hping, sendip, and others that are available for free on the Internet, with very detailed documentation to craft any kind of packet. Most of the time, you can send a spoofed address IP packet with just a one-line command.

Why Spoof the IP Source Address?

What is the advantage of sending a spoofed packet? It is that the sender has some kind of malicious intention and does not want to be identified. You can use the source address in the header of an IP datagram to trace the sender’s location. Most systems keep logs of Internet activity, so if attackers want to hide their identity, they need to change the source address. The host receiving the spoofed packet responds to the spoofed address, so the attacker receives no reply back from the victim host. But if the spoofed address belongs to a host on the same subnet as the attacker, then the attacker can “sniff” the reply. You can use IP spoofing for several purposes; for some scenarios an attacker might want to inspect the response from the target victim (called “nonblind spoofing”), whereas in other cases the attacker might not care (blind spoofing). Following is a discussion about reasons to spoof an IP packet.

Scanning

An attacker generally wants to connect to a host to gather information about open ports, operating systems, or applications on the host. The replies from the victim host can help the attacker in gathering information about the system.

These replies might indicate open ports, the operating system, or several applications running on open ports. For example, a response for connection at port 80 indicates the host might be running a Web server. The hacker can then try to telnet to this port to see the banner and determine the Web server version and type, and then try to exploit any vulnerability associated with that Web server. In the scanning case, attackers want to examine the replies coming back from the host, so they need to see the returned packet. If the spoofed address is actually an address of a host on the attacker’s subnet, then the attacker can use a sniffer to see the packets.

Sequence-Number Prediction

If you establish the connection between two hosts by using TCP, the packets exchanged between the two parties carry sequence numbers for data and acknowledgments. The protocol uses these numbers to determine out-of-order and lost packets, thus ensuring the reliable delivery to the application layer as promised by TCP. These numbers are generated pseudo-randomly in a manner known to both the parties. An attacker might send several spoofed packets to a victim to determine the algorithm generating the sequence numbers and then use that knowledge to intercept an existing session. Again it is important for the attacker to be able to see the replies.

Hijacking an Authorized Session

An attacker who can generate correct sequence numbers can send a reset message to one party in a session informing that party that the session has ended. After taking one of the parties offline, the attacker can use the IP address of that party to connect to the party still online and perform a malicious act on it. The attacker can thus use a trusted communication link to exploit any system vulnerability. Keep in mind that the party that is still online will send the replies back to the legitimate host, which can send a reset to it indicating the invalid session, but by that time the attacker might have already performed the intended actions. Such actions can range from sniffing a packet to presenting a shell from the online host to the attacker’s machine.

Determining the State of a Firewall

A firewall is used to protect a network from Internet intruders. Packets entering a firewall are checked against an Access Control List (ACL). TCP packets sent by a source are acknowledged by acknowledgment packets. If a packet seems like an acknowledgement to a request or data from the local network, then a stateful firewall also checks whether a request for which this packet is carrying the acknowledgment was sent from the network. If there is no such request, the packet is dropped, but a stateless firewall lets packets enter the network if they seem to carry an acknowledgment for a packet. Most probably the intended receiver sends some kind of response back to the spoofed address. Again, for this process to work, the attacker should be able to see the traffic returning to the host that has the spoofed address—and the attacker generally knows how to use the returned packet to advantage.

Denial of Service

The connection setup phase in a TCP system consists of a three-way handshake . This handshake is done by using special bit combinations in the “flags” fields. If host A wants to establish a TCP connection with host B, it sends a packet with a SYN flag set. Host B replies with a packet that has SYN and ACK flags set in the TCP header. Host A sends back a packet with an ACK flag set, finishing the initial handshake. Then hosts A and B can communicate with each other, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: A Normal TCP Connection Request from A to B

The three-way handshake must be completed in order to establish a connection. Connections that have been initiated but not finished are called half-open connections. A finite-size data structure is used to store the state of the half-open connections. An attacking host can send an initial SYN packet with a spoofed IP address, and then the victim sends the SYN-ACK packet and waits for a final ACK to complete the handshake. If the spoofed address does not belong to a host, then this connection stays in the half-open state indefinitely, thus occupying the data structure. If there are enough half-open connections to fill the state data structure, then the host cannot accept further requests, thus denying service to the legitimate connections (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Half-Open TCP Connection

Setting a time limit for half-open connections and then erasing them after the timeout can help with this problem, but the attacker may keep continuously sending the packets. The attacked host will not have space to accept new incoming legitimate connections, but the connection that was established before the attack will have no effect. In this type of attack, the attacker has no interest in examining the responses from the victim. When the spoofed address does belong to a connected host, that host sends a reset to indicate the end of the handshake.

Flooding

In this type of attack an attacker sends a packet with the source address of the victim to multiple hosts. Responses from other machines flood the victim. For example, if an attacker uses the IP address of source A and sends a broadcast message to all the hosts in the network, then all of them will send a reply back to A, hence flooding it. The well-known Smurf and fraggle attacks used this technique.

Countermeasures for IP Spoofing

IP spoofing countermeasures include detecting spoofed IP packets and then tracing them back to the originating source. Detection of spoofed IP packets requires support of routers, host-based methods, and administrative controls, whereas tracing of IP packets involves special traceback equipment or traceback features in routers. The following section discusses both IP spoofing detection and IP spoofing traceback techniques.

Spoofed Packet Detection

Detection of a spoofed packet can start as early as at Layer 2. Switches with the IP Source Guard feature[8] match the MAC address of the host with a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)-assigned dynamic or administratively assigned static IP address. Packets that do not have the correct IP source address for that particular MAC address are dropped, thereby limiting the ability of hosts connected to such a switch to send a packet with their neighbor’s address. The IP Source Guard feature works very well for interfaces with a single IP address, but one interface can be assigned multiple IP addresses, and that may cause problems. The same problems can occur with Network Address Translation (NAT), where hosts might get different IP addresses several times. Routers work at Layer 3 in networks, and they know which interface a network is connected to and what network addresses can be expected to come from that network. If the outgoing packet from an interface does not have the network address of that interface, then the packet is spoofed and the router can stop that packet at that point; however, if the attacker is spoofing an IP address of a host on the same network (most likely in the attacks where they will be sniffing the replies), then this technique is not really helpful. The same logic can be used for an incoming packet; if a packet destined for an interface has a source address of the same network as the interface, then it is a spoofed packet. Routers can detect spoofed packets only when the packets pass through them, and if the target and attacker are both on the same subnet then this technique does not work.

Hosts receiving a suspicious packet can also use certain techniques to determine whether or not the IP address is spoofed. The first (and easiest) one is to send a request to the address of the packet and wait for the response; most of the time the spoofed addressees do not belong to active hosts and hence no response is sent.

Another method is to check the Time to Live (TTL) value of the packet, and then send a request to the spoofed host. If the reply comes, you can compare the TTL of both packets. Most probably the TTL values will not match. But of course it is also possible that these TTL values are the same but the packet is coming from a different source, and conversely. Packets generated by different operating systems differ slightly in values of certain fields; for example, in Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) ping packets, you can examine the data payload to determine the operating system. Windows fills the packet with letters of the alphabet, whereas Linux puts numbers in the data portion. If the suspicious packet does not have the same characteristics as the legitimate packet, that is evidence it was not sent from the IP address that is in its source address field. You can also use IP identification numbers to determine whether a packet is actually coming from the said source. For legitimate packets the IP ID is close in value, but this method is not reliable because the attacker can ping the said source and determine the IP ID that it is using, and then craft packets that will seem legitimate. In all these techniques we are trying to determine only whether or not a packet is spoofed, and taking all these steps for all packets would be prohibitive from an overhead standpoint. Thus you should either randomly check packets or determine some suspicious activity that would trigger further investigation for spoofed-packet detection. The next section addresses measures you can take to trace a spoofed packet back to its real source.

Tracing Spoofed IP Packets

IP traceback technology plays an important role in discovering the source of spoofed packets. Hop-by-hop traceback and logging of suspicious packets in routers are the two main methods for tracing the spoofed IP packets back to their source.

When a node detects that it is a victim of flood attack, it can inform the Internet Service Provider (ISP). In flood attacks the ISP can determine the router that is sending this stream to the victim, and then it can determine the next router, and so on. It reaches either to the source of the flood attack or the end of its administrative domain; for this case it can ask the ISP for the next domain to do the same thing. This technique is useful only if the flood is ongoing.

As mentioned earlier, a router has an idea of the IP addresses that should be arriving at its interfaces. If it sees any packet that does not seem to belong to the address range for its interface, it can log the packet as suspicious. Appropriately timed broadcasts among different domains to detect spoofed packets can help administrators of different networks trace spoofed IP packets back to their source.

IP Spoofing and IPv6

IP spoofing detection, or in other words validating the source address of an IPv6 packet, is a little more complicated than the process for IPv4. A host using IPv6 may potentially have multiple addresses. Again the problem inside the Local Area Network is to associate the IPv6 address with the Layer 2 or MAC address. Among peers on the same network, you can use Neighbor Discovery or Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) advertisements to verify the source address in a packet. You can verify source addresses of packets arriving from nodes outside the network by using the Authentication Header (AH) in IPv6 datagrams. You can use agreed-upon parameters between source and destination to calculate authentic­ation information on header fields that does not change during transit. Although this process will not prevent someone from signing a spoofed address, it does provide a means to authenticate the identity of the source.

IPv6 and IPv4 network inter­connections will likely face spoofing problems. IPv6 packets are usually encapsulated in IPv4 packets to travel across the non-IPv6 supporting networks. The IPv6 interim mechanism “6to4″ [10, 11] uses automatic IPv6-to-IPv4 tunneling to interconnect networks using different IP versions. This mechanism uses 6to4 routers and 6to4 Relay Routers that accept and decapsulate IPv4 traffic from anywhere. There are no constraints on such embedded packets. Relay routers act as bridges between IPv6 and 6to4 networks and can be tricked into sending spoofed traffic anywhere. Also, anyone can send tunneled spoofed traffic to a 6to4 router, and the router will believe that it is coming from a legitimate relay. There is no simple way to prevent such attacks, and longer-term solutions are needed in both IPv6 and IPv4 networks.

Conclusion

IP spoofing is a difficult problem to tackle, because it is related to the IP packet structure. IP packets can be exploited in several ways. Because attackers can hide their identity with IP spoofing, they can make several network attacks. Although there is no easy solution for the IP spoofing problem, you can apply some simple proactive and reactive methods at the nodes, and use the routers in the network to help detect a spoofed packet and trace it back to its originating source.

Cyrsh Technologies Reveals Enhanced Search Capabilities for Internet.com’s Search Engine Strategies 2000 Conference

Tags: ,

 

 

“Cyrsh Technologies, developers of advanced multi-language and Error Tolerant(TM) search technology, announced today that the company will be demonstrating its enhanced search technology, CyrshSX(TM), for Search Engine Strategies 2000 Conference hosted by Internet.com at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco on August 14, 2000. The conference is presented by Search Engine Watch.

“This is an opportunity to showcase the CyrshSX(TM) capability to the search engine participants attending the conference,” said Jerry Clements, vice president of sales at Cyrsh. “In this case, we should not be confused with a search engine since our purpose is to actually make the technology available for search engines to license. With CyrshSX(TM) running transparently on a search engine, our value-add features can improve search results and give flexibility to expand to other languages.”

Enhanced search features of CyrshSX(TM) include the ability to provide Error Tolerant(TM) and fuzzy search functions that can recognize ambiguous search requests and normalize formatting errors such as extra spaces, punctuation, and misspelling for greater precision in search results.

One of the most compelling developments in CyrshSX(TM) is its multi-language data retrieval function. This feature accepts data input from non-English (uni-code) keyboards and transparently performs the search in multiple languages. Practically speaking, this means users may search for Web sites which may be stored only in specific languages, such as English, and not in their native language.

For example: if a French speaking user wanted to search for a Web site which was only stored in English, the user would still be able to locate that Web site using his native language keyboard. As an added bonus, the user could enter a guess for the Web site address by spelling it phonetically, the way it sounds, and CyrshSX(TM) would still find the correct Web site.

CyrshSX(TM) currently performs fuzzy search functions and multi-language data search on site-limited database for demonstration purposes only at http://www.cyrsh.com. The multi-language feature prepares for dynamic Web page translation in the future.

About Cyrsh Technologies

Cyrsh Technologies Corporation is the developer of advanced search and retrieval technology that resolves the problems of finding relevant data in voluminous databases. Multi-language and Error Tolerant(TM) functions overcome the barriers of language, the exponential growth of the Internet, and the problems presented by human or machine error.

Applications for CyrshSX(TM) technology include Internet browsers, search engines, Web Address of the Future(TM), Email of the Future(TM), corporate databases, operating systems, security and intelligence agencies, iCyrsh(TM) Agent, Web site search, immigration and border control, passport control authorities, credit bureaus, telephone directories, and enhancement of voice recognition engines. Visit Cyrsh on the Internet at www.cyrsh.com.

 

 

Wow I remember working with this company back then. It was such a big company.

 

Cern’s “The Grid” will make internet obsolete

Tags: , ,

“The Internet could soon be made obsolete. The scientists who pioneered it have now built a lightning-fast replacement capable of downloading entire feature films within seconds.

At speeds about 10,000 times faster than a typical broadband connection, “the grid” will be able to send the entire Rolling Stones back catalogue from Britain to Japan in less than two seconds.

The latest spin-off from Cern, the particle physics centre that created the web, the grid could also provide the kind of power needed to transmit holographic images; allow instant online gaming with hundreds of thousands of players; and offer high-definition video telephony for the price of a local call.

David Britton, professor of physics at Glasgow University and a leading figure in the grid project, believes grid technologies could “revolutionise” society. “With this kind of computing power, future generations will have the ability to collaborate and communicate in ways older people like me cannot even imagine,” he said.

The power of the grid will become apparent this summer after what scientists at Cern have termed their “red button” day – the switching-on of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the new particle accelerator built to probe the origin of the universe. The grid will be activated at the same time to capture the data it generates.

Cern, based near Geneva, started the grid computing project seven years ago when researchers realised the LHC would generate annual data equivalent to 56m CDs – enough to make a stack 40 miles high.

This meant that scientists at Cern – where Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the web in 1989 – would no longer be able to use his creation for fear of causing a global collapse.

This is because the Internet has evolved by linking together a hotchpotch of cables and routing equipment, much of which was originally designed for telephone calls and therefore lacks the capacity for high-speed data transmission.

By contrast, the grid has been built with dedicated fibre optic cables and modern routing centres, meaning there are no outdated components to slow the deluge of data. The 55,000 servers already installed are expected to rise to 200,000 within the next two years.

Professor Tony Doyle, technical director of the grid project, said: “We need so much processing power, there would even be an issue about getting enough electricity to run the computers if they were all at Cern. The only answer was a new network powerful enough to send the data instantly to research centres in other countries.”

That network, in effect a parallel Internet, is now built, using fibre optic cables that run from Cern to 11 centres in the United States, Canada, the Far East, Europe and around the world.

One terminates at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory at Harwell in Oxfordshire.

From each centre, further connections radiate out to a host of other research institutions using existing high-speed academic networks.

It means Britain alone has 8,000 servers on the grid system – so that any student or academic will theoretically be able to hook up to the grid rather than the internet from this autumn.

Ian Bird, project leader for Cern’s high-speed computing project, said grid technology could make the internet so fast that people would stop using desktop computers to store information and entrust it all to the internet.

“It will lead to what’s known as cloud computing, where people keep all their information online and access it from anywhere,” he said.

Computers on the grid can also transmit data at lightning speed. This will allow researchers facing heavy processing tasks to call on the assistance of thousands of other computers around the world. The aim is to eliminate the dreaded “frozen screen” experienced by internet users who ask their machine to handle too much information.

The real goal of the grid is, however, to work with the LHC in tracking down nature’s most elusive particle, the Higgs boson. Predicted in theory but never yet found, the Higgs is supposed to be what gives matter mass.

The LHC has been designed to hunt out this particle – but even at optimum performance it will generate only a few thousand of the particles a year. Analysing the mountain of data will be such a large task that it will keep even the grid’s huge capacity busy for years to come.

Although the grid itself is unlikely to be directly available to domestic internet users, many telecoms providers and businesses are already introducing its pioneering technologies. One of the most potent is so-called dynamic switching, which creates a dedicated channel for internet users trying to download large volumes of data such as films. In theory this would give a standard desktop computer the ability to download a movie in five seconds rather than the current three hours or so.

Additionally, the grid is being made available to dozens of other academic researchers including astronomers and molecular biologists.

It has already been used to help design new drugs against malaria, the mosquito-borne disease that kills 1m people worldwide each year. Researchers used the grid to analyse 140m compounds – a task that would have taken a standard internet-linked PC 420 years.

“Projects like the grid will bring huge changes in business and society as well as science,” Doyle said.

“Holographic video conferencing is not that far away. Online gaming could evolve to include many thousands of people, and social networking could become the main way we communicate.

“The history of the internet shows you cannot predict its real impacts but we know they will be huge.”

The Web is 20 years old

Tags:

Back in 1989, Berners-Lee was a software consultant working at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) outside of Geneva, Switzerland. On March 13 of that year, he submitted a plan to management on how to better monitor the flow of research at the labs. People were coming and going at such a clip that an increasingly frustrated Berners-Lee complained that CERN was losing track of valuable project information because of the rapid turnover of personnel. It did not help matters that the place was chockablock with incompatible computers that people brought with them to the office.

“When two years is a typical length of stay, information is constantly being lost. The introduction of the new people demands a fair amount of their time and that of others before they have any idea of what goes on. The technical details of past projects are sometimes lost forever, or only recovered after a detective investigation in an emergency. Often, the information has been recorded, it just cannot be found.”

So he got to work on a document, which is amazing to read with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. But it would take Berners-Lee another couple of years before he could demo his idea. Even then, the realization of his theory had to wait until the middle of the 1990s when Jim Clark and Marc Andreessen popularized the notion of commercial Web browsing with Netscape.

And as prescient as the CERN document was, not even Berners-Lee could imagine where his basic design was about to lead. To wit, part of his very modest conclusions:

“We should work toward a universal linked information system, in which generality and portability are more important than fancy graphics techniques and complex extra facilities.

“The aim would be to allow a place to be found for any information or reference which one felt was important, and a way of finding it afterwards. The result should be sufficiently attractive to use that it the information contained would grow past a critical threshold, so that the usefulness the scheme would in turn encourage its increased use.”