skip to main content
10.1145/1533057.1533064acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesasia-ccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Towards complete node enumeration in a peer-to-peer botnet

Published:10 March 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

Modern advanced botnets may employ a decentralized peer-to-peer overlay network to bootstrap and maintain their command and control channels, making them more resilient to traditional mitigation efforts such as server incapacitation. As an alternative strategy, the malware defense community has been trying to identify the bot-infected hosts and enumerate the IP addresses of the participating nodes so that the list can be used by system administrators to identify local infections, block spam emails sent from bots, and configure firewalls to protect local users. Enumerating the infected hosts, however, has presented challenges. One cannot identify infected hosts behind firewalls or NAT devices by employing crawlers, a commonly used enumeration technique where recursive get-peerlist lookup requests are sent newly discovered IP addresses of infected hosts. As many bot-infected machines in homes or offices are behind firewall or NAT devices, these crawler-based enumeration methods would miss a large portions of botnet infections. In this paper, we present the Passive P2P Monitor (PPM), which can enumerate the infected hosts regardless whether or not they are behind a firewall or NAT. As an empirical study, we examined the Storm botnet and enumerated its infected hosts using the PPM. We also improve our PPM design by incorporating a FireWall Checker (FWC) to identify nodes behind a firewall. Our experiment with the peer-to-peer Storm botnet shows that more than 40% of bots that contact the PPM are behind firewall or NAT devices, implying that crawler-based enumeration techniques would miss out a significant portion of the botnet population. Finally, we show that the PPM's coverage is based on a probability-based coverage model that we derived from the empirical observation of the Storm botnet.

References

  1. Atrivo/intercage's disconnection briefly disrupts spam levels. http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. aMule network. http://www.amule.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. E. Cooke, F. Jahanian, and D. McPherson. The zombie roundup: Understanding, detecting, and disrupting botnets. In Usenix Workshop on Steps to Reducing Unwanted Traffic on the Internet, pages 39--44, July 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. D. Dagon, G. Gu, C. Lee, and W. Lee. A taxonomy of botnet structures. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. ACSAC, December 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. J. R. Douceur. The sybil attack. In Proc. of the International workshop on Peer-To-Peer Systems (IPTPS) 02, March 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. B. Enright. Exposing storm. In ToorCon, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. B. Enright, G. Voelker, S. Savage, C. Kanich, and K. Levchenko. Storm: When researchers collide. ;Login, Usenix, 33(4), August 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Attacks on virtual machine emulators, http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/reference/Virtual_Machine_Threats.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. E. Florino and M. Cibotariu. Peerbot: Catch me if you can. In Symantec Security Response: Ireland, Virus Bulletin, March 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Grizzard, V. Sharma, C. Nunnery, B. Kang, and D. Dagon. Peer-to-peer botnets: Overview and case study. In Usenix First Workshop on Hot Topics in Understanding Botnets, April 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. G. Gu, R. Perdisci, J. Zhang, and W. Lee. Botminer: Clustering analysis of network traffic from protocol and command and control channels in network traffic. In Proceedings of the 17th annual USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX Association, July 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. G. Gu, P. Porras, V. Yegneswaran, M. Fong, and W. Lee. Bothunter: Detecting malware infection through ids-driven dialog correlation. In Proceedings of The 16th USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX Association, August 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. G. Gu, J. Zhang, and W. Lee. Botsniffer: Detecting botnet command and control channels in network traffic. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium. ISOC, February 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. T. Holz, M. Steiner, F. Dahl, E. Biersack, and F. Freiling. Measurements and mitigation of peer-to-peer-based botnets: A case study on storm worm. In Proceedings of the First USENIX Workshop on Large Scale Exploits and Emergent Threats. USENIX Association, April 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. C. Kanich, K. Levchenko, B. Enright, G. Voelker, and S. Savage. The Heisenbot uncertainty problem: Challenges in separating bots from chaff. In Proceedings of the First USENIX Workshop on Large Scale Exploits and Emergent Threats. USENIX Association, April 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Mainline. http://www.bittorrent.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. matlab. http://www.mathworks.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. P. Maymounkov and D. Mazières. Kademlia: A peer-to-peer information system based on the xor metric. In 1st International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems, pages 53--62, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. The Overnet Protocol, https://opensvn.csie.org/mlnet/trunk/docs/overnet.txt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. M. Rajab, J. Zarfoss, F. Monrose, and A. Terzis. A multifaceted approach to understanding the botnet phenomenon. In Proceedings of the USENIX Internet Measurement Conference. USENIX Association, October 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Singh, T.-W. J. Ngan, P. Druschel, and D. S. Wallach. Eclipse attacks on overlay networks: Threats and defenses. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (Infocom), 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. SORBS. http://www.us.sorbs.net/faq/dul.shtml.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. Steiner, T. En-Najjary, and E. W. Biersack. A global view of kad. In IMC '07: Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement, pages 117--122, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. J. Stewart. Protocols and encryption of the storm botnet. http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-08/Stewart/BH_US_08_Stewart_Protocols_of_the_Storm.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. J. Stewart. Storm worm ddos attack. http://www.secureworks.com/research/threats/view.html?threat=storm-worm, February 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. S. Stover, D. Dittrich, J. Hernandez, and S. Deitrich. Analysis of the storm and nugache trojans - P2P is here. ;Login, Usenix, 32(6), December 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. D. Stutzbach and R. Rejaie. Improving lookup performance over a widely-deployed DHT. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (Infocom) 06, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Y. Xie, F. Yu, K. Achan, E. Gillum, M. Goldszmidt, and T. Wobber. How dynamic are ip addresses? In Special Interest Group on Data Communications (SIGCOMM), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Towards complete node enumeration in a peer-to-peer botnet

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ASIACCS '09: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Information, Computer, and Communications Security
      March 2009
      408 pages
      ISBN:9781605583945
      DOI:10.1145/1533057

      Copyright © 2009 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 10 March 2009

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate418of2,322submissions,18%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader