Hackers Battle For 3 Million Strong Mirai Botnet

By: Brian Karas, Published on Nov 28, 2016

Mirai-infected devices have become so large and so prevalent that multiple hackers are now fighting each other to control these devices.

This war has both made Mirai wider-spread, but less powerful for any given attack, and may lead hackers to search for new vulnerabilities in cameras and recorders to grow their botnet army.

In this report we look at the latest status of Mirai, and how it is expected to evolve into 2017.

*****-******** ******* **** ****** so ***** *** ** prevalent **** ******** ******* are *** ******** **** other ** ******* ***** *******.

**** *** *** **** **** Mirai *****-******, *** **** powerful *** *** ***** attack, *** *** **** hackers ** ****** *** new *************** ** ******* and ********* ** **** their ****** ****.

** **** ****** ** look ** *** ****** status ** *****, *** how ** ** ******** to ****** **** ****.

[***************]

3 ******* ******

***** *** **+ ******** ******* (most ****** *** ** different *******), **** **** * million ******** ******* **********, and ~***,***+ ************* ** attacks ** *** ***** day, ********* ** *** *********** ****, *** ** * botnet ********** ** *** UK, *** ****** *** dozens ** *****-***** ******* occurring *****.

***** *** ** ********** infected ******* ***** **** distribution ********, ********* *** US *** ******:

Popularity ****** ********** *****

** **** ***** ******* have ****** ** **** the *********** ** ***** botnets *** ******** **** other *** ******* ** vulnerable *******. **** ******** ************* ********, ** *** inevitable **** **** ****** controllers ***** *****, ***** has ********. **** *** less *********** *** *** way **** ***** ****** the ********* ********* *** any ******** ******. * recent***** ******* ** ***** ****** **** ****** ********* are ******** ********* **** other ** *** *** take ******** ********* ******* and **** ******* ** more *******:

*** ******** ********* ** use *** ***** ******’* resources **** **** ******** to turning ***** **** ******* ** each ***** ** *** to **** ** ******.

*********** **** **** *********** this ******* ******* ** botnet *********, *** *** ** is ********* ***

** ***** *** ***** hackers ** ****** *****-***** DDOS ******* ************ — such ** ***** **’** seen ******* *****, ***, and *** — **** will **** ** ********** competitors *** *** ***** to ******* *** **** type ** *******. ****** not **********, ********** **** competition ** * ************ challenge *** ** ***, the *** ****** ********* appears ** ** ********* with *** **** *****-** controllers *** *** ****** new ********** *******.

98 ******* ** *********

**** ******** ****** ***** the ******** *** ***** exploitable *******, **** ******* army ** ******** ***** that ********** ******* **** be ******** ****** ******* of ***** ******* **. One ********** ********* * camera, ************ ** ********, on ****** *** *** purposes ** ******** *** Mirai ** *********** *** it****** ******** ** ** seconds******** ******* **** ** commonly ****** **** *** company ****** * ******, *** ********** ******* ******* ***** blaming it *** *** *************** that *** ** *****.

Mirai ***** ** ******

*** ** *** *** Mirai *****, *********** * fresh **** ** *** exploit **** **** **** newly ******** ******, ** is **** *** ********* to ****** *** ****** code **** *** ******** or *************. **** ******* believe ****, ******* **** the *** *** * relatively ******* ****** ** resources, **** ***** *** attack **** ** ****** to ** **** ** infect ******* ********** ******. This ***** ** **** by ********* *** ********/******** list ** ******* **** than **** ******* *********, but **** **** ****** passwords. *** **** ***** also ****** ** **** more ***** *** **** telnet **********, ** ****** devices ******* ****** ** non-standard *****.

Outlook *** ****

** *** *** *** another ******-******** ****** **** Mirai, *** **** ****** see ********* *******, ** lower-scale ******* **** *** carried *** *** ****** periods ** ****. *** cost ** ******* *** a ****** *** ****** may drop, *** ** *********** from *** ******** ********* competing **** **** ***** for **** ********, ******* to **** ******* ** lower-profile *******. ** ********* manage ** **** * new ***** ** ******* to ****** ** ***** return ***** ** ******** record-breaking ******, ********** ** a **** ***** ******** than ******.

Comments (11)

This is a really interesting article, great job. My question in follow up to this article, is there even much that can be done to prevent this type of stuff from happening? The cat has been out of the bag for so long, and there so many criminal and militaristic (irony?) opportunities for these networks, that I see no fix to these types of bot/zombie nets. You can try to avoid buying products that can be cracked, but theres new vulnerabilities every week, its a losing proposition.

From a network security standpoint there are Firewalls from PaloAlto/Cisco/Fortinet/Baracuda/etc that can detect and deny DDOS traffic attacks, prevent your botnet infected devices from communicating out, but those tools on high enough throughput hardware can run in the multithousands of dollars price range.

As you mention, strong passwords could be a huge fix to a large chuck of these botnets, but we all know that's a lost effort. Unless you can overhaul the entire alphanumeric password string paradigm (you cant).

My question in follow up to this article, is there even much that can be done to prevent this type of stuff from happening?

I think there are a few things that are easy and help reduce the problem:

  • Manufacturers can disable telnet and SSH by default (to be fair, it seems like this is much more common now).
  • User authentication methods could be updated to not allow remote login if a secure password has not been set (this would allow local login for setup/configuration, but deny remote access until a better password was used).
  • Installers can help by not forwarding excess ports, and also putting services on non-standard ports. Using non-standard ports makes it slightly harder to scan for services to find devices that can be further probed.
  • Firmware updates can be done as part of the installation process to ensure products are running latest code, which in most cases should have reduced vulnerabilities, though it is always possible that new vulnerabilities have been introduced, but this should be rare.
  • Installers can also select and recommend products based on their ability to be secured, and the vendor having a good track record of responding to and fixing reported issues quickly.

Manufacturers could make a huge leap in reducing device exploitability if they were willing to make it a priority, and willing to invest proper effort into building more robust devices, by adding secure boot capabilities.

Some SoC suppliers, such as Ambarella, have been adding secure boot functionality into their chips, but it does not appear that security manufacturers are doing anything with it.

In short, secure boot can be utilized to ensure that even if an attacker could gain access to a root shell, they could not load/run unauthorized code.

Secure boot would make it several orders of magnitude more difficult to create botnet's, as the hackers could not just download software to make the camera/recorder do whatever they want. This is roughly similar in concept to how an iPhone cannot run software that has not been officially vetted by Apple, meaning that manufacturers like Axis would not have to give up the ability to run 3rd party apps on their cameras.

Like most things, creating software that is more secure and goes through additional authentication processes would take more effort on the manufacturers or developers part, but the result would be significantly increased security, and trustability, of recorders and cameras. But, the manufacturers are only likely to add this in if there is financial benefit to doing so, either by customers requesting it, or the support headaches of hacked devices becoming significant.

You mention installers a few times in your response, but my question is arent a lot of the devices that are part of these botnets actually consumer facing devices?

Also from that same perspective, how many of these limitations, extra steps would be accepted by consumers, and followed up on, and not just generate complaints that their Web connected video chat camera wouldn't talk to the cloud service?

From a manufacturers standpoint, your last comment says everything I think I need to know, with a 3rd possible option for manufacturers adding it; regulations (gasp!)

You mention installers a few times in your response, but my question is arent a lot of the devices that are part of these botnets actually consumer facing devices?

Yes, it is very likely a lot of them are consumer/DIY installs, I just listed the installer suggestions because it is relevant here. I had also considered listing some suggestions for end-users, but I think the reality is that very few end-users are aware enough to do anything in the first place, and those that are aware already know common best practices.

User authentication methods could be updated to not allow remote login if a secure password has not been set (this would allow local login for setup/configuration, but deny remote access until a better password was used).

Yes, couldn't agree more: Simple Solution To Default Password Conundrum...

The problem that will continue to exist is that there are hundreds of thousands of these cameras that are already out there and that will not be updated due to ignorance of the problem, not wanting to revisit old installations, or just not caring. For most products sold in the last year or so, the vulnerability was addressed by closing the telnet ports to deter infection of the devices. This botnet will continue to function due to the old cameras that will not be updated, not due to new cameras being purchased today or even within the past several months.

Any other possible solutions? Say camera chip built in software to deny (control) MOST Wan access? OR A firewall configuration to deny selected local (camera) LAN IP's WAN access? NO, I don't know how to do that. Just seems an honest question. OR is that already available. If so, where does one find it?

What you are describing is already available with either standard firewall configs, or in some cases cameras allow for "whitelist" IP access, where you can restrict which remote machines can establish a network connection to the camera. The downside to this is that it makes access via mobile apps much more challenging (unless the manufacturer, or some other entity, provides a cloud access/proxy service). I can also be difficult if the IP address of the remote access site changes for some reason, which is not uncommon for residential cable/DSL accounts.

Thanks for the explain.

My question was based on the bot having already gaining access. An issue surely. But once in...

On the simple side (for the average homeowner with a single camera or two) A firewall CAN deny the already in place bot from gaining WAN access. Thus thwarting it's mission? Next would be to have that information provided to the volume of such working cameras and possibly reduce a large part of the problem identified in the post.

Not a total solution granted but a reasonable attempt to minimize the problem until something more permanent comes along and one IPVM could champion from it's access to the world.

All reports that I've seen about the nature of the infection says that once the botnet agent infects a device, it removes the downloaded code and only stays resident in memory. Power cycling the device would remove the botnet agent, but unless measures are taken to protect it before powering back on it will most likely be infected again within minutes.

Very informative which I was not aware of.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports on Hacking

Register Now - October 2019 IP Networking Course on Aug 28, 2019
Register now for the Fall 2019 IP Networking Course. This is the only networking course designed specifically for video surveillance...
Critical Vulnerability Across 18+ Network Switch Vendors: Cisco, Netgear, More on Aug 26, 2019
Cisco, Netgear and more than a dozen other brands, including small Asian ones, have been found to share the same critical vulnerability, discovered...
Dahua Wiretapping Vulnerability on Aug 02, 2019
IPVM has validated, with testing, and from Dahua, that many Dahua cameras have a wiretapping vulnerability. Even if the camera's audio has been...
LifeSafety Power NetLink Vulnerabilities And Problematic Response on May 20, 2019
'Power supplies' are not devices that many think about when considering vulnerabilities but as more and more devices go 'online', the risks for...
Locking Down Network Connections Guide on Apr 23, 2019
Accidents and inside attacks are risks when network connections are not locked down. Security and video surveillance systems should be protected...
Silicon Valley Cybersecurity Insurance Startup Coalition Profile on Mar 20, 2019
Many industry people believe cybersecurity insurance is not worth it, as the voting and debate in our Cybersecurity Insurance For Security...
Hikvision Favorability Results 2019 on Mar 18, 2019
Hikvision favorability results declined significantly in IPVM's 2019 study of 200+ integrators. While in 2017 Hikvision's favorability was...
Bosch VDOO 2018 Vulnerability on Dec 20, 2018
Security research firm VDOO has discovered a critical vulnerability in Bosch IP cameras. Inside, we cover the available details of this new...
Genetec UL Cybersecurity Certificate (2900-2-3) Examined on Dec 19, 2018
Proving a company is cybersecure has become a major concern for security companies. But how trustworthy are these certificates? Earlier in 2018, a...
No GDPR Penalties For UK Swann 'Spying Hack' on Nov 20, 2018
The UK’s data protection agency has closed its investigation into Infinova-owned Swann Security UK, the ICO confirmed to IPVM, deciding to take “no...

Most Recent Industry Reports

ONVIF Suspends Huawei on Sep 20, 2019
Huawei has been 'suspended', and effectively expelled, from ONVIF so long as US sanctions remain on the mega Chinese manufacturer. Inside this...
Open Access Controller Guide (Axis, HID, Isonas, Mercury) on Sep 19, 2019
In the access control market, there are many software platforms, but only a few companies that make non-proprietary door controllers. Recently,...
Axis Perimeter Defender Improves, Yet Worse Than Dahua and Wyze on Sep 19, 2019
While Axis Perimeter Defender analytics improved from our 2018 testing, the market has improved much faster, with much less expensive offerings...
Directory of 68 Video Surveillance Startups on Sep 18, 2019
This directory provides a list of video surveillance startups to help you see and research what companies are new or not yet broadly known. 2019...
Uniview Prime Series 4K Camera Tested on Sep 18, 2019
Is the new Uniview 'Prime' better than the more expensive existing Uniview 'Pro'? In August, IPVM tested Uniview 4K 'Pro' but members advocated...
US Army Base To Buy Banned Honeywell Surveillance on Sep 17, 2019
The U.S. Army's Fort Gordon, home to their Cyber Center of Excellence, has issued a solicitation to purchase Honeywell products that are US...
Vivotek "Neural Network-Powered Detection Engine" Analytics Tested on Sep 17, 2019
Vivotek has released "a neural network-powered detection engine", named Smart Motion Detection, claiming that "swaying vegetation, vehicles passing...
Schmode is Back, Aims To Turn Boulder AI Into Giant on Sep 16, 2019
One of the most influential and controversial executives in the past decade is back. Bryan Schmode ascended and drove the hypergrowth of Avigilon...
Manufacturers Unhappy With Weak ASIS GSX 2019 And 2020 Shift on Sep 16, 2019
Manufacturers were generally unhappy with ASIS GSX, both for weak 2019 booth traffic and a scheduling shift for the 2020 show, according to a new...