Internet DRAFT - draft-oreirdan-mody-bot-remediation
draft-oreirdan-mody-bot-remediation
Internet Engineering Task Force J. Livingood
Internet-Draft N. Mody
Intended status: Informational M. O'Reirdan
Expires: July 12, 2012 Comcast
January 9, 2012
Recommendations for the Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks
draft-oreirdan-mody-bot-remediation-20
Abstract
This document contains recommendations on how Internet Service
Providers can manage the effects of computers used by their
subscribers, which have been infected with malicious bots, via
various remediation techniques. Internet users with infected
computers are exposed to risks such as loss of personal data, as well
as increased susceptibility to online fraud. Such computers can also
become an inadvertent participant in or component of an online crime
network, spam network, and/or phishing network, as well as be used as
a part of a distributed denial of service attack. Mitigating the
effects of and remediating the installations of malicious bots will
make it more difficult for botnets to operate and could reduce the
level of online crime on the Internet in general and/or on a
particular Internet Service Provider's network.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 12, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Key Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction and Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Important Notice of Limitations and Scope . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Detection of Bots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Notification to Internet Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Remediation of Hosts Infected with a Bot . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1. Guided Remediation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2. Professionally-Assisted Remediation Process . . . . . . . 22
7. Failure or Refusal to Remediate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Sharing of Data from the User to the ISP . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix A. Examples of Third Party Malware Lists . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix C. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
1. Key Terminology
This section defines the key terms used in this document.
1.1. Malicious Bots, or Bots
A malicious or potentially malicious "bot" (derived from the word
"robot", hereafter simply referred to as a "bot") refers to a program
that is installed on a system in order to enable that system to
automatically (or semi-automatically) perform a task or set of tasks
typically under the command and control of a remote administrator, or
"bot master". Bots are also known as "zombies". Such bots may have
been installed surreptitiously, without the user's full understanding
of what the bot will do once installed, unknowingly as part of
another software installation, under false pretenses, and/or in a
variety of other possible ways.
It is important to note that there are 'good' bots. Such 'good' bots
are often found in such environments such as gaming and Internet
Relay Chat (IRC) [RFC1459], where a continual, interactive presence
can be a requirement for participating in the games, interacting with
a computing resource. Since such 'good' bots are performing useful,
lawful, and non-disruptive functions, there is no reason for a
provider to monitor for their presence and/or alert users to their
presence.
Thus, while there may be good, or harmless bots, for the purposes of
this document all mention of bots shall assume that the bots involved
are malicious or potentially malicious in nature. Such malicious
bots shall generally be assumed to have been deployed without the
permission or conscious understanding of a particular Internet user.
Thus, without a user's knowledge, bots may transform the user's
computing device into a platform from which malicious activities can
be conducted. In addition, included explicitly in this category are
potentially malicious bots, which may initially appear neutral but
may simply be waiting for remote instructions to transform and/or
otherwise begin engaging in malicious behavior. In general,
installation of a malicious bot without user knowledge and consent is
considered in most regions to be unlawful, and the activities of
malicious bots typically involve unlawful or other maliciously
disruptive activities.
1.2. Bot Networks, or Botnets
These are defined as concerted networks of bots capable of acting on
instructions generated remotely. The malicious activities are either
focused on the information on the local machine or acting to provide
services for remote machines. Bots are highly customizable so they
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
can be programmed to do many things. The major malicious activities
include but are not limited to: identity theft, spam, spim (spam over
instant messaging), spit (spam over Internet telephony), email
address harvesting, distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks,
key-logging, fraudulent DNS pharming (redirection), hosting proxy
services, fast flux (see Section 1.5) hosting, hosting of illegal
content, use in man-in-the-middle attacks, and click fraud.
Infection vectors (infection pathways) include un-patched operating
systems, software vulnerabilities (which include so-called zero-day
vulnerabilities where no patch yet exists), weak/non-existent
passwords, malicious websites, un-patched browsers, malware,
vulnerable helper applications, inherently insecure protocols,
protocols implemented without security features switched on and
social engineering techniques to gain access to the user's computer.
The detection and destruction of bots is an ongoing issue and also a
constant battle between the Internet security community and network
security engineers on the one hand and bot developers on the other.
Initially, some bots used IRC to communicate but were easy to
shutdown if the command and control server was identified and
deactivated. Newer command and control methods have evolved, such
that those currently employed by bot masters make them much more
resistant to deactivation. With the introduction of P2P
architectures and associated protocols as well as the use of HTTP and
other resilient communication protocols along with the widespread
adoption of encryption, bots are considerably more difficult to
identify and isolate from typical network usage. As a result
increased reliance is being placed on anomaly detection and
behavioral analysis, both locally and remotely, to identify bots.
1.3. Host
An end user's host, or computer, as used in the context of this
document, is intended to refer to a computing device that connects to
the Internet. This encompasses devices used by Internet users such
as personal computers, including laptops, desktops, and netbooks, as
well as mobile phones, smart phones, home gateway devices, and other
end user computing devices that are connected or can connect to the
public Internet and/or private IP networks.
Increasingly, other household systems and devices contain embedded
hosts which are connected to or can connect to the public Internet
and/or private IP networks. However, these devices may not be under
interactive control of the Internet user, such as may be the case
with various smart home and smart grid devices.
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
1.4. Malware
This is short for malicious software. In this case, malicious bots
are considered a subset of malware. Other forms of malware could
include viruses and other similar types of software. Internet users
can sometimes cause their hosts to be infected with malware, which
may include a bot or cause a bot to install itself, via inadvertently
accessing a specific website, downloading a file, or other
activities.
In other cases, Internet-connected hosts may become infected with
malware through externally initiated malicious activities such as the
exploitation of vulnerabilities or the brute force guessing of access
credentials.
1.5. Fast Flux
Domain Name System (DNS) Fast Fluxing occurs when a domain is bound
in DNS using A records to multiple IP addresses, each of which has a
very short Time To Live (TTL) value associated with it. This means
that the domain resolves to varying IP addresses over a short period
of time.
DNS Fast Flux is typically used in conjunction with proxies that are
normally run on compromised user hosts. These proxies route the web
requests to the real host which serves the data being sought.The
effect of this is to make the detection of the real host much more
difficult and to ensure that the backend or hidden site remains up
for as long as possible.
2. Introduction and Problem Statement
Hosts used by Internet users, which in this case are customers of an
Internet Service Provider (ISP), can be infected with malware that
may contain and/or install one or more bots on a host. They can
present a major problem for an ISP for a number of reasons (not to
mention of course the problems created for users). First, these bots
can be used to send spam, in some cases very large volumes of spam
[Spamalytics]. This spam can result in extra cost for the ISPs in
terms of wasted network, server, and/or personnel resources, among
many other potential costs and side effects. Such spam can also
negatively affect the reputation of the ISP, their customers, and the
email reputation of the IP address space used by the ISP (often
referred to simply as 'IP reputation') A further potential
complication is that IP space compromised by bad reputation may
continue to carry this bad reputation even when used for entirely
innocent purposes following re-assignment of that IP space..
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
In addition, these bots can act as platforms for directing,
participating in, or otherwise conducting attacks on critical
Internet infrastructure [Threat-Report]. Bots are frequently used as
part of coordinated Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks for
criminal, political or other motivations [Gh0st] [Dragon] [DDoS].
For example, bots have been used to attack Internet resources and
infrastructure ranging from web sites to email servers and DNS
servers, as well as the critical Internet infrastructure of entire
countries [Estonia] [Combat-Zone]. Motivations for such coordinated
DDoS attacks can range from criminal extortion attempts through to
online protesting and nationalistic fervor [Whiz-Kid]. DDoS attacks
may also be motivated by simple personal vendettas or simply persons
seeking a cheap thrill at the expense of others.
There is good evidence to suggest that bots are being used in the
corporate environment for purposes of corporate espionage including
the exfiltration of corporate financial data and intellectual
property. This also extends to the possibility of bots being used
for state sponsored purposes such as espionage.
While any computing device can be infected with bots, the majority of
bot infections affect the personal computers used by Internet end
users. As a result of the role of ISPs in providing IP connectivity,
among many other services, to Internet users, these ISPs are in a
unique position to be able to attempt to detect and observe botnets
operating in their networks. Furthermore, ISPs may also be in a
unique position to be able to notify their customers of actual,
potential, or likely infection by bots or other infection.
From end users' perspectives, being notified that they may have an
infected computer on their network is important information. Once
they know this, they can take steps to remove the bots, resolve any
problems which may stem from the bot infection, and protect
themselves against future threats. Given that bots can consume vast
amounts of local computing and network resources, enable theft of
personal information (including personal financial information),
enable the host to be used for criminal activities (that may result
in the Internet user being legally culpable), destroy or leave the
host in an unrecoverable state via 'kill switch' bot technologies, it
is important to notify the user that they may be infected with a bot.
As a result, the intent of this document is to provide guidance to
ISPs and other organizations for the remediation of hosts infected
with bots, so as to reduce the size of botnets and minimize the
potential harm that bots can inflict upon Internet infrastructure
generally, as well as on individual Internet users. Efforts by ISPs
and other organizations can, over time, reduce the pool of hosts
infected with bots on the Internet, which in turn could result in
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
smaller botnets with less capability for disruption.
The potential mitigation of bots is accomplished through a process of
detection, notification to Internet users, and remediation of bot
infections with a variety of tools, as described later in this
document.
3. Important Notice of Limitations and Scope
The techniques described in this document in no way guarantee the
remediation of all bots. Bot removal is potentially a task requiring
specialized knowledge, skills and tools, and may be beyond the
ability of average users. Attempts at bot removal may frequently be
unsuccessful, or only partially successful, leaving the user's system
in an unstable and unsatisfactory state or even in a state where it
is still infected. Attempts at bot removal can result in side
effects ranging from a loss of data to partial or complete loss of
system usability.
In general, the only way a user can be sure they have removed some of
today's increasingly sophisticated malware is by 'nuking-and-paving'
the system: reformatting the drive, reinstalling the operating system
and applications (including all patches) from scratch, and then
restoring user files from a known clean backup. However the
introduction of persistent memory based malware may mean that, in
some cases, this may not be enough and may prove to be more than any
end user can be reasonably expected to resolve [BIOS]. Experienced
users would have to re-flash or re-image persistent memory sections
or components of their hosts in order to remove persistent memory
based malware. However, in some cases, not even 'nuking-and-paving'
the system will solve the problem, which calls for hard drive
replacement and/or complete replacement of the host.
Devices with embedded operating systems, such as video gaming
consoles and smart home appliances, will most likely be beyond a
user's capability to remediate by themselves, and could therefore
require the aid of vendor-specific advice, updates and tools.
However, in some cases, such devices will have a function or switch
to enable the user to reset that device to a factory default
configuration, which may in some cases enable the user to remediate
the infection. Care should be taken when imparting remediation
advice to Internet users given the increasingly wide array of
computing devices that can be, or could be, infected by bots in the
future.
This document is not intended to address the issues relating to the
prevention of bots on an end user device. This is out of scope for
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
this document.
4. Detection of Bots
An ISP must first identify that an Internet user, in this case a user
that is assumed to be their customer or otherwise connected to the
ISP's network, is infected, or likely to have been infected with a
bot. The ISP should attempt to detect the presence of bots using
methods, processes and tools that maintain the privacy of the
personally identifiable information (PII) of their customers. The
ISP should not block legitimate traffic in the course of bot
detection, and should instead employ detection methods, tools, and
processes that seek to be non-disruptive and transparent to Internet
users and end-user applications.
Detection methods, tools and processes may include analysis of
specific network and/or application traffic flows (such as traffic to
an email server), analysis of aggregate network and/or application
traffic data, data feeds received from other ISPs and organizations
(such as lists of the ISP's IP addresses which have been reported to
have sent spam), feedback from the ISP's customers or other Internet
users, as well as a wide variety of other possibilities. In
practice, it has proven effective to confirm a bot infection through
the use of a combination of multiple bot detection data points. This
can help to corroborate information of varying dependability or
consistency, as well as to avoid or minimize the possibility of false
positive identification of hosts. Detection should also, where
possible and feasible, attempt to classify the specific bot infection
type in order to confirm that it is malicious in nature, estimate the
variety and severity of threats it may pose (such as spam bot, key-
logging bot, file distribution bot, etc.), and to determine potential
methods for eventual remediation. However, given the dynamic nature
of botnet management and the criminal incentives to seek quick
financial rewards, botnets frequently update or change their core
capabilities. As a consequence, botnets that are initially detected
and classified by the ISP as made up of one particular type of bot
need to be continuously monitored and tracked in order to identify
correctly the threat the botnet poses at any particular point in
time.
Detection is also time-sensitive. If complex analysis is required
and multiple confirmations are needed to verify a bot is indeed
present, then it is possible that the bot may cause some damage (to
either the infected host or a remotely targeted system) before it can
be stopped. This means that an ISP needs to balance the desire or
need to definitively classify and/or confirm the presence of a bot,
which may take an extended period of time, with the ability to
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
predict the likelihood of a bot in a very short period of time. Such
determinations must have a relatively low false positive rate in
order to maintain the trust of users. This 'definitive-vs-likely'
challenge is difficult and, when in doubt, ISPs should err on the
side of caution by communicating that a bot infection has taken
place. This also means that Internet users may benefit from the
installation of client-based security software on their host. This
can enable rapid heuristically-based detection of bot activity, such
as the detection of a bot as it starts to communicate with other
botnets and execute commands. Any bot detection system should also
be capable of adapting, either via manual intervention or
automatically, in order to cope with a rapidly evolving threat.
As noted above, detection methods, tools, and processes should ensure
that privacy of customers' personally identifiable information (PII)
is maintained. This protection afforded to PII should also extend to
third parties processing data on behalf of ISPs. While bot detection
methods, tools, and processes are similar to spam and virus defenses
deployed by the ISP for the benefit of their customers (and may be
directly related to those defenses), attempts to detect bots should
take into account the need of an ISP to take care to ensure any PII
collected or incidentally detected is properly protected. This is
important, as just as spam defenses may involve scanning the content
of email messages, which may contain PII, then so too may bot
defenses similarly come into incidental contact with PII. The
definition of PII varies from one jurisdiction to the next so proper
care should be taken to ensure that any actions taken comply with
legislation and good practice in the jurisdiction in which the PII is
gathered. Finally, depending upon the geographic region within which
an ISP operates, certain methods relating to bot detection may need
to be included in relevant terms of service documents or other
documents which are available to the customers of a particular ISP.
There are several bot detection methods, tools, and processes that an
ISP may choose to utilize, as noted in the list below. It is
important to note that the technical solutions available are
relatively immature, and are likely to change over time, evolving
rapidly in the coming years. While these items are described in
relation to ISPs, they may also be applicable to organizations
operating other networks, such as campus networks and enterprise
networks.
a. Where it is not legally proscribed and an accepted industry
practice in a particular market region, an ISP may in some manner
"scan" its IP space in order to detect un-patched or otherwise
vulnerable hosts, or to detect the signs of infection. This may
provide the ISP with the opportunity to easily identify Internet
users who appear to already be infected or are at great risk of
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
being infected with a bot. ISPs should note that some types of
port scanning may leave network services in a hung state or
render them unusable due to common frailties, and that many
modern firewall and host-based intrusion detection
implementations may alert the Internet user to the scan. As a
result the scan may be interpreted as a malicious attack against
the host. Vulnerability scanning has a higher probability of
leaving accessible network services and applications in a damaged
state and will often result in a higher probability of detection
by the Internet user and subsequent interpretation as a targeted
attack. Depending upon the vulnerability for which an ISP may be
scanning, some automated methods of vulnerability checking may
result in data being altered or created afresh on the Internet
user's host which can be a problem in many legal environments.
It should also be noted that due to the prevalence of Network
Address Translation devices, Port Address Translation devices,
and/or firewall devices in user networks, network-based
vulnerability scanning may be of limited value. Thus, while we
note that this is one technique that may be utilized, it is
unlikely to be particularly effective and it has problematic side
effects, which leads the authors to recommend against the use of
this particular method.
b. An ISP may also communicate and share selected data, via feedback
loops or other mechanisms, with various third parties. Feedback
loops are consistently formatted feeds of real-time (or nearly
real-time) abuse reports offered by threat data clearinghouses,
security alert organizations, other ISPs, and other
organizations. The formats for feedback loops include those
defined in both ARF [RFC5965] and IODEF [RFC5070]. The data may
include, but is not limited to, IP addresses of hosts that appear
to be either definitely or probably infected, IP addresses,
domain names or fully qualified domain names (FQDNs) known to
host malware and/or be involved in the command and control of
botnets, recently tested or discovered techniques for detecting
or remediating bot infections, new threat vectors, and other
relevant information. A few good examples of data sharing are
noted in Appendix A.
c. An ISP may use Netflow [RFC3954] or other similar passive network
monitoring to identify network anomalies that may be indicative
of botnet attacks or bot communications. For example, an ISP may
be able to identify compromised hosts by identifying traffic
destined to IP addresses associated with the command and control
of botnets, or destined to the combination of an IP address and
control port associated with a command and control network
(sometimes command and control traffic comes from a host which
has legitimate traffic). In addition, bots may be identified
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
when a remote host is under a DDoS attack, because hosts
participating in the attack will likely be infected by a bot,
frequently as observed at network borders (though ISPs should
beware of source IP address spoofing techniques to avoid or
confuse detection).
d. An ISP may use DNS-based techniques to perform detection. For
example, a given classified bot may be known to query a specific
list of domain names at specific times or on specific dates (in
the example of the so-called "Conficker" bot (see [Conficker]),
often by matching DNS queries to a well known list of domains
associated with malware. In many cases such lists are
distributed by or shared using third parties, such as threat data
clearinghouses.
e. User complaints: Because hosts infected by bots are frequently
used to send spam or participate in DDoS attacks, the ISP
servicing those hosts will normally receive complaints about the
malicious network traffic. Those complaints may be sent to
RFC2142-specified [RFC2142] role accounts, such as abuse@, or to
other relevant addresses such as to abuse or security addresses
specified by the site as part of its WHOIS (or other) contact
data.
f. ISPs may also discover likely bot infected hosts located on other
networks. Thus, when legally permissible in a particular market
region, it may be worthwhile for ISPs to share information
relating to those compromised hosts with the relevant remote
network operator, with security researchers, and with blocklist
operators.
g. ISPs may operate or subscribe to services that provide
'sinkholing' or 'honeynet' capabilities. This may enable the ISP
to obtain near-real-time lists of bot infected hosts as they
attempt to join a larger botnet or propagate to other hosts on a
network.
h. ISP industry associations should examine the possibility of
collating statistics from ISP members in order to provide good
statistics about bot infections based on real ISP data.
i. An Intrusion Detection System (IDS) can be a useful tool to
actually help identify the malware. An IDS tool such as SNORT
(open source IDS platform; see [Snort]) can be placed in a Walled
Garden and used to analyze end user traffic to confirm malware
type. This will help with remediation of the infected device.
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
5. Notification to Internet Users
Once an ISP has detected a bot, or the strong likelihood of a bot,
steps should be undertaken to inform the Internet user that they may
have a bot-related problem. Depending upon a range of factors
including technical capabilities of the ISP, technical attributes of
its network, financial considerations, available server resources,
available organizational resources, the number of likely infected
hosts detected at any given time and the severity of any possible
threats, among other things, an ISP should decide the most
appropriate method or methods for providing notification to one or
more of their customers or Internet users. Such notification methods
may include one or more of the methods described in the following
subsections, as well as other possible methods not described below.
It is important to note that none of these methods are guaranteed to
be one-hundred percent successful, and that each has its own set of
limitations. In addition, in some cases, an ISP may determine that a
combination of two or more methods is most appropriate and effective,
and reduces the chance that malware may block a notification. As
such, the authors recommend the use of multiple notification methods.
Finally, notification is also considered time sensitive; if the user
does not receive or view the notification in a timely fashion, then a
particular bot could launch an attack, exploit the user, or cause
other harm. If possible, an ISP should establish a preferred means
of communication when the subscriber first signs up for service. As
a part of the notification process, ISPs should maintain a record of
the allocation of IP addresses to subscribers for such a period long
enough to allow any commonly used bot detection technology to be able
to accurately link an infected IP address to a subscriber. This
record should only be maintained for a period of time which is
necessary to support bot detection,but no longer, in order to protect
the privacy of the individual subscriber.
One important factor to bear in mind is that notification to end
users needs to be resistant to potential spoofing. This should be
done to protect, as reasonably as possible, against the potential of
legitimate notifications being spoofed and/or used by parties with
intent to perform additional malicious attacks against victims of
malware, or even to deliver additional malware.
It should be possible for the end user to indicate the preferred
means of notification on an opt-in basis for that notification
method. It is recommended that the end user should not be allowed to
opt out of notification entirely.
When users are notified, an ISP should endeavor to give as much
information to the end user regarding which bot detection methods
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
employed at the ISP consonant with not providing information to those
creating or deploying the bots so that they would be able to avoid
detection.
5.1. Email Notification
This is a common form of notification used by ISPs. One drawback of
using email is that it is not guaranteed to be viewed within a
reasonable time frame, if at all. The user may be using a different
primary email address than that which they have provided to the ISP.
In addition, some ISPs do not provide an email account at all, as
part of a bundle of Internet services, and/or do not have a need for
or method by which to request or retain the primary email addresses
of Internet users of their networks. Another possibility is that the
user, their email client, and/or their email servers could determine
or classify such a notification as spam, which could delete the
message or otherwise file it in an email folder that the user may not
check on a regular and/or timely basis. Bot masters have also been
known to impersonate the ISP or trusted sender and send fraudulent
emails to the users. This technique of social engineering often
leads to new bot infestations. Finally if the user's email
credentials are compromised, then a hacker and/or a bot could simply
access the user's email account and delete the email before it is
read by the user.
5.2. Telephone Call Notification
A telephone call may be an effective means of communication in
particularly high-risk situations. However, telephone calls may not
be feasible due to the cost of making a large number of calls, as
measured in either time, money, organizational resources, server
resources, or some other means. In addition, there is no guarantee
that the user will answer their phone. To the extent that the
telephone number called by the ISP can be answered by the infected
computing device, the bot on that host may be able to disconnect,
divert, or otherwise interfere with an incoming call. Users may also
interpret such a telephone notification as a telemarketing call and
as such not welcome it, or not accept the call at all. Finally, even
if a representative of the ISP is able to connect with and speak to a
user, that user is very likely to lack the necessary technical
expertise to understand or be able to effectively deal with the
threat.
5.3. Postal Mail Notification
This form of notification is probably the least popular and effective
means of communication, due to both preparation time, delivery time,
the cost of printing and paper, and the cost of postage.
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
5.4. Walled Garden Notification
Placing a user in a walled garden is another approach that ISPs may
take to notify users. A walled garden refers to an environment that
controls the information and services that a subscriber is allowed to
utilize and what network access permissions are granted. A walled
garden implementation can range from strict to leaky. In a strict
walled garden environment, access to most Internet resources is
typically limited by the ISP. In contrast, a leaky walled garden
environment permits access to all Internet resources, except those
deemed malicious, and ensures access to those that can be used to
notify users of infections.
Walled gardens are effective because it is possible to notify the
user and simultaneously block all communication between the bot and
the command and control channel. While in many cases the user is
almost guaranteed to view the notification message and take any
appropriate remediation actions, this approach can pose other
challenges. For example, it is not always the case that a user is
actively using a host that uses a web browser or that has a web
browser actively running on it, or that uses another application
which uses ports which are redirected to the walled garden. In one
example, a user could be playing a game online, via the use of a
dedicated, Internet-connected game console. In another example, the
user may not be using a host with a web browser when they are placed
in the walled garden and may instead be in the course of a telephone
conversation, or may be expecting to receive a call, using a Voice
Over IP (VoIP) device of some type. As a result, the ISP may feel
the need to maintain a potentially lengthy white list of domains that
are not subject to the typical restrictions of a walled garden, which
could well prove to be an onerous task from an operational
perspective.
For these reasons the implementation of a leaky walled garden makes
more sense, but a leaky walled garden has a different set of
drawbacks. The ISP has to assume that the user will eventually use a
web browser to acknowledge the notification, otherwise the user will
remain in the walled garden and not know it. If the intent of the
leaky walled garden is solely to notify the user about the bot
infection, then the leaky walled garden is not ideal because
notification is time sensitive and the user may not receive the
notification until the user invokes a request for the targeted
service and/or resource. This means the bot can potentially do more
damage. Additionally, the ISP has to identify which services and/or
resources to restrict for the purposes of notification. This does
not have to be resource specific and can be time based and/or policy
based. An example of how notification could be made on a timed basis
could involve notification for all HTTP requests every 10 minutes, or
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
show the notification for one in five HTTP requests.
The ISP has several options to determine when to let the user out of
the walled garden. One approach may be to let the user determine
when to exit. This option is suggested when the primary purpose of
the walled garden is to notify users and provide information on
remediation only, particularly since notification is not a guarantee
of successful remediation. It could also be the case that, for
whatever reason, the user makes the judgment that they cannot then
take the time to remediate their host and that other online
activities which they would like to resume are more important. Exit
from the walled garden may also involve a process to verify that it
is indeed the user who is requesting exit from the walled garden and
not the bot.
Once the user acknowledges the notification, they may decide to
either remediate and exit the walled garden or to exit the walled
garden without remediating the issue. Another approach may be to
enforce a stricter policy and require the user to clean the host
prior to permitting the user to exit the walled garden, though this
may not be technically feasible depending upon the type of bot,
obfuscation techniques employed by a bot, and/or a range of other
factors. Thus, the ISP may also need to support tools to scan the
infected host (in the style of a virus scan, rather than a port scan)
and determine whether it is still infected or rely on user judgment
that the bot has been disabled or removed. One challenge with this
approach is that the user might have multiple hosts sharing a single
IP address, such as via a common home gateway device which performs
Network Address Translation (NAT). In such a case, the ISP may need
to determine from user feedback, or other means, that all affected
hosts have been remediated, which may or may not be technically
feasible.
Finally, when a walled garden is used, a list of well-known addresses
for both operating system vendors and security vendors should be
created and maintained in a white list which permits access to these
sites. This can be important for allowing access from the walled
garden by end users in search of operating system and application
patches. It is recommended that walled gardens be seriously
considered as a method of notification as they are easy to implement
and proven to be effective as a means of getting end user attention.
5.5. Instant Message Notification
Instant messaging provides the ISP with a simple means to communicate
with the user. There are several advantages to using Instant
Messaging (IM) that make it an attractive option. If the ISP
provides IM service and the user subscribes to it, then the user can
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
be notified easily. IM-based notification can be a cost effective
means to communicate with users automatically from an IM alert system
or by a manual process, involving the ISP's support staff. Ideally,
the ISP should allow the user to register their IM identity in an ISP
account management system and grant permission to be contacted via
this means. If the IM service provider supports off-line messaging,
then the user can be notified regardless of whether they are
currently logged into the IM system.
There are several drawbacks with this communications method. There
is a high probability that subscriber may interpret the communication
to be spim, and as such ignore it. Also, not every user uses IM
and/or the user may not provide their IM identity to the ISP so some
alternative means have to be used. Even in those cases where a user
does have an IM address, they may not be signed onto that IM system
when the notification is attempted. There may be a privacy concern
on the part of users, when such an IM notification must be
transmitted over a third-party network and/or IM service. As such,
should this method be used, the notification should be discreet and
not include any PII in the notification itself.
5.6. Short Message Service (SMS) Notification
SMS allows the ISP to send a brief description of the problem to
notify the user of the issue, typically to a mobile device such as a
mobile phone or smart phone. Ideally, the ISP should allow the user
to register their mobile number and/or SMS address in an ISP account
management system and grant permission to be contacted via this
means. The primary advantage of SMS is that users are familiar with
receiving text messages and are likely to read them. However, users
may not act on the notification immediately if they are not in front
of their host at the time of the SMS notification.
One disadvantage is that ISPs may have to follow up with an alternate
means of notification if not all of the necessary information may be
conveyed in one message, given constraints on the number of
characters in an individual message (typically 140 characters).
Another disadvantage with SMS is the cost associated with it. The
ISP has to either build its own SMS gateway to interface with the
various wireless network service providers or use a third-party SMS
clearinghouse (relay) to notify users. In both cases an ISP may
incur fees related to SMS notifications, depending upon the method
used to send the notifications. An additional downside is that SMS
messages sent to a user may result in a charge to the user by their
wireless provider, depending upon the plan to which they subscribe
and the country in which the user resides. Another minor
disadvantage is that it is possible to notify the wrong user if the
intended user changes their mobile number but forgets to update it
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
with the ISP.
There are several other drawbacks with this communications method.
There is a high probability that subscriber may interpret the
communication to be spam, and as such ignore it. Also, not every
user uses SMS and/or the user may not provide their SMS address or
mobile number to the ISP. Even in those cases where a user does have
an SMS address or mobile number, their device may not be powered on
or otherwise available on a wireless network when the notification is
attempted. There maybe also be a privacy concern on the part of
users, when such an SMS notification must be transmitted over a
third-party network and/or SMS clearinghouse. As such, should this
method be used, the notification should be discreet and not include
any PII in the notification itself.
5.7. Web Browser Notification
Near real-time notification to the user's web browser is another
technique that may be utilized for notifying the user [RFC6108],
though how such a system might operate is outside the scope of this
document. Such a notification could have a comparative advantage
over a walled garden notification, in that it does not restrict
traffic to a specified list of destinations in the same way that a
walled garden by definition would. However, as with a walled garden
notification, there is no guarantee that a user is at any given time
making use of a web browser, though such a system could certainly
provide a notification when such a browser is eventually used.
Compared to a walled garden, a web browser notification is probably
preferred from the perspective of Internet users, as it does not have
the risk of disrupting non-web sessions, such as online games, VoIP
calls, etc. (as noted in Section 5.4).
There are alternative methods of web browser notification offered
commercially by a number of vendors. Many of the techniques used are
proprietary and it is not within the scope of this document to
describe how they are implemented. These techniques have been
successfully implemented at several ISPs.
It should be noted that web notification is only intended to notify
devices running a web browser.
5.8. Considerations for Notification to Public Network Locations
Delivering a notification to a location that provides a shared public
network, such as a train station, public square, coffee shop, or
similar location may be of low value since the users connecting to
such networks are typically highly transient and generally not known
to site or network administrators. For example, a system may detect
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
that a host on such a network has a bot, but by the time a
notification is generated that user has departed from the network and
moved elsewhere.
5.9. Considerations for Notification to Network Locations Using a
Shared IP Address
Delivering a notification to a location that accesses the Internet
routed through one or more shared public IP addresses may be of low
value since it may be quite difficult to differentiate between users
when providing a notification. For example, on a business network of
500 users, all sharing one public IP address, it may be sub-optimal
to provide a notification to all 500 users if you only need one
specific user to be notified and take action. As a result, such
networks may find value in establishing a localized bot detection and
notification system, just as they are likely to also establish other
localized systems for security, file sharing, email, and so on.
However, should an ISP implement some form of notification to such
networks, it may be better to simply send notifications to a
designated network administrator at the site. In such a case the
local network administrator may like to receive additional
information in such a notification, such as a date and timestamp, the
source port of the infected system, and malicious sites and ports
that may have been visited.
5.10. Notification and End User Expertise
The ultimate effectiveness of any of the aforementioned forms of
notification is heavily dependent upon both the expertise of the end
user and the wording of any such notification. For example, while a
user may receive and acknowledge a notification, that user may lack
the necessary technical expertise to understand or be able to deal
effectively with the threat. As a result, it is important that such
notifications use clear and easily understood language, so that the
majority of users (who are non-technical) may understand the
notification. In addition, a notification should provide easily
understood guidance on how to remediate a threat as described in
Section 6, potentially with one path for technical users to take and
another for non-technical users.
6. Remediation of Hosts Infected with a Bot
This section covers the different options available to remediate a
host, which means to remove, disable, or otherwise render a bot
harmless. Prior to this step, an ISP has detected the bot, notified
the user that one of their hosts is infected with a bot, and now may
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
provide some recommended means to clean the host. The generally
recommended approach is to provide the necessary tools and education
to the user so that they may perform bot remediation themselves,
particularly given the risks and difficulties inherent in attempting
to remove a bot.
For example, this may include the creation of a special web site with
security-oriented content that is dedicated for this purpose. This
should be a well-publicized security web site to which a user with a
bot infection can be directed to for remediation. This security web
site should clearly explain why the user was notified and may include
an explanation of what bots are, and the threats that they pose.
There should be a clear explanation of the steps that the user should
take in order to attempt to clean their host and provide information
on how users can keep the host free of future infections. The
security web site should also have a guided process that takes non-
technical users through the remediation process, on an easily
understood, step-by-step basis.
In terms of the text used to explain what bots are and the threats
that they pose, something simple such as this may suffice:
"What is a bot? A bot is a piece of software, generally
installed on your machine without your knowledge, which either
sends spam or tries to steal your personal information. They
can be very difficult to spot, though you may have noticed that
your computer is running much more slowly than usual or you
notice regular disk activity even when you are not doing
anything. Ignoring this problem is risky to you and your
personal information. Thus, bots need to be removed to protect
your data and your personal information."
Many bots are designed to work in a very stealthy manner and as such
there may be a need to make sure that the Internet user understands
the magnitude of the threat faced despite the stealthy nature of the
bot.
It is also important to note that it may not be immediately apparent
to the Internet user precisely which devices have been infected with
a particular bot. This may be due to the user's home network
configuration, which may encompass several hosts, where a home
gateway which performs Network Address Translation (NAT) to share a
single public IP address has been used. Therefore, any of these
devices can be infected with a bot. The consequence of this for an
ISP is that remediation advice may not ultimately be immediately
actionable by the Internet user, as that user may need to perform
additional investigation within their own home network.
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
An added complication is that the user may have a bot infection on a
device such as a video console, multimedia system, appliance, or
other end-user computing device which does not have a typical desktop
computing interface. As a result, diligence needs to be taken by the
ISP where possible such that it can identify and communicate the
specific nature of the device that has been infected with a bot, and
further providing appropriate remediation advice. If the ISP cannot
pin down the device or identify its type, then it should make it
clear to the user that any initial advice given is generic and
further advice can be given (or is available) once the type of
infected device is known.
There are a number of forums that exist online to provide security
related support to end users. These forums are staffed by volunteers
and often are focussed around the use of a common tool set to help
end users to remediate hosts infected with malware. It may be
advantageous to ISPs to foster a relationship with one or more
forums, perhaps by offering free hosting or other forms of
sponsorship.
It is also important to keep in mind that not all users will be
technically adept as noted in Section 5.10. As a result, it may be
more effective to provide a range of suggestion options for
remediation. This may include for example a very detailed "do it
yourself" approach for experts, a simpler guided process for the
average user, and even assisted remediation as described in
Section 6.2.
6.1. Guided Remediation Process
Minimally, the Guided Remediation Process should include the
following goals, with options and/or recommendations for achieving
them:
1. Backup personal files. For example: "Before you start, make sure
to backup all of your important data. (You should do this on a
regular basis anyway.) You can backup your files manually or
using a system backup software utility, which may be part of your
Operating System (OS). You can backup your files to a USB Thumb
Drive (aka USB Key), a writeable CD/DVD-ROM, an external hard
drive, a network file server, or an Internet-based backup
service." It may be advisable to suggest that the user backup is
performed onto separate backup media or devices if they suspect
bot infection.
2. Download OS patches and Anti-Virus (A/V) software updates. For
example, links could be provided to Microsoft Windows updates as
well as to Apple MacOS updates, or to other major operating
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
systems which are relevant to users and their devices.
3. Configure the host to automatically install updates for the OS,
A/V and other common Web Browsers such as Microsoft Internet
Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Opera, and Google
Chrome.
4. Get professional assistance if they are unable to remove the bots
themselves. If purchasing professional assistance, then the user
should be encouraged to pre-determine how much they are willing
to pay for that help. If the host that is being remediated is
old and can easily be replaced with a new, faster, larger and
more reliable system for a certain cost, the it makes no sense to
spend more than that cost to fix the old host, for example. On
the other hand, if the customer has a brand new host, it might
make perfect sense to spend the money to attempt to remediate it.
5. To continue, regardless of whether the user or a knowledgeable
technical assistant is working on remediating the host, their
first task should be to determine which of multiple potentially-
infected machines may be the one that needs attention (in the
common case of multiple hosts in a home network). Sometimes, as
in cases where there is only a single directly-attached host, or
the user has been noticing problems with one of their hosts, this
can be easy. Other times, it may be more difficult especially if
there are no clues as to which host is infected. If the user is
behind a home gateway/router, then the first task may be to
ascertain which of the machines is infected. In some cases the
user may have to check all machines to identify the infected one.
6. ISPS may also look at offering a CD/DVD with remediation
processes and software in the event that a host is so badly
infected as to be unable to communicate over the Internet.
7. User surveys to solicit feedback on whether the notification and
remediation process is effective and what recommended changes
could be made in order to improve the ease, understandability,
and effectiveness the remediation process.
8. If the user is interested in reporting his or her host's bot
infection to an applicable law enforcement authority, then the
host effectively becomes a cyber "crime scene" and the infection
should not be mitigated unless or until law enforcement has
collected the necessary evidence. For individuals in this
situation, the ISP may wish to provide links to local, state,
federal, or other relevant computer crime offices. (Note: Some
"minor" incidents, even if highly traumatic to the user, may not
be sufficiently serious for law enforcement to commit some of
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
their limited resources to an investigation.) In addition,
individual regions may have other, specialized computer crime
organizations to which these incidents can be reported. For
example, in the United States, that organization is the Internet
Crime Complaint Center, at http://www.ic3.gov.
9. Users may also be interested in links to security expert forums,
where other users can assist them.
6.2. Professionally-Assisted Remediation Process
It should be acknowledged that, based on the current state of
remediation tools and the technical abilities of end users, that many
users may be unable to remediate on their own. As a result, it is
recommended that users have the option for professional assistance.
This may entail online or telephone assistance for remediation, as
well as working face to face with a professional who has training and
expertise in the removal of malware. It should be made clear at the
time of offering this service that this service is intended for those
that do not have the skills or confidence to attempt remediation and
is not intended as an up-sell by the ISP.
7. Failure or Refusal to Remediate
ISP systems should track the bot infection history of hosts in order
to detect when users consistently fail to remediate or refuse to take
any steps to remediate. In such cases, ISPs may need to consider
taking additional steps to protect their network, other users and
hosts on that network, and other networks. Such steps may include a
progression of actions up to and including account termination.
Refusal to remediate can be viewed as a business issue and as such no
technical recommendation is possible.
8. Sharing of Data from the User to the ISP
As an additional consideration, it may be useful to create a process
by which users could choose, at their option and with their express
consent, to share data regarding their bot infections with their ISP
and/or another authorized third party. Such third parties may
include governmental entities that aggregate threat data, such as the
Internet Crime Complaint Center referred to earlier in this document,
to academic institutions, and/or security researchers. While in many
cases the information shared with the user's ISP or designated third
parties will only be used for aggregated statistical analysis, it is
also possible that certain research needs may be best met with more
detailed data. Thus, any such data sharing from a user to the ISP or
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
authorized third party may contain some type of personally
identifiable information, either by design or inadvertently. As a
result, any such data sharing should be enabled on an opt-in basis,
where users review and approve of the data being shared and the
parties with which it is to be shared, unless the ISP is already
required to share such data in order to comply with local laws and in
accordance with those laws and applicable regulations.
9. Security Considerations
This document describes in detail the numerous security risks and
concerns relating to botnets. As such, it has been appropriate to
include specific information about security in each section above.
This document describes the security risks related to malicious bot
infections themselves, such as enabling identity theft, theft of
authentication credentials, and the use of a host to unwittingly
participate in a DDoS attack, among many other risks. Finally, the
document also describes security risks which may relate to the
particular methods of communicating a notification to Internet users.
Bot networks and bot infections pose extremely serious security risks
and any reader should review this document carefully.
In addition, regarding notifications, as described in Section 5, care
should be taken to assure users that notifications have been provided
by a trustworthy site and/or party, so that the notification is more
difficult for phishers and/or malicious parties using social
engineering tactics to mimic, or that the user has some level of
trust that the notification is valid, and/or that the user has some
way to verify via some other mechanism or step that the notification
is valid.
10. Privacy Considerations
This document describes at a high level the activities to which ISPs
should be sensitive, where the collection or communication of PII may
be possible. In addition, when performing notifications to end users
Section 5, those notifications should not include PII.
As noted in Section 8, any sharing of data from the user to the ISP
and/or authorized third parties should be done on an opt-in basis.
Additionally the ISP and or authorized third parties should clearly
state what data will be shared and with whom the data will be shared.
Lastly, as noted in some other sections, there my be legal
requirements in particular legal jurisdictions concerning how long
any subscriber-related or other data is retained, of which an ISP
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
operating in such a jurisdiction should be aware and with which an
ISP should comply.
11. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations in this document.
12. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the following individuals and groups
for performing a detailed review of this document and/or providing
comments and feedback that helped to improve and evolve this
document:
Mark Baugher
Richard Bennett
James Butler
Vint Cerf
Alissa Cooper
Jonathan Curtis
Jeff Chan
Roland Dobbins
Dave Farber
Stephen Farrell
Eliot Gillum
Joel Halpern
Joel Jaeggli
Scott Keoseyan
Murray S. Kucherawy
The Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group (MAAWG)
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
Jose Nazario
Gunter Ollmann
David Reed
Roger Safian
Donald Smith
Joe Stewart
Forrest Swick
Sean Turner
Robb Topolski
Maxim Weinstein
Eric Ziegast
13. Informative references
[BIOS] Sacco, A. and A. Ortega, "Persistent BIOS Infection",
March 2009, <http://www.coresecurity.com/files/
attachments/Persistent_BIOS_Infection_CanSecWest09.pdf>.
[Combat-Zone]
Alshech, E., "Cyberspace as a Combat Zone: The Phenomenon
of Electronic Jihad", February 2007, <http://
www.memrijttm.org/content/en/report.htm?report=1822>.
[Conficker]
Porras, P., Saidi, H., and V. Yegneswaran, "An Analysis of
Conficker's Logic and Rendezvous Points", March 2009,
<http://mtc.sri.com/Conficker/>.
[DDoS] Saafan, A., "Distributed Denial of Service Attacks:
Explanation, Classification and Suggested Solutions",
March 2009, <www.exploit-db.com/download_pdf/14738/>.
[Dragon] Nagaraja, S. and R. Anderson, "The snooping dragon:
social-malware surveillance of the Tibetan movement",
March 2009,
<http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-746.pdf>.
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
[Estonia] Evron, G., "Battling Botnets and Online Mobs: Estonia's
Defense Efforts during the Internet War", May 2005, <http:
//docs.google.com/
gview?a=v&
q=cache%3AbyUMj6Djlb8J%3Awww.ciaonet.org%2Fjournals%
2Fgjia%2Fv9i1%2F0000699.pdf>.
[Gh0st] Vallentin, M., Whiteaker, J., and Y. Ben-David, "The Gh0st
in the Shell: Network Security in the Himalayas",
February 2010, <http://www.infowar-monitor.net/wp-content/
uploads/2010/02/cs294-28-paper.pdf>.
[RFC1459] Oikarinen, J. and D. Reed, "Internet Relay Chat Protocol",
RFC 1459, May 1993.
[RFC2142] Crocker, D., "MAILBOX NAMES FOR COMMON SERVICES, ROLES AND
FUNCTIONS", RFC 2142, May 1997.
[RFC3954] Claise, B., "Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export Version
9", RFC 3954, October 2004.
[RFC5070] Danyliw, R., Meijer, J., and Y. Demchenko, "The Incident
Object Description Exchange Format", RFC 5070,
December 2007.
[RFC5965] Shafranovich, Y., Levine, J., and M. Kucherawy, "An
Extensible Format for Email Feedback Reports", RFC 5965,
August 2010.
[RFC6108] Chung, C., Kasyanov, A., Livingood, J., Mody, N., and B.
Van Lieu, "Comcast's Web Notification System Design",
RFC 6108, February 2011.
[Snort] Roesch, M., "Snort Home Page", March 2009,
<http://www.snort.org/>.
[Spamalytics]
Kanich, C., Kreibich, C., Levchenko, K., Enright, B.,
Voelker, G., Paxson, V., and S. Savage, "Spamalytics: An
Empirical Analysis of Spam Marketing Conversion",
October 2008, <http://www.icir.org/christian/publications/
2008-ccs-spamalytics.pdf>.
[Threat-Report]
Ahamad, M., Amster, D., Barret, M., Cross, T., Heron, G.,
Jackson, D., King, J., Lee, W., Naraine, R., Ollman, G.,
Ramsey, J., Schmidt, H., and P. Traynor, "Emerging Cyber
Threats Report for 2009: Data, Mobility and Questions of
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
Responsibility will Drive Cyber Threats in 2009 and
Beyond", October 2008, <http://smartech.gatech.edu/
bitstream/1853/26301/1/CyberThreatsReport2009.pdf>.
[Whiz-Kid]
Berinato, S., "Case Study: How a Bookmaker and a Whiz Kid
Took On a DDOS-based Online Extortion Attack", May 2005, <
http://www.csoonline.com/article/220336/
How_a_Bookmaker_and_a_Whiz_Kid_Took_On_a_DDOS_based_Online
_Extortion_Attack>.
Appendix A. Examples of Third Party Malware Lists
As noted in Section 4, there are many potential third parties which
may be willing to share lists of infected hosts. This list is for
example purposes only, is not intended to be either exclusive or
exhaustive, and is subject to change over time.
o Arbor - Atlas, see http://atlas.arbor.net/
o Internet Systems Consortium - Secure Information Exchange (SIE),
see https://sie.isc.org/
o Microsoft - Smart Network Data Services (SNDS), see
https://postmaster.live.com/snds/
o SANS Institute / Internet Storm Center - DShield Distributed
Intrusion Detection System, see http://www.dshield.org/about.html
o ShadowServer Foundation, see http://www.shadowserver.org/
o Spamhaus - Policy Block List (PBL), see
http://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/
o Spamhaus - Exploits Block List (XBL), see
http://www.spamhaus.org/xbl/
o Team Cymru - Community Services, see http://www.team-cymru.org/
Appendix B. Document Change Log
[RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication]
-20 version:
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
o Addressed comments raised at IESG ommitted in -19
o minor nits corrections
-19 version:
o Addressed comments raised at IESG
o minor nits corrections
-18 version:
o minor nits corrections
-17 version:
o various copy editing
o briefly discuss IP reputation issues
o briefly discuss corporate espionage threat
o add references for ARF and IODEF, Snort, and Conficker
-16 version:
o Section 6.1.6 Substituted unable for able
-15 version:
o Issue of quiet bots addressed
o Section 5.4 substitute "may be" for maybe
o Section 5.4 Added reference to country of residence
o Section 5.8 Corrected spelling error
o Section 5.10 Correctedspelling error
o Section 6 Corrected spelling errors
-14 version:
o Minor errors rectified, spelling errors addressed
o ALL open issues are now closed!
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
-13 version:
o All changes below per Sean Farrell except where indicated
o Section 1.2 Added reference to fast flux definition
o Section 1.2 Included reference to insecure protocols
o Section 4 Cleared ambiguity
o Section 4 Substituted "must have"
o Section 4 Substituted "to" for "too"
o Section 4 Addressed PII issue for 3rd parties
o Section 4 Addressed issue around blocking of traffic during bot
detection process
o Section 5 Per Max Weinstein Included a number of comments and
addressed issues of detection transparency
o Section 5 Addressed issue by recommending that users should be
allowed to opt in to their desired method of notification
o Section 5.4 Addressed issue around timing of notification
o Section 5.4 Addressed Walled Garden issue by recommending that
Walled Gardens are to be used as a notification method
o Section 5.7 Noted that there are alternative methods to that
outlined in RFC6108
o Section 5.7 Noted that web notification is only intended for
devices running a web browser
o Section 5.9 Fixed typo
o Section 6.1 Noted that ISPs should be clear when offering paid
remediation services that these are aimed at those without skills
to remediate or lacking confidence to do so
o Section 7 Noted that refusal to remediate is a business issue and
not subject to technical recommendation.
o ALL open issues are now closed!
-12 version:
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
o Shortened reference names (non-RFC references)
o Closed Open Issue #1 and #4, as leaky walled gardens are covered
in Section 5.4
o Closed Open Issue #2 and #6, by adding a section on users that
fail to mitigate, including account termination
o Closed Open Issue #3, by adding a Privacy Considerations section
to address PII
o Closed Open Issue #5, with no action taken
o Closed Open Issue #7, by leaving as Informational (the IETF can
assess this later)
o Closed Open Issue #8, by generalizing the guided remediation
section via the removal of specific links, etc.
o Closed Open Issue #9, by reviewing and updating remediation steps
o Changed some 'must' statements to 'should' statements (even though
there is not RFC 2119 language in the document)
o ALL open issues are now closed!
-11 version:
o Added reference to RFC 6108
o Per Sean Turner, removed RFC 2119 reference and section
o Per Donald Smith, externalized the reference to 3rd party data
sources, now Appendix A
o Per Donald Smith, moved basic notification challenges into a new
section at the end of the Notifications section.
-10 version:
o Minor refresh to keep doc from expiring. Several large updates
planned in a Dec/Jan revision
-09 version:
o Corrected nits pointed out by Sean
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
o Removed occurrences of double spacing
o Grammar and spelling corrections in many sections
o Added text for leaky walled garden
-08 version:
o Corrected a reference error in Section 10.
o Added a new informative reference
o Change to Section 5.a., to note additional port scanning
limitations
o Per Joel Jaeggli, change computer to host, to conform to IETF
document norms
o Several other changes suggested by Joel Jaeggli and Donald Smith
on the OPSEC mailing list
o Incorp. other feedback received privately
o Because Jason is so very dedicated, he worked on this revision
while on vacation ;-)
-07 version:
o Corrected various spelling and grammatical errors, pointed out by
additional reviewers. Also added a section on information flowing
from the user. Lastly, updated the reviewer list to include all
those who either were kind enough to review for us or who provided
interesting, insightful, and/or helpful feedback.
-06 version:
o Corrected an error in the version change log, and added some extra
information on user remediation. Also added an informational
reference to BIOS infection.
-05 version:
o Minor tweaks made by Jason - ready for wider review and next
steps. Also cleared open issues. Lastly, added 2nd paragraph to
security section and added sections on limitations relating to
public and other shared network sites. Added a new section on
professional remediation.
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
-04 version:
o Updated reference to BIOS based malware, added wording on PII and
local jurisdictions, added suggestion that industry body produce
bot stats, added suggestion that ISPs use volunteer forums
-03 version:
o all updates from Jason - now ready for wider external review
-02 version:
o all updates from Jason - still some open issues but we're now at a
place where we can solicit more external feedback
-01 version:
o -01 version published
Appendix C. Open Issues
No open issues.
Authors' Addresses
Jason Livingood
Comcast Cable Communications
One Comcast Center
1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
US
Email: jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com
URI: http://www.comcast.com
Nirmal Mody
Comcast Cable Communications
One Comcast Center
1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
US
Email: nirmal_mody@cable.comcast.com
URI: http://www.comcast.com
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Remediation of Bots in ISP Networks January 2012
Mike O'Reirdan
Comcast Cable Communications
One Comcast Center
1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
US
Email: michael_oreirdan@cable.comcast.com
URI: http://www.comcast.com
Livingood, et al. Expires July 12, 2012 [Page 33]
