Research on DoS Atomic Attack Oriented to Attack Resistance Test

Si-yuan, Xin; Huilin, Tang; Zhu, Nianyong

doi:10.1109/icnsc.2008.4525506

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…DoS attack methods are generally divided into vulnerability attacks and flooding attacks [1], [3], [4]. Vulnerability attacks exploit any weaknesses in the target server that have resulted from design errors or ambiguities.…”

Section: C: Attack Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both the previous methods supply multiple attackers with the same provision because the F5 attacker's behaviors are limited by the I/O devices, leading to the same and constant attack rate. However, unlike F5 attackers, attackers who launch DoS tool attacks apply different attack rates [17], [27] and, in addition, can adjust the attack rate to match different targeted error rates while monitoring the current server status [4], [13]. This makes it difficult for the methods proposed in our previous studies to deceive DoS tool attackers into believing their attacks are successful.…”

Section: Problemmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…DoS tools provide a function for monitoring the status of the targeted server. Xin et al [4] analyzed 80 DoS tools including 60 DoS programs and 20 DoS scripts, and categorized the DoS attack functions provided as part of these DoS tools. They classified 29 DoS attack functions into six categories.…”

Section: Targeted Server Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This paper focuses on the HTTP GET Flood attacks controlled by a human operator using a DoS tool for degrading the service. The attack rate depends on each tool attacker [17], [27], and the attackers can control the attack rate for the different targeted error rates while monitoring the targeted server status [4], [13]. Therefore, in this section, we assume an attack scenario suitable for the above attack.…”

Section: Attack Scenariomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…DoS tools usually include a function for monitoring the status of the targeted server [4] that allows the attacker to confirm the effectiveness of the current attack and the defense activities of the server, and thus plan further attacks. By observing the effectiveness of the current attack, the attacker can adjust the attack intensity to match the server's status.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Defense Method of HTTP GET Flood Attack by Adaptively Controlling Server Resources Depending on Different Attack Intensity

Kobayashi

Otani

Yoshida

et al. 2016

Journal of Information Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Internet currently provides a multitude of services, which have become essential for everyday life such as disclosure of company information, online services, and e-commerce. Therefore, interruptions to these services greatly inconvenience the public. A denial of service (DoS) attack affects regular users' access to a network resource. DoS tools usually include a function for monitoring the status of the targeted server that allows the attacker to confirm the effectiveness of the current attack and the defense activities of the server, and thus plan further attacks. By observing the effectiveness of the current attack, the attacker can adjust the attack intensity to match the server's status. Depending on the defense response, the perpetrator can judge whether their attack is being mitigated using certain techniques. If the attacker observes a defensive response to the attack, the attacker can respond by changing the attack method, abandoning the attack, or targeting a more vulnerable server. We propose a method that allows the server to maintain its service to users relatively unaffected by the attacks, responds optimally to each attacker, and impedes the attacker's ability to detect defensive responses. In this paper, we implement our proposed method and evaluate the effectiveness of the system.

show abstract

Section: C: Attack Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%