Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Perimeter

4/9/2010
11:05 AM
Gadi Evron
Gadi Evron
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Stop Counting Bots

How many bots are on the Internet, and why should we care? This is an argument I've been making since the late 1990s, and it is high time I got it in writing outside of closed circles.

How many bots are on the Internet, and why should we care? This is an argument I've been making since the late 1990s, and it is high time I got it in writing outside of closed circles.Ever since botnets became a mainstream concern -- years after they were a real threat in the wild -- our industry has been trying to count them. Most recently I came across a number citing more than 100 million bots on the Internet.

That number is irrelevant as much as it is untrue.

To count bots, we first need to define what a bot is. Is it the instance of the Trojan horse that responds to remote commands? Or is it the computer that may have 20 or 30 different active bots on it, making it an effective member of 20 or 30 different botnets?

Maybe a bot is an equivalent for an infected IP address, which changes constantly on dynamic IP ranges (for home users) just like it can include thousands on thousands of infected computers behind NATs and other private networks.

For the purpose of this post, I will define a bot as an instance of an active member in a botnet, no matter how many other types of malware may be running on the computer. I will also define an infected computer as an IP address that for the past 24 hours has been active in any number of botnets, no matter how many instances of malware are on that host.

Now considering the supply pool for bots is virtually unlimited -- pragmatically there is an unlimited number of computers vulnerable to infection -- and some criminals like to collect infected hosts, these days many botnets in the field are smaller and only used as they are needed.

In 2003-4, I made this argument and mentioned that if we have enough bots to destroy the Internet 10,000 times over, then does it really matter if the number of bots is 8,000 or 12,000? The issue was that while my argument is solid, in 2005 policy-makers were slowly becoming interested in botnets, and numbers impress people. Further, this would be the first question they'd ask.

In 2004-5 when we were discussing these issues, a good guy named David Dagon mentioned we should not be counting bots, but rather botnets. At the time this was solid advice, but it no longer holds true, either.

Today, botnets are an on-demand product and can operate in many different ways. Counting them does not really help with measuring the threat. What needs to be measured is the criminals themselves, the scale of their operations, and what they are using the botnets for.

Botnets are just an infrastructure from which most criminal activity on the Internet today operates -- just like in information warfare, when such botnets are hired or taken over to participate in large-scale assaults.

It's time we stopped counting weapons and started collecting intelligence on the wielders in a more in-depth fashion than we have so far, and by entities other than in the security industry.

Follow Gadi Evron on Twitter: http://twitter.com/gadievron.

Gadi Evron is an independent security strategist based in Israel. Special to Dark Reading. Gadi is CEO and founder of Cymmetria, a cyber deception startup and chairman of the Israeli CERT. Previously, he was vice president of cybersecurity strategy for Kaspersky Lab and led PwC's Cyber Security Center of Excellence, located in Israel. He is widely recognized for ... View Full Bio

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/10/2020
Researcher Finds New Office Macro Attacks for MacOS
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  8/7/2020
Exploiting Google Cloud Platform With Ease
Dark Reading Staff 8/6/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: It's a technique known as breaking out of the sandbox kids.
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-24348
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-13
njs through 0.4.3, used in NGINX, has an out-of-bounds read in njs_json_stringify_iterator in njs_json.c.
CVE-2020-24349
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-13
njs through 0.4.3, used in NGINX, allows control-flow hijack in njs_value_property in njs_value.c. NOTE: the vendor considers the issue to be "fluff" in the NGINX use case because there is no remote attack surface.
CVE-2020-7360
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-13
An Uncontrolled Search Path Element (CWE-427) vulnerability in SmartControl version 4.3.15 and versions released before April 15, 2020 may allow an authenticated user to escalate privileges by placing a specially crafted DLL file in the search path. This issue was fixed in version 1.0.7, which was r...
CVE-2020-24342
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-13
Lua through 5.4.0 allows a stack redzone cross in luaO_pushvfstring because a protection mechanism wrongly calls luaD_callnoyield twice in a row.
CVE-2020-24343
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-13
Artifex MuJS through 1.0.7 has a use-after-free in jsrun.c because of unconditional marking in jsgc.c.