 A distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS attack) sees an attacker flooding the network or servers of the victim with a wave of internet traffic so big that their infrastructure is overwhelmed by the number of requests for access, slowing down services or taking them fully offline and preventing legitimate users from accessing the service at all. While a DDoS attack is one of the least sophisticated categories of cyberattack, it also has the potential to be one of the most disruptive and most powerful by taking websites and digital services offline for significant periods of time that can range from seconds to even weeks at a time. DDoS attacks are carried out using a network of internet-connected machines – PCs, laptops, servers, Internet of Things devices – all controlled by the attacker. These could be anywhere (hence the term 'distributed') and it's unlikely the owners of the devices realize what they are being used for as they are likely to have been hijacked by hackers. Common ways in which cybercriminals take control of machines include malware attacks and gaining access by using the default user name and password the product is issued with – if the device has a password at all. Once the attackers have breached the device, it becomes part of a botnet – a group of machines under their control. Botnets can be used for all manner of malicious activities, including distributing phishing emails, malware or ransomware, or in the case of a DDoS attack, as the source of a flood of internet traffic. The size of a botnet can range from a relatively small number of zombie devices to millions of them. Either way, the botnet's controllers can turn the web traffic generated towards a target and conduct a DDoS attack. Servers, networks, and online services are designed to cope with a certain amount of internet traffic but, if they're flooded with additional traffic in a DDoS attack, they become overwhelmed. The high amounts of traffic being sent by the DDoS attack clog up or takes down the systems' capabilities, while also preventing legitimate users from accessing services (which is the 'denial of service' element). An IP stressor is a service that can be used by organizations to test the robustness of their networks and servers. The goal of this test is to find out if the existing bandwidth and network capacity are enough to handle additional traffic. An IT department using a stressor to test their own network is a perfectly legitimate application of an IP stressor. However, using an IP stressor against a network that you don't operate is illegal in many parts of the world – because the end result could be a DDoS attack. However, there are cyber-criminal groups and individuals that will actively use IP stressors as part of a DDoS attack. What's widely regarded as the first malicious DDoS attack occurred in July 1999 when the computer network at the University of Minnesota was taken down for two days. A network of 114 computers infected with Trin00 malware all directed their traffic at a computer at the university, overwhelming the network with traffic and blocking legitimate use. No effort was made to hide the IP address of the computers launching the traffic – and the owners of the attacking systems had no idea their computers were infected with malware and were causing an outage elsewhere. The world didn't have to wait long after the University of Minnesota incident to see how disruptive DDoS attacks could be. By February 2000, 15-year-old Canadian Michael Calce – online alias MafiaBoy – had managed to take over a number of university networks, roping a large number of computers into a botnet. He used this for a DDoS attack that took down some of the biggest websites at the start of the new millennium, including Yahoo! – which at the time was the biggest search engine in the world – eBay, Amazon, CNN, and more. By the mid-2000s, it was apparent that DDoS attacks could be a potent tool in the cybercriminal arsenal, but the world was about to see a new example of how disruptive DDoS attacks could be; by taking down the internet services of an entire country. In April 2007, Estonia was – and still is – one of the most digitally advanced countries in the world, with almost every government service accessible online to the country's 1.3 million citizens through an online ID system. But from 27 April, Estonia was hit with a series of DDoS attacks disrupting all online services in the country, as well as parliament, banks, ministries, newspapers, and broadcasters. People weren't able to access the services they needed on a daily basis. For complete details visit OUR FORUM.  After tearing the PlayStation 5's guts apart earlier this week, Sony confirmed nearly everything we'd like to know on Friday about how its new console, launching November 12, will interface with PS4 games via backward compatibility. We should probably start with the big news that Sony has not cleared up just yet. Today, we received our first indication that PlayStation 5 will ship with something known as "Game Boost," which its Friday news post suggests "may make [select] PS4 games run with a higher or smoother frame rate." This suggestion doesn't come with a handy footnote pointing us to a list of affected games or features, however. Sony did not immediately respond to our request for clarification, so I'm left pointing to my recent deep dive with Xbox Series X's backward compatibility suite. What I found there was compelling: Most games play nearly identically on Xbox Series X as they do on Xbox One X, since console games are typically coded with hard limits on technical aspects. But in the case of games that launched on PS4 with "unlocked" frame rates and dynamic resolutions, well, the sky might be the limit. Will PS5 let those older, uncapped games tap into the full PS5 architecture or will certain CPU and GPU aspects be limited for compatibility's sake? I found that Xbox Series X was generally quite generous to the minority of games that could tap into increased horsepower, but there's no guaranteeing Sony will treat its older games the same way, in order to prioritize compatibility over upgrades. Additionally, will current-gen PlayStation VR games see their own boosts? "PSVR" is referenced repeatedly throughout today's new document but not in the brief mention of Game Boost. Existing PlayStation VR hardware seems to be entirely compatible with PS5, with Sony confirming once again that users will need a PlayStation Camera adapter to connect to PS5—and that those adapters will be free. How exactly PSVR owners will get those adapters remains to be seen. The matter of PS5 controller compatibility is a bit more complicated than Xbox Series' pledge of total forward and backward compatibility (with the exception of Xbox One Kinect, RIP). As has previously been hinted, PS5's new DualSense controller will work with older games, but PS4's DualShock 4 gamepad will not work with PS5 games. (Yes, you can still connect a PS4 DualShock 4 to play PS4 games on PS5. Whew, that's a mouthful.) In good forward-compatibility news, if you already bought an expensive add-on controller, Sony assures you that "specialty peripherals [from the PS4 era], such as officially licensed racing wheels, arcade sticks, and flight sticks," will work with PS5 software. When playing the PS4's library of PSVR games on PS5, Sony encourages users to stick with DualShock 4 as a gamepad, suggesting that the older gamepad offers the "best experience" in PSVR. This implies, but doesn't confirm, that DualSense will not work the same way as a DualShock 4 in PSVR games like Astro Bot, which relies heavily on gamepad motion sensing via tracking elements like its "light bar." You can also use existing PlayStation Move wands in PSVR games on PS5. Certain PS4 system features have been scrapped when moving forward to PS5. The DualShock 4's "share" button now brings up the PS5's built-in "create" menu, which appears to do all the stuff that "share" did on PS4 but with a few additional button shortcuts. And PS4 social features like tournaments, "in-game live," and second-screen app functionality have all gotten the axe. Complete details are posted on OUR FORUM.  Fortnite won’t be coming back to the App Store any time soon. On Friday, Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers refused to grant Epic Games a preliminary injunction against Apple that would force the game developer to reinstate Fortnite on the App Store, while simultaneously granting an injunction that keeps Apple from retaliating against the Unreal Engine, which Epic also owns. In other words, we now have a permanent version of the temporary restraining order ruling from last month. That means the state of affairs, in which Epic is banned from publishing new games on iOS and cannot distribute Fortnite on the App Store in its current form, will remain in place for the length of the trial — unless Epic decides to remove its own in-app payment mechanism that initiated the bitter legal feud in August. Rogers had previously suggested a jury trial might be appropriate as soon as next July, but ahead of today’s ruling, both parties said they would rather have the case decided by a judge. Today’s decision still prevents Apple from revoking Epic’s developer tools in a way that could have harmed its broader business. “Epic Games and Apple are at liberty to litigate this action for the future of the digital frontier, but their dispute should not create havoc to bystanders. Thus, the public interest weighs overwhelmingly in favor of Unreal Engine and the Epic Affiliates,” said the judge, keeping Epic’s Unreal Engine business from being harmed. “Epic Games is grateful that Apple will continue to be barred from retaliating against Unreal Engine and our game development customers as the litigation continues,” an Epic spokesperson said in a statement. “We will continue to develop for iOS and Mac under the court’s protection and we will pursue all avenues to end Apple’s anti-competitive behavior.” “Our customers depend on the App Store being a safe and trusted place where all developers follow the same set of rules,” an Apple spokesperson said in a statement. “We’re grateful the court recognized that Epic’s actions were not in the best interests of its own customers and that any problems they may have encountered were of their own making when they breached their agreement. For twelve years, the App Store has been an economic miracle, creating transformative business opportunities for developers large and small. We look forward to sharing this legacy of innovation and dynamism with the court next year.” Apple and Epic met in federal court again in September for another round, where the merits of the Fortnite developer’s antitrust case against Apple were argued before Rogers for a second time since Epic filed its lawsuit in August. Epic had a particularly rough go of it, as Rogers singled out the company for what she characterized as dishonest behavior that may prove the company poses a security risk to the iOS platform. “You did something, you lied about it by omission, by not being forthcoming. That’s the security issue. That’s the security issue!” Rogers told Epic, according to a report from CNN. “There are a lot of people in the public who consider you guys heroes for what you guys did, but it’s still not honest.” Rogers also brought up the fact that walled gardens and their standard 30 percent cuts are commonplace in the game industry, with console makers like Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony implementing similar rules. Rogers said the case should likely go to a jury to decide and suggested a trial time frame of next summer. “It is important enough to understand what real people think,” said Rogers. “Do these security issues concern people or not?” The other benefit of a jury trial is that it may result in a stickier, more definitive ruling. The likelihood this case sees numerous appeals is high, and appellate courts are more likely to uphold a jury decision when appealed. That could avoid the case bouncing between courts for years to come. “I know I’m just a stepping stone for all of you,” Rogers added. Learn more by visiting OUR FORUM. |
Latest Articles
|