A041201010

International Journal of Computational Engineering Research||Vol, 04||Issue, 1||

A Survey of Protection Against DoS & DDoS Attacks
1,

Mrs.S.Thilagavathi , 2,Dr.A.Saradha

1,

Head, Department of Computer Science, Terf’s Academy College of Arts&Science
Tirupur, Tamilnadu, India
2,
Head, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Institute of Road and Transport Technology
Erode, Tamilnadu, India

ABSTRACT
Denial-of-Services (DoS) attacks cause serious threats to the today internet world. The problem of DoS
attacks has become well known, but it has been hard to find out the Denial of Service in the Internet. So
the users have to take own effort of a large number of protected system such as Firewall or up-to-date
antivirus software. If the system or links are affected from an attack then the legitimate clients may not
be able to connect it. There have been a number of solutions and tools to detect the DoS attacks.
However there are no end solutions which can protect against the DoS attacks. This paper focuses on
techniques used in different DoS attacks and describes the characteristics of tools used in DoS attack
network and also presents the proposed solutions.

INDEX TERMS : Denial-Of-Service, Distributed Dos, DDoS Attack Tools, Traceback Mechanisms,
Intrusion Detection and Prevention Method, IP Address Spoofing, IP Address Monitoring, Blocked IP
Address, Client-Side Script.

I.

INTRODUCTION

A denial of service (DoS) attack aims to deny access by legitimate users to shared services or
resources. This can occur in a wide variety of contexts, from operating systems to network-based services on the
Internet. A DoS attack aims to disrupt the service provided by a network or server. On February 9, 2000, Yahoo,
eBay, Amazon.com, E*Trade, ZDnet, Buy.com, the FBI, and several other Web sites fell victim to DDoS
attacks resulting in substantial damage and inconvenience. More importantly, traditional operations in essential
services, such as banking, transportation, power, health, and defense, are being progressively replaced by
cheaper, more efficient Internet-based applications. Internet-based attacks can be launched anywhere in the
world, and unfortunately any Internet-based service is a potential target for these attacks.This paper presents an
overview of the DoS problem in section 2 and it includes classification of DoS attacks and how they are
accomplished. In section 3 existing solutions and section 4 follows the problem and proposed solutions. This
paper is concluded in section 5.

II.

OVERVIEW OF DDOS ATTACKS

One common method of attack involves saturating the target machine with external communications
requests, such that it responds so slowly as to be rendered effectively unavailable. Such attacks usually lead to a
server overload. In general terms, DoS attacks are implemented by either forcing the targeted computer(s) to
reset, or consuming its resources so that it can no longer provide its intended service or obstructing the
communication media between the intended users and the victim. A DDoS attack uses many computers to
launch a DoS attack against one or more targets. A typical DDoS attack consists of four elements[6].
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

The real Attacker;
The handler who are capable of controlling multiple agents.
The Zombie hosts who are responsible for generating a stream of packets toward the victim.
The victim or the target host.

The virus-infected computers are called zombies – because they do whatever the DDoSer commands
them to do. A large group of zombie computers is called a robot network, or botnet. The computer could be part
of a botnet without the knowledge of user. That’s because it may be busy participating in a DDoS attack at the
same time the user are using it. Or, the user might find out that the computer is infected when the Internet
service provider (ISP) drops the user service because of computer is sending an unusually high number of
network requests[19].
||Issn 2250-3005 ||

||January||2014||

Page 1

A Survey Of Protection Against Dos…

Figure 1: Architecture of DoS attack
Zombie computers in a botnet receive instructions from a command and control server, which is an infected web
server. DDoSers who have access to a command and control server can recruit the botnet to launch DDoS
attacks
2.1. Denial of Service type
There are many types of DDoS attacks. They target different network components – routers,
appliances, firewalls, applications, ISPs, even data centers – in different ways. DDoS attackers use a variety of
DDoS attack methods. The malicious hacker group Anonymous, for example, started with a tool that could
launch Layer 7 DDoS attacks and Layer 3 DDoS attacks from any computer. These attacks had a common
attack signature – that is, common code. As a result, the attacks could be detected and mitigated fairly
easily[19].Denial of service can be divided into three forms.
[1]

DoS
In a DoS attack, one computer and one internet connection is used to flood a server with packets, with
the aim of overloading the targeted server’s bandwidth and resources[3]. Denial-of-service (DoS) attacks
exceeding 20G bps, which will overwhelm almost any online service's bandwidth, more than quadrupled so far
in 2013, compared with the previous year, according to the network management firm. While the attacks
account for only approximately 1 percent of all data floods, the increase in large-bandwidth DoS attacks
suggests that more serious groups are now using denial of service as a common tactic.[20]
DDoS attack
A distributed denial of service attack (DDoS) occurs when multiple systems flood the bandwidth or
resources of a targeted system, usually one or more web servers. This is the result of multiple compromised
systems (for example a botnet) flooding the targeted system with traffic. When a server is overloaded with
connections, new connections can no longer be accepted[4].
[2] DRDoS
This type of attack is more detrimental than a typical DDoS attack. This is because a DRDoS attack has
more machines to share the attack, and hence the attack is more distributed. This is also creates a greater volume
of traffic because of its more distributed nature[3].

||Issn 2250-3005 ||

||January||2014||

Page 2

III. EXISTING SOLUTIONS
3.1 Classification of DDoS Attack
DDoS attacks can be divided into two categories: Bandwidth attack and Resource attack.
 In a bandwidth attack, simply try to generate packets to flood the victim’s network so that the legitimate
requests cannot go to the victim machine.
 A resource attack aims to send packets that misuse network protocol or malformed packets to tie up
network resources so that resources are not available to the legitimate users any more.

Figure 2.Classification of DDoS Attack
3.1.1 Bandwidth Attacks
 Flood attack: This attack occur when a network or service becomes so weighed down with packets
initiating incomplete connection requests that it can no longer process genuine connection requests.Once
this buffer is full no further connections can be made, and the result is a Denial of Service.


TCP Flood : A stream of TCP Packets with various Flags set are sent to the victim IP Address. The
SYN,ACK and RST flags are commonly used.



ICMP Flood: A stream of ICMP packets are sent to a victim IP address.



UDP Flood: A stream of UDP packets are sent to the victim IP address.



Teardrop : This attack creates a stream of IP fragments with their offset field overload. The destination
host that tries to reassemble these malformed fragments eventually crashes or reboots.



Smurf attack: The victim is flooded with Internet Control Message Protocol. The attackers sends
numerous ICMP “echo-request” packets to the broadcast address of many subnets. These packets contain
the victim’s address as the source IP address [4][6][10].

3.1.2 Reflected attack
A distributed reflected denial of service attack (DRDoS) involves sending forged requests of some type
to a very large number of computers that will reply to the requests. Using Internet Protocol address spoofing, the
source address is set to that of the targeted victim, which means all the replies will go to the target.ICMP Echo
Request attacks (Smurf Attack) can be considered one form of reflected attack, as the flooding host(s) sends
Echo Requests to the broadcast addresses of miss-configured networks, thereby enticing many hosts to send
Echo Reply packets to the victim. Some early DDoS programs implemented a distributed form of this
attack[16].
||Issn 2250-3005 ||

||January||2014||

Page 3

 TCP SYN Attack : This attack occurs during the three-way handshake that marks the onset of a TCP
connection. If an attack occurs, the attacker sends an abundance of TCP SYN packets to the victim.
 Malformed Packet Attack : A ping of death is a type of attack on a computer that involves sending a
malformed or otherwise malicious ping to a computer.
3.2 DDoS Attack Tools
There are many security problems in today’s Internet. But none of these problems have been completely
solved; some of the tools and technical solutions have been helped to reduce the danger from the intrusions [9].
There are several DDoS attack tools are available. But some of the well known DDoS tools are given below :
[1] Trinoo
[2] Tribe Flood Network(TFN),
[3] Tribe Flood Network 2000 (TFN2K),
[4] Stacheldraht,
[5] Mstream and
[6] Shaft
[7] Trinity
[8] Knight
[9] Kaiten
Trinoo is one of DDoS attack tool and is able to launch packet flooding attacks. It has the ability to
control the duration of the attack as well as the size of the flooding packets .Trinoo is the first DDoS attack tool.
This is the first DDoS attack tool. It has been able to achieve bandwidth depletion and can be used to launch
UDP flood attacks against one or many
addresses. The trinoo was the first attempt at client-server
programming by its author and was designed and implemented in a period of monthsTribe Flood Network (TFN)
is able to perform bandwidth depletion and resource depletion attacks. It is able to implement Smurf, UDP fl
ood, TCP SYN flood, ICMP echo request flood, and ICMP directed broadcast. TFN2K is a derivative of TFN
and is able to implement Smurf, SYN, UDP, and ICMP flood attacksTribe Flood Network 2000 (TFN2K) has
the special feature of being able to add encrypted messages between all attack components. Stacheldraht is based
on early versions of TFN attempts to eliminate some of its weak points and implement Smurf, SYN flood, UDP
flood, and ICMP flood attacks. Mstream is a simple point-to-point TCP ACK flooding tool that is able to
overwhelm the tables used by fast routing routines in some switches.Shaft is a DDoS tool similar to Trinoo and
is able to launch packet flooding attacks. It has the ability to control the duration of the attack as well as the size
of the flooding packets [2][6]Trinit is the first DDoS tool that is controlled via IRC. Trinity is capable of
launching several types of flooding attacks on a victim site, including UDP, IP fragment, TCP SYN, TCP RST,
TCP ACK, and other floods[7].Knight is IRC based DDoS attack tool. It provides SYN attacks, UDP flood
attacks, and an urgent pointer. This is designed to run Windows Operating systems.Kaiten is another IRC based
DDoS attack tool. It includes code for UDP and TCP flooding attacks, for SYN attacks, It also randomizes the
32 bits of its source address[8].
3.3 Trceback Solutions
Dos attacks are easy to generate but very hard to detect. In denial of service attacks, the packets are
routed correctly but the destination becomes the target of the attackers. Once the target system is attacked, the
detection mechanisms are necessary to detect an attack with less false positive rate and more accuracy rate
ICMP Traceback method involves every router on the network pick a packet probabilistically and generate an
ICMP traceback message directed to the same destination as the selected packet.. The IP Trace is used to
identify the actual path of the attack[9] Algebric approach to IP Traceback scheme is based on algebraic
techniques.It generate traceback data using polynomial function and storing data in unused bits of IP header.
Fast Internet Traceback a new packet marking approach. FIT is scalable to vast scattered attacks with thousands
of attackers. It uses path reconstruction algorithm with node marking instead of link marking at the end user
side. Performance and deployment ability of FIT is better than other packet marking schemes. It will take
minimal processing time of router to track very small number of attack packet. But it goes through the false
positive and negative rate[11].Advance and Authenticated Marking approach is more efficient and accurate for
the attacker path reconstruction within the seconds and has low false positive rate. Traces the origin of spoofed
IP packets[12].Hash Based IP Traceback has been proposed by Snoeren et al. In this method a Source Path
Isolation Engine (SPIE) is used which produces review track of traffic and it can trace origin of single IP packet.
The data (8 bytes) and the IP header (20 byte) both are logged on intermediate routers. This operation uses 28
byte data in hashing. The main advantages of this method are low storage of data and it ignores eavesdropping
but it create overhead to generate 28 byte hash[13]
||Issn 2250-3005 ||

||January||2014||

Page 4

Another packet marking scheme is Deterministic Packet Marking. In this method each packet is marked and
they are used to find out the source of a traffic flow. It will include all size of packets whether it is small or big.
And due to this computation work and packet header size both increases. Also there is no overload prevention
method exist [14].Probabilistic packet marking scheme is somewhat similar like DPM. In this, router mark
packet with all its path details probabilistically and victim machine recreate the graph. It is more efficient than
Deterministic packet marking scheme. But the same drawback applies to this scheme as in DPM have. Also in
this scheme more number of packets gets involved in trace back processes which increase the computational
time[15].

IV. Proposed Solutions
There are many problems in DoS attacks and there exists no easy way to solve DoS problem. DDoS
attacks are among the hardest security problems to address because they are difficult to prevent and very
difficult to trace out.To overcome these problems a novel method is propsed in this system This system is
known as PSYADoS(Protection System Against DoS attack). This system gives an solution to solve the
following problems.
4.1 Intrusion Detection and Prevention Method
An intrusion detection system (IDS) inspects all inbound and outbound network activity and identifies
suspicious patterns that may indicate a network or a system attack from some one attempting to break into a
system. There are a number of hacking and intrusion incidents increasing year on year as technology rolls out, it
may be exposed to a variety of intruder threats. Intrusion Detection Systems detect unauthorized access
attempts. There are basically two main types of IDS being used today: Network based, and Host based (looking
for instance at system logs for evidence of malicious or suspicious application activity in real time).
The existing Network-Based Intrusion Detection system have the following disadvantages:
 Intrusion detection becomes more difficult on modern switched networks
 Current network-based monitoring approaches cannot efficiently handle high-speed networks
 Most of Network-based systems are based on predefined attack signatures--signatures that will always be a
step behind the latest underground exploits
The proposed system introduces a new Network based Intrusion detection method. It can monitor all traffic
entering and leaving the network. The proposed IDS protects a system from attack, misuse, and compromise.
The user who enters into a server will be monitored by this method.

Figure 3: CPU Performance
In the above graph CPU performance is figured. Depending upon the graph the X axis shows the
performance of the system and Y axis shows no of uesr working in it. It reveals that number of users comes at
many times, the system becomes slow. At this moment we may know that the server is aimed for an attack. So
the above graph is useful to monitor the CPU Performance.
4.2 IP Address Spoofing
IP address spoofing is the creation of forged source IP address for the purpose of the identify of the
sender or impersonating another computer system. IP address spoofing mostly used in Denial-of-Service
attacks. In such attacks, the aim is to flood the victim with overwhelming amounts of traffic, and attacker does
not care about receiving response of attack. IP address blocking is commonly used to protect against the attacks.
On a website, an IP address ban is often used to prevent a disruptive member from access. In Existing system, IP
address banning is used to limit the content to a specific region. The proposed method is used to detect the
attackers IP address(that is a source IP address) and it identify that the user is unauthorized user. This system
can store all the IP addresses in list which is called an admin list. Even a single user IP address can also store by
this method until the user logout from the server.
||Issn 2250-3005 ||

||January||2014||

Page 5

4.3 IP Address Monitoring
The PYSADOS tool is used to monitor the IP address also. The user press F5(refresh) more than once,
automatically this tool will be capture and store the user IP address into the database with the user’s details and
the time of their login. The Algorithm in the below is used to capture and store the unauthorized IP address into
the database.
4.3.1 Algorithm for Monitoring Unknown IP address
vip=getip("address");
If (Ip!=ValidIp(vip)&& Ip<=proxy("vip"))Then
{
time=30;
gtime=refr("time");
If(rEcap("StrVal")==getstr("vstr")&& gtime>=1) Then
{
ready->work;
get(login)=siteurl->vip;
}
else
{
banfile=fopen("$file_location_banlist","w")
setbanlist=add(vip);
print(banfile,"Str",gettime());
}
}

Figure 4:Screenshot of a IP Address Monitoring
4.4 Blocked IP address
Many users operate from shared IP addresses, often those belonging to proxies used by large networks
or home users with their Internet service providers. Since it is impossible to distinguish between individual users
operating from shared IP addresses, blocking one may affect a very large number of legitimate users (ranging up
to millions). Users operating from dynamic IP addresses change IP addresses periodically. This can compound
the auto block problem, particularly when they are also shared, because a block targeted at a malicious user may
shift to a legitimate user while the target shifts to an unblocked IP address. This proposed system is used to store
the blocked spam IP address. This address will be added to the Admin List.

||Issn 2250-3005 ||

||January||2014||

Page 6


Figure 5 ; Screenshot of Blocked IP Address

4.4.1 Algorithm for storing Spam IP Address
Vip=getip("address");
function validip()
{
$pattern = "/^([1]?d{1,2}|2[0-4]{1}d{1}|25[0-5]{1})(.([1]?d{1,2}|2[0-4]{1}d{1}|25[0-5]{1})){3}$/";
return (preg_match($pattern, $ip) > 0) ? true : false;
}
if(rEcap()->fail)
{
//move ip to banlist
block("vip")
}
else //if it Ok
{
banfile=fopen("$file_location_banlist","w")
setbanlist=add(vip);
while(Ip==EoF)
{
record=FETCH("Banlistfile");
if(record==vip)
{
DELETE("Record");
}
else
{
Print("Spam IP");
}
}
}
Symbols used in description
Vip= user ip
rEcap=recatch Google Api
Proxy=Proxy ip Checker Function
vstr=users Replay String
gtime=gettime refresh "seconds">(aprox_value="30sec")

||Issn 2250-3005 ||

||January||2014||

Page 7

4.5.Client-Side Script
Security on the web is based on a variety of mechanisms, including an underlying concept of trust
known as the same origin policy. This essentially states that if content from one site is granted permission to
access resources on the system, then any content from that site will share these permissions, while content from
another site will have to be granted permissions separately. Cross side scripting vulnerabilities have been
reported and exploited since the 1990s. Prominent sites affected in the past include the social-networking sites
Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and Orkut. In recent years, cross-site scripting flaws surpassed buffer
overflows to become the most common publicly reported security vulnerability, with some researchers in
viewing as many as 68% of websites as likely open to Cross side scripting attacks. Cross-site scripting uses the
known vulnerabilities in web-based applications, their servers, or plug-in systems. On which they rely.
Exploiting the fold malicious content into the content being delivered from the compromised site. By finding
ways of injecting malicious scripts into web pages, an attacker can gain elevated access-privileges to sensitive
page content, session cookies, and a variety of other information maintained by the browser on behalf of the
user. The expression "cross-site scripting" originally referred to the act of loading the attacked, third-party web
application from an unrelated attack site, in a manner that executes a fragment of JavaScript prepared by the
attacker in the security context of the targeted domain. These are held in the existing client-side-script.
The proposed system aims to overcome the existing client side scripting. This system can check not
only the client side malicious content but also check the server side script of Code Execution, Command
Execution, Header Injection, File Disclosure, File inclusion, File Manipulation, LDAP Injection, SQL Injection.
It can display how long it has been scanned and how many numbers of files have been scanned. It can produce
the graph to identify where the errors are and how to replace the errors. It can also identify how much it has
been injured and can edit easily wherever the errors occurred. We can check to find out the errors by using two
methods of Top-Down and Bottom-Up approach.

Figure 8: Types of Files to be scanned in this System
The above figure is shows how to check the vulnerable type injections both in the Client side and Server Side

Figure 9: Result of Script Scanning

||Issn 2250-3005 ||

||January||2014||

Page 8

4.6 Mathematical Model
This system is used to stop a DoS attack by identifying the Spam IP and discard them before reaching
the victim. The web surfer might surf the source code programs also. This system could check the client side
and the server side scripting to avoid the harmful attackers. So this system is also examine the malicious
content into the content being delivered from the compromised site by applying the following equations
Where c can scan the script to find out the errors in the α coding.

C can check the malicious content of the Coding, t is to calculate the timings of C and n is the total timing
calculated by the c&C and also t.
α

finding out the errors in the script

β

finding out the vulnerable coding and

Ƴ rectifying the infected coding.

= safe

If α, β, Ƴ are correct then the script will be in safe.
4.7 Graphical Model
The graphical model shows the scanning of script wherever it has the errors in it and also it shows the
modification of error code. In its scanning if the white color displays there is no error and if the orange color
indicates there is changes made in it. If the red color is indicated the code must be completely modified.The
developers must be careful to be safe in the codings. This type of code is called the vulnerable code. The graph
model is useful to keep the script in safe.

Figure 10 : Graph Model

III.

CONCLUSIONS

DoS and DDoS attacks are advanced and powerful methods of attacking a network system to make it
either unusable to the legitimate users or downgrade its performance. This survey indicates that an overall DoS
detection mechanism by combing different detectors in order to provide robust and effective detection. Since
Dos attacks are complex and difficult to combat till now. There is no single point solution, everyone is
vulnerable. This survey examines the possible solutions to this problem.
||Issn 2250-3005 ||

||January||2014||

Page 9

We cannot separate good traffic system from the more attacks. This Proposed system is used to show the
Flood IP address and also it proves that the users are authentication user by using recapturing techniques. It can
defend against blocking,based on the analysis of existing solutions, the proposed desirable solutions are to
defend DDoS.

REFERENCES :
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]

David karig and Ruby Le, “Remote Denial of Service Attacks and Countermeasures,” Princeton University Department of
Electrical Engineering Technical Report CE-L2001-02
Helna Sandstrom, ”A Survey of the Denial of Service Problem,” Lulea University of T echnology,Sweden.
Charalampos Patrikakis, Michalis Masikos and Olga Zouraraki, “The Internet Protocol- Vol 7, Number 4”.
Jelena Mirkovic,Sven Dietrich,David Dittrich,Peter Reiher, “Internet Denial of Service:Attack and Defencse Mechanisms”.
Georgios Loukas and Gulay Oke, “Protection against Denial of Service attacks: A Survey,” Intelligent Systems and Networks
Group, Imperial College, London.
Shibia Lin Chiueh, , “ASurvey on solutions to Distribuited Denial of Service Attacks,” Stony Brook University, Stony Brook.
http://users.atw.hu/denialofservice/ch04lev1sec4.html.
http://www.scribd.com/doc//DDoS-Tool-Knight-and-Kaiten
A.John,T.Sivakumar,Ramanujam, “DDoS Survey of Traceback Methods,” International Journal of Recent Trends in
Engineering, Vol.1,No.2,May 2009
Arun Raj Kumar,P and S.Selvakumar, “Distributed-Denial-of-Service(DDoS) Threat in Collaborativem Environment-A Survey
on DDoS AttackTools and Traceback Mechanisms,” IEEE International Advance Computing Conference(IACC 2009).
Abraham Yaar,Adrian Perring, Dawn Song, “Fast Internet Traceback,”Carnegie Mellon University.
Dawn Xiaodong Song & Adrian Perrg, ”Advanced And Authenticated Marking Schemes For IP Traceback,” IEEE INFOCOM
2001.
A.Snoeren,C.Partidge,L.Sanchez,C.Jones,F.Tchakountio,B.Schwartz,S.Kent and W.Strayer, “Single-Packet IP TracEkback,”
IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, Vol 10, no.6,PP.721-734,2002.
Andrey Belenky, Nirwan Ansar, “On deterministic packet marking,” Computer Networks, Volume 51, Issue 10, 11 July 2007,
Pages 2677–2700.
Pegah Sattari, Minas Gjoka, Athina Markopoulou, “A Network Coding Approach to IP Traceback,” University of California,
Irvine
Randal Vaughn and Gadi Evron, “Dns amplification attacks preliminary release,” March 17,2006.
http://www.ddosmitigation.biz/
http://www.watchguard.com/infocenter/editorial/41649.asp
http://www.prolexic.com/knowledge-center-what-is-ddos-denial-of-service.html
Aleksei Zaitsenkov, Dos Attack

||Issn 2250-3005 ||

||January||2014||

Page 10

A041201010

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to A041201010 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A041201010