{"id":795,"date":"2006-09-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-09-06T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2006\/09\/06\/researchers-challenge-dos-attack-data\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:38:11","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:38:11","slug":"researchers-challenge-dos-attack-data","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2006\/09\/06\/researchers-challenge-dos-attack-data\/","title":{"rendered":"Researchers Challenge DOS Attack Data"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Conventional wisdom about the sources and causes of denial-of-service (DOS) attacks &#8212; and the best methods for preventing them &#8212; could be completely wrong, a group of researchers said this week.  Researchers at the University of Michigan, Carnegie Mellon University, and AT&#038;T Labs-Research said they have completed a study that debunks the widely-held belief that DOS attack traffic is usually generated by a large number of attack sources disguised by spoofed IP addresses.  In its study, the group found that 70 percent of DOS attacks are generated by less than 50 sources, and a relatively small number of attack sources account for nearly 72 percent of total attack volume.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>But because this measurement technique assumes the DOS attack was launched through spoofed IP addresses, it doesn&#8217;t account for DOS attacks launched via botnets, which have become a much more attractive vector for attackers, the research team said.<\/p>\n<p>The new study combines traditional indirect measurement of backscatter with direct measurement of Netflow and alarms from a commercial DOS detection system.<\/p>\n<p>http:\/\/www.darkreading.com\/document.asp?doc_id=103049&#038;WT.svl=news2_3<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-795","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/795","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=795"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/795\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3282,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/795\/revisions\/3282"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=795"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=795"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=795"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}