Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] The Definition of Fast Flux

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:44 AM 7/21/2008, RLVaughn wrote:
> Dave Piscitello wrote:
> > On 7/21/08 10:35 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > I still believe that it's important to distinguish a fast flux network as
> > > > something operated on systems using software installed without the user's
> > > > knowledge and consent. This to me is a key 
> > > > differentiation: simply put, I do
> > > > not believe that there you can claim good/legal/legitimate/noble intent if
> > > > you are running your network on someone else's property in an unauthorized
> > > > and covert fashion.
> > > We had a pretty long discussion around the notion of some kind of
> > > "fingerprint" that we could use to distinguish between good and bad
> > > uses of fastflux.  I tried out the very point you're making, but
> > > learned that there are *consentual* botnets,  which again makes this
> > > difficult to determine from afar.
> > This is hurting my brain.
> > First principles: it is criminal activity or it is not. We are trying so
> > hard to do no harm to non-criminal cases but at the same time we persist in
> > treating the two applications as one.
> > If it is consentual, it is not fast flux.
> > If it is consentual, it is not a bot net.
> > Barring the definitions from such unreliable resources as wikipedia, let's
> > try to stay consistent with the definition I painstakingly solicited from
> > the anticrime/antiphishing community that appears in SAC 025, Fast Flux...:
> > A botnet is a network of compromised third-party computers running software
> > (ro)bots. These bots can be remotely controlled ­ initially by the actual
> > attacker, and subsequently by a party who pays the attacker for use of the
> > botnet ­ for any number of unauthorized or illegal activities. The attacker
> > is typically associated with an organized criminal element. The attacker
> > will install "bot software" without notice or authorization on a PC via a
> > spyware download or virus attached to an email message, and more commonly,
> > through browser or other client-side exploits (e.g., compromised banner
> > advertising). Once the bot is able to execute, it establishes a back-channel
> > to a control infrastructure setup by the attacker. The traditional botnet
> > design employed a centralized model, and all back-channels connected to an
> > attacker's command-and-control center (C&C). Recently, botnet operators have
> > employed peer-to-peer models for back-channel operation to thwart detection
> > of the C&C via traffic analysis.
> > I *beg* you all to choose TWO different labels.
> It hurts what little is left of my brain as well.  But the need for
> precise definition is apparent from both comments as the perceived
> squishiness of the fastflux term and to the conclusions gathered in
> the various steps of the process.
>
> To everyone's great misfortune I am therefore tossing on my dusty
> mathematician's hat in order to produce some definitions and
> acronyms.  Feel free to ignore them all.
>
>
> Definition:
> A Compromised Host is a computer which has had software functionality
> installed without the express consent of the host's owner.
>
> Definition:
> A Compromised Host Service Network (CHSN) is a network whose
> infrastructure depends on the use of compromised hosts.
>
> The above category would include my definition of FF and Rod's
> phishing networks.
>
> Definition:
> A volatile network is one is purposed to distribute logically
> identical services over multiple (perhaps virtual) hosts at request
> time.
>
> Both the traditional RRDNS and CDN fall into the definition of
> volatile networks.  Anycast DNS and CDN's also meet the definition of
> volatile networks.
>
> Definition:
> A volatile CHSN (VCHSN) is a volatile network which is also a CHSN.
>
> The fastflux vernacular refers to a VCHSN.
>
> Now consider two networks of intent:
>   a) Illegally Purposed Service Networks; and,
>   b) Politically Purposed Service Networks.
>
> Definition:
> An Illegally Purposed Service Network (IPSN) is a network whose
> infrastructure is built with the intent of conducting activities
> which are considered to be of an illegal nature.
>
> Definition:
> A Politically Purposed Service Network (PPSN) is a network whose
> infrastructure is built with the intent of conducting activities which
> are considered to be of a political nature.
>
> The inclusion of a PPSN in the IPSN category would often be a matter
> of debate.
>
> Observations:
>
> An IPSN may not be a CHSN.  As an hypthetical example, pedophile
> networks might be entirely built with voluntarily contributed assests.
>
> A PPSN may not be a CHSN.  For example, a network purposed for
> political dissent may be built entirely with voluntary assests.
>
> None of the various service networks described above (IPSN, PPSN,
> CHSN) are necessarily built using volatile (flux) networks.
Noting general enthusiasm, I've pushed this up to 
the "Definitions" page - 
https://st.icann.org/pdp-wg-ff/index.cgi?initial_draft_definitions