skip to main content
10.1145/3277570.3277572acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesceccConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Virtual honeypots and detection of telnet botnets

Authors Info & Claims
Published:15 November 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Despite recommendations to not use telnet, there is an increasing number of telnet-based botnets and a need to analyse these attacks. We deployed a network of high interaction honeypots that simulate telnet devices. From the collected data, we created a dataset that we analysed from different perspectives. In this paper, we focus on the infection phase of botnets. Based on the found signatures collected by our samples, we can divide the botnets into 9 families. We show dependencies between commands, and between commands and directories used to propagate botnets.

References

  1. Kishore Angrishi. 2017. Turning internet of things (iot) into internet of vulnerabilities (iov): Iot botnets. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1702.03681 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Basil AsSadhan, José MF Moura, David Lapsley, Christine Jones, and W Timothy Strayer. 2009. Detecting botnets using command and control traffic. In 2009 Eighth IEEE International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications. IEEE, 156--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. James R Binkley and Suresh Singh. 2006. An Algorithm for Anomaly-based Botnet Detection. SRUTI 6 (2006), 7--7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. William B Cavnar, John M Trenkle, et al. 1994. N-gram-based text categorization. Ann arbor mi 48113, 2 (1994), 161--175.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cymmetria. 2017. Honeypot MTPot. Retrieved July 8, 2018 from https://github.com/Cymmetria/MTPotGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Victor GT da Costa, Sylvio Barbon, Rodrigo S Miani, Joel JPC Rodrigues, and Bruno B Zarpelão. 2017. Detecting mobile botnets through machine learning and system calls analysis. In Communications (ICC), 2017 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Meisam Eslahi, Wardah Zainal Abidin, and Maryam Var Naseri. 2017. Correlation-based HTTP Botnet detection using network communication histogram analysis. In Application, Information and Network Security (AINS), 2017 IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 7--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Meisam Eslahi, Rosli Salleh, and Nor Badrul Anuar. 2012. Bots and botnets: An overview of characteristics, detection and challenges. In Control System, Computing and Engineering (ICCSCE), 2012 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 349--354.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Pierce M Gibbs. 2014. Botnet Tracking Tools. SANS Inst (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jan Goebel and Thorsten Holz. 2007. Rishi: Identify Bot Contaminated Hosts by IRC Nickname Evaluation. HotBots 7 (2007), 8--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Guofei Gu, Roberto Perdisci, Junjie Zhang, and Wenke Lee. 2008. Botminer: Clustering analysis of network traffic for protocol-and structure-independent botnet detection. (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Guofei Gu, Junjie Zhang, and Wenke Lee. 2008. BotSniffer: Detecting botnet command and control channels in network traffic. (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. RC Joshi and Anjali Sardana. 2011. Honeypots: a new paradigm to information security. CRC Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jehyun Lee, Jonghun Kwon, Hyo-Jeong Shin, and Heejo Lee. 2010. Tracking multiple C&C botnets by analyzing DNS traffic. In Secure Network Protocols (NPSec), 2010 6th IEEE Workshop on. IEEE, 67--72.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Liang Lu, Yaokai Feng, and Kouichi Sakurai. 2017. C&C session detection using random forest. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication. ACM, 34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Sergii Lysenko, Oleg Savenko, Kira Bobrovnikova, Andrii Kryshchuk, and Bohdan Savenko. 2017. Information technology for botnets detection based on their behaviour in the corporate area network. In International Conference on Computer Networks. Springer, 166--181.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Mohammad M Masud, Tahseen Al-Khateeb, Latifur Khan, Bhavani Thuraisingham, and Kevin W Hamlen. 2008. Flow-based identification of botnet traffic by mining multiple log files. In Distributed Framework and Applications, 2008. DFmA 2008. First International Conference on. IEEE, 200--206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Yin Minn Pa Pa, Shogo Suzuki, Katsunari Yoshioka, Tsutomu Matsumoto, Takahiro Kasama, and Christian Rossow. 2015. IoTPOT: analysing the rise of IoT compromises. EMU 9 (2015), 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Karl Pearson. 1895. Note on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 58 (1895), 240--242.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Niels Provos and Thorsten Holz. 2007. Virtual honeypots: from botnet tracking to intrusion detection. Pearson Education. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Miroslav Stampar. 2017. Honeypot HonTel. Retrieved July 8, 2018 from https://github.com/stamparm/hontelGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Richard Taylor. 1990. Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: a basic review. Journal of diagnostic medical sonography 6, 1 (1990), 35--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Ivo Van der Elzen and Jeroen van Heugten. 2017. Techniques for detecting compromised IoT devices. University of Amsterdam (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Nicholas Wells. 2000. Busybox: A swiss army knife for linux. Linux Journal 2000, 78es (2000), 10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jeffery Wilkins. 2015. Honeypot HoneyWRT. Retrieved July 8, 2018 from https://github.com/CanadianJeff/honeywrtGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Matej Zuzcak and Tomas Sochor. 2017. Behavioral analysis of bot activity in infected systems using honeypots. In International Conference on Computer Networks. Springer, 118--133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Virtual honeypots and detection of telnet botnets

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        CECC 2018: Proceedings of the Central European Cybersecurity Conference 2018
        November 2018
        109 pages
        ISBN:9781450365154
        DOI:10.1145/3277570

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 15 November 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        CECC 2018 Paper Acceptance Rate19of30submissions,63%Overall Acceptance Rate38of65submissions,58%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader