Crime Six Charged in Mass Takedown of DDoS-for-Hire Sites - Skiddies on suicide watch


The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) today seized four-dozen domains that sold “booter” or “stresser” services — businesses that make it easy and cheap for even non-technical users to launch powerful Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks designed knock targets offline. The DOJ also charged six U.S. men with computer crimes related to their alleged ownership of the popular DDoS-for-hire services.

1671128947326.png

The booter service OrphicSecurityTeam[.]com was one of the 48 DDoS-for-hire domains seized by the Justice Department this week.

The DOJ said the 48 domains it seized helped paying customers launch millions of digital sieges capable of knocking Web sites and even entire network providers offline.

Booter services are advertised through a variety of methods, including Dark Web forums, chat platforms and even youtube.com. They accept payment via PayPal, Google Wallet, and/or cryptocurrencies, and subscriptions can range in price from just a few dollars to several hundred per month. The services are generally priced according to the volume of traffic to be hurled at the target, the duration of each attack, and the number of concurrent attacks allowed.

Prosecutors in Los Angeles say the booter sites supremesecurityteam[.]com and royalstresser[.]com were the brainchild of Jeremiah Sam Evans Miller, a.k.a. “John the Dev,” a 23-year-old from San Antonio, Texas. Miller was charged this week with conspiracy and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The complaint against Miller alleges Royalstresser launched nearly 200,000 DDoS attacks between November 2021 and February 2022.

Defendant Angel Manuel Colon Jr., a.k.a Anonghost720 and Anonghost1337, is a 37-year-old from Belleview, Fla. Colon is suspected of running the booter service securityteam[.]io. He was also charged with conspiracy and CFAA violations. The feds say the SecurityTeam stresser service conducted 1.3 million attacks between 2018 and 2022, and attracted some 50,000 registered users.

Charged with conspiracy were Corey Anthony Palmer, 22, of Lauderhill, Fla, for his alleged ownership of booter[.]sx; and Shamar Shattock, 19, of Margate, Fla., for allegedly operating the booter service astrostress[.]com, which had more than 30,000 users and blasted out some 700,000 attacks.

Two other alleged booter site operators were charged in Alaska. John M. Dobbs, 32, of Honolulu, HI is charged with aiding and abetting violations of the CFAA related to the operation of IPStresser[.]com, which he allegedly ran for nearly 13 years until last month. During that time, IPstresser launched approximately 30 million DDoS attacks and garnered more than two million registered users.

Joshua Laing, 32, of Liverpool, NY, also was charged with CFAA infractions tied to his alleged ownership of the booter service TrueSecurityServices[.]io, which prosecutors say had 18,000 users and conducted over 1.2 million attacks between 2018 and 2022.

Purveyors of stressers and booters claim they are not responsible for how customers use their services, and that they aren’t breaking the law because — like most security tools — stresser services can be used for good or bad purposes. For example, all of the above-mentioned booter sites contained wordy “terms of use” agreements that required customers to agree they will only stress-test their own networks — and that they won’t use the service to attack others.

Dobbs, the alleged administrator of IPStresser, gave an interview to ZDNet France in 2015, in which he asserted that he was immune from liability because his clients all had to submit a digital signature attesting that they wouldn’t use the site for illegal purposes.

“Our terms of use are a legal document that protects us, among other things, from certain legal consequences,” Dobbs told ZDNet. “Most other sites are satisfied with a simple checkbox, but we ask for a digital signature in order to imply real consent from our customers.”

But the DOJ says these disclaimers usually ignore the fact that most booter services are heavily reliant on constantly scanning the Internet to commandeer misconfigured devices that are critical for maximizing the size and impact of DDoS attacks.

“None of these sites ever required the FBI to confirm that it owned, operated, or had any property right to the computer that the FBI attacked during its testing (as would be appropriate if the attacks were for a legitimate or authorized purpose),” reads an affidavit (PDF) filed by Elliott Peterson, a special agent in the FBI’s Anchorage field office.

“Analysis of data related to the FBI-initiated attacks revealed that the attacks launched by the SUBJECT DOMAINS involved the extensive misuse of third-party services,” Peterson continued. “All of the tested services offered ‘amplification’ attacks, where the attack traffic is amplified through unwitting third-party servers in order to increase the overall attack size, and to shift the financial burden of generating and transmitting all of that data away from the booter site administrator(s) and onto third parties.”

According to U.S. federal prosecutors, the use of booter and stresser services to conduct attacks is punishable under both wire fraud laws and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030), and may result in arrest and prosecution, the seizure of computers or other electronics, as well as prison sentences and a penalty or fine.

The charges unsealed today stemmed from investigations launched by the FBI’s field offices in Los Angeles and Alaska, which spent months purchasing and testing attack services offered by the booter sites.

A similar investigation initiating from the FBI’s Alaska field office in 2018 culminated in a takedown and arrest operation that targeted 15 DDoS-for-hire sites, as well as three booter store defendants who later pleaded guilty.

The Justice Department says its trying to impress upon people that even buying attacks from DDoS-for-hire services can land Internet users in legal jeopardy.

“Whether a criminal launches an attack independently or pays a skilled contractor to carry one out, the FBI will work with victims and use the considerable tools at our disposal to identify the person or group responsible,” said Donald Alway, the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office.

“Potential users and administrators should think twice before buying or selling these illegal services,” said Special Agent Antony Jung of the FBI Anchorage field office. “The FBI and our international law enforcement partners continue to intensify efforts in combatting DDoS attacks, which will have serious consequences for offenders.”

The United Kingdom, which has been battling its fair share of domestic booter bosses, in 2020 started running online ads aimed at young people who search the Web for booter services. And in Europe, prosecutors have even gone after booter customers.

In conjunction with today’s law enforcement action, the FBI and the Netherlands Police joined authorities in the U.K. in announcing they are now running targeted placement ads to steer those searching for booter services toward a website detailing the potential legal risks of hiring an online attack.

“The purpose of the ads is to deter potential cyber criminals searching for DDoS services in the United States and around the globe, as well as to educate the public on the illegality of DDoS activities,” the DOJ said in a press release.

Here is the full list of booter site domains seized (or in the process of being seized) by the DOJ:

api-sky[.]xyz
astrostress[.]com
blackstresser[.]net
booter[.]sx
booter[.]vip
bootyou[.]net
brrsecurity[.]org
buuter[.]cc
cyberstress[.]us
defconpro[.]net
dragonstresser[.]com
dreams-stresser[.]io
exotic-booter[.]com
freestresser[.]so
instant-stresser[.]com
ipstress[.]org
ipstress[.]vip
ipstresser[.]com
ipstresser[.]us
ipstresser[.]wtf
ipstresser[.]xyz
kraysec[.]com
mcstorm[.]io
nightmarestresser[.]com
orphicsecurityteam[.]com
ovhstresser[.]com
quantum-stresser[.]net
redstresser[.]cc
royalstresser[.]com
securityteam[.]io
shock-stresser[.]com
silentstress[.]net
stresser[.]app
stresser[.]best
stresser[.]gg
stresser[.]is
stresser[.]net/stresser[.]org
stresser[.]one
stresser[.]shop
stresser[.]so
stresser[.]top
stresserai[.]com
sunstresser[.]com
supremesecurityteam[.]com
truesecurityservices[.]io
vdos-s[.]co
zerostresser[.]com




Jersh and all kiwifarmers can now breathe a sigh of relief. Keffals Lucas surely won't take this lightly.

Daily reminder that this is what the neckbeards behind sited like these look like:

 
I'm still learning this stuff but is there anything you can patch out for this?
No. A little hypothetical: You've actually devised a protocol that stops DoS-attacks of this kind in the first place and it actually works.
In the end, it has to go through several bureaucratic instances and every government and three letter agency first. If every institution greenlights it, it can be implemented for every end user. Not sooner. You can use the protocol (as a hobbyist) regardless, but it is dependent on how much you trust the person who created it. Can I trust you to not abuse it for your own gain? That is the most important question when it comes to that.
 
Back to the daycare for you, Skiddy. Wailord's been missing you.
I'm still learning this stuff but is there anything you can patch out for this? Isn't it just literally getting hundred of thousand to hit your servers to drown out legitimate requests.
I wouldn't be surprised if solving the problem would require completely redoing the hardware. Remember Spectre and Meltdown? The software based mitigation for that was a bandaid. To truly be safe from it, you had to get new hardware. Imagine doing that on a much larger scale.
 
Reflection attacks are usually using UDP based protocols because you can easily spoof the sender.

That's why there was so much whining about closing down open DNS resolvers (huge amplification with some recursive queries) and public NTP servers.
That's not really a reflection attack, more misusing it as a bounce/proxy. UDP doesn't have the three way handhsake like TCP does so the reflection never happens. UDP flooding is used a lot, and even sometimes bounced through vulnerable services like that, but it is by definition not a reflection attack.
 
That's not really a reflection attack, more misusing it as a bounce/proxy. UDP doesn't have the three way handhsake like TCP does so the reflection never happens. UDP flooding is used a lot, and even sometimes bounced through vulnerable services like that, but it is by definition not a reflection attack.
I'm just going to assume you're trolling, that's a textbook reflection attack.
 
I'm just going to assume you're trolling, that's a textbook reflection attack.
Read this.
Screenshot_20221215-194001_Chrome.jpg
See where it talks about challenge-response? That's the 3 way handshake I was talking about earlier. UDP does NOT HAVE this as a feature to be exploited.

My last reply to you on this subject as if you disagree further I'm going to assume you're the one trolling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The-Mad-Asshatter
Read this.
View attachment 4080759
See where it talks about challenge-response? That's the 3 way handshake I was talking about earlier. UDP does NOT HAVE this as a feature to be exploited.
That's why they exploit protocols layered on top of UDP, like DNS or NTP as I mentioned.

TCP is extremely seldomly used in reflection attacks because the amplification is so small and it's so easy to filter out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The-Mad-Asshatter
That's why they exploit protocols layered on top of UDP, like DNS or NTP as I mentioned.

TCP is extremely seldomly used in reflection attacks because the amplification is so small and it's so easy to filter out.
I have to admit, my knowledge of DNS and NTP isn't enough to argue against that solidly, but I thought they just sent packets out, not attempted error connection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The-Mad-Asshatter
I'll be honest I don't think think this is a case of something important being hit by them. It feels more like the DOJ using information they already had and generally didn't bother using for an easy win.

In the same way there's no doubt enough information they've got stored away to send away a metric ton of people involved in the riots from 2020. If they want to look productive they can wrap a few dozen of the mob up with charges they could have already slapped them with a year or so ago.
 
What the fuck, there are cyber underground darkweb ddos businesses these days?

And they say the Farms are the "haxxors on steroids of the 2010s omg". I didn't even know this kind of shit existed.
 
I have to admit, my knowledge of DNS and NTP isn't enough to argue against that solidly, but I thought they just sent packets out, not attempted error connection.
No, you're extremely retarded.

The definition you're working off of is an attack on challenge-response authentication systems. If you make those symmetrical you can trick the system into giving you the answers you want.

You can't exploit the three way handshake very well for what we call in DDoS 'reflection attacks'. The packets are tiny and you can't get more than one out of each handshake. TCP is, to the extent it is ever used, in a SYN flood to try to exhaust state tables on the target (or on the target's firewalls).

UDP is king, because you can spoof well and also get amplification. Specifically because there is no handshake you can spoof the target address on you or your botnet's outbound packets and, say, ask for a DNS TXT record. Or a DNSSEC record. Those are both fucking huge. So you've got a 60-70 byte packet and you get back thousands of bytes, spoofed back to your target. If some idiot has an unsecured memcached server out there you can try to dump an entire db record at the target. Repeatedly. SNMP tables, NTP monlist, all these are in the hundreds or thousands of times volume amplification. Botnet can send 100Mbit of spoofed traffic? It turns into most of a terabit going to your target.
 
Read this.
View attachment 4080759
See where it talks about challenge-response? That's the 3 way handshake I was talking about earlier. UDP does NOT HAVE this as a feature to be exploited.

My last reply to you on this subject as if you disagree further I'm going to assume you're the one trolling.
Look, this is not the epic win you think it is.Do you see your fucking illustration there even contains the words "UDP Servers" ?

You really do not know what you are talking about. (Also, the three way SYN handshake is not an authentication mechanism)

EDIT: but more important than autist slapfights, do we know if anyone has sent a wellness-check to LFJ ?
 
Last edited:
I'll be honest I don't think think this is a case of something important being hit by them. It feels more like the DOJ using information they already had and generally didn't bother using for an easy win.

In the same way there's no doubt enough information they've got stored away to send away a metric ton of people involved in the riots from 2020. If they want to look productive they can wrap a few dozen of the mob up with charges they could have already slapped them with a year or so ago.
Kind of the sense I had as well. It might have also had something to do with prominent freaks bragging about using denial of service attacks.
 
It's amazing DrDoS attacks still work, you'd think they would have patched it out of the protocol by now. Anyone know if ipv6 is still vulnerable to this? Amazing a simple syn reflection attack still works after decades.
The short version is that they allow it to exist, knowing they can use it to shut down opposition, the same way they build backdoors into software (knowing they will be abused) that they can use later.
 
The short version is that they allow it to exist, knowing they can use it to shut down opposition, the same way they build backdoors into software (knowing they will be abused) that they can use later.
It is not so much "allow it to exist" than that many of these protocols are critical to how the internet works. Changing them or replacing them is certainly possible but it is a process that would take decades to roll out.

I think that in particular for reflection attacks, IF ISPs were to start filtering packets from downstream customes to prevent spoofing then that would go a long way to prevent this type of amplification attacks.

The problem is that doing that would cost time/effort/money on the ISP for no benefit at all to the ISP while doing nothing externalizes that cost to the target of the attacks.
 
Imagine running an online computer attack service and not running it from some ass end of nowhere country behind a load of VPNs and only taking crypto as payment. Great opsec there for 1337 Hax0rs.
A retired big city cop buddy of mine told me the saving grace of civilization is most career criminals are incredibly stupid, thick as bricks. According to him, most criminals could make more money flipping burgers at MacDonalds than they did off their scores, with the added bonus nobody would shoot them or lock their dumb asses up for years on end. He said as a detective he did encounter a few smart ones, two or three genuine, real-deal criminal masterminds, but they were sociopaths so fucked-up in the head that they couldn't catch their own mistakes or even imagine making one.
 
When it comes to amplification attacks, I did this for fun in my lab some 30 or so years ago. A UDP + ICMP amplification where after the setup I sent ONE udp packet to the router and that then resulted in the router(s) generating about 32 thousand packets on the LAN.

Setup:
Network with two routers, A and B.
Pick a random IP, C, on the network that is not used by any host.
Arp spoof A so that IP C points to the mac address of router B. Do the same for B.

Attack:
Send one single packet, spoofed with both source and destination address as C and send it to the mac address of A. Use a ttl of 255.
This packet will now bounce 255 times between the two routers before the ttl expires. That is an amplification of 255. Where do we get the rest?
Each time (they did not have rate limit in those days) the A or B receives the packet, they will sent a icmp route redirect back to C. In those days the default TTL for these was 128. Thus we get 128 * 255 small ICMP packets also bouncing back and forth.

Obviously can not be used outside of a LAN and only on ancient platforms/routers without rate limitation.
But I thought it was neat. Send one packet, then have the routers generate 32768 packets.
 
Back