Large botnets made up of Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices have a steady presence in the threat landscape since 2016. However, it has not explained how attackers maintain control over their botnets. In this paper, we present a long-term analysis of the infrastructure of IoT botnets based on 36 months of data gathered via honeypots and the monitoring of botnet infrastructure. We collected 64,260 IoT malware samples, 35,494 download servers, and 4,736 C&C servers during 2016 to 2021. Not only are most binaries distributed for less than three days, but the connection of bots to the rest of the botnet is also short-lived. To reach the C&C server, the binaries typically contain only a single hard-coded IP address or domain. Long-term dynamic analysis finds no mechanism for the attackers to migrate the bots to a new C&C server. Although malware binaries that use domain names to connect to their C&C servers increased in 2020, the C&C servers themselves have a short lifespan and this tendency has not changed. The picture that emerges is that of highly disposable botnets. IoT botnets are reconstituted from scratch all the time rather than maintained.@en

Large botnets made up of Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices have been a steady presence in the threat landscape since 2016. Earlier research has found preliminary evidence that the IoT binaries and C&C infrastructure were only seen for very brief periods. It has not explained how attackers maintain control over their botnets. We present a more comprehensive analysis of the infrastructure of IoT botnets based on 23 months of data gathered via honeypots and the monitoring of botnet infrastructure. We collected 59,884 IoT malware samples, 35,494 download servers, and 2,747 C&C servers. We focuse on three dominant families: Bashlite, Mirai, and Tsunami. The picture that emerges is that of highly disposable botnets. IoT botnet are not so much maintained as reconstituted from scratch all the time. Not only are most binaries distributed for less than three days, the connection of bots to the rest of the botnet is also short-lived. To reach the C&C server, the binaries typically contain only a single hard-coded IP address or domain. The C&C servers themselves also have a short lifespan. Long-term dynamic analysis finds no mechanism for the attackers to migrate the bots to a new C&C server. In other words, bots are used only immediately after capture and then abandoned - -perhaps to be recaptured again via the aggressive scanning practices that these botnets are known for. While IoT botnets appear less advanced than Windows-based botnets, the advantage of being disposable means that they are very resistant to blacklisting and C&C takedown. Most IP addresses are used only once and never seen again. The question that arises is how attackers source these addresses. We speculate that they might be abusing the IP address allocation practices of cloud providers.@en

Open-source honeypots are a vital component in the protection of networks and the observation of trends in the threat landscape. Their open nature also enables adversaries to identify the characteristics of these honeypots in order to detect and avoid them. In this study, we investigate the prevalence of 14 open-source honeypots running more or less default configurations, making them easily detectable by attackers. We deploy 20 simple signatures and test them for false positives against servers for domains in the Alexa top 10,000, official FTP mirrors, mail servers in real operation, and real IoT devices running telnet. We find no matches, suggesting good accuracy. We then measure the Internet-wide prevalence of default open-source honeypots by matching the signatures with Censys scan data and our own scans. We discovered 19,208 honeypots across 637 Autonomous Systems that are trivially easy to identify. Concentrations are found in research networks, but also in enterprise, cloud and hosting networks.
While some of these honeypots probably have no operational relevance, e.g., they are student projects, this explanation does not fit the wider population. One cluster of honeypots was confirmed to belong to a well-known security center and was in use for ongoing attack monitoring. Concentrations in an another cluster appear to be the result of government incentives. We contacted 11 honeypot operators and received response from 4 operators, suggesting the problem of lack of network hygiene. Finally, we find that some honeypots are actively abused by attackers for hosting malicious binaries. We notified the owners of the detected honeypots via their network operators and provided recommendations for customization to avoid simple signature-based detection. We also shared our results with the honeypot developers.@en