4 ms·
Relatively often, actually. For instance, on this link on HN: https://medium.com/@bchesky/7-rejections-7d894cbaa084 https://medium.com/@bchesky/7-rejections-7d
by TheLoneWolfling 11y ago
Relatively often, actually.
For instance, on this link on HN: https://medium.com/@bchesky/7-rejections-7d894cbaa084 https://medium.com/@bchesky/7-rejections-7d894cbaa084
It loads <some random subdomain>.cloudfront.net - and it changes every reload for me. For instance, d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net, dnqgz544uhbo8.cloudfront.net, d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net.
- jbuzbee 11y agoThat seems a bit different. A unique subdomain for each web page load might be common, but from my reading of the article, it looks like every packet of the tunneled conversation gets a unique domain. So for transferring any amount of data, I'd expect to see hundreds (thousands?) of subdomain resolution queries in a few minutes. That could raise a red flag. I suppose if the malware wanted to be more stealthy, it could slow transfers way down, intermix unrelated queries and spread the tunnel across multiple unrelated controlled domains.
- TheLoneWolfling 11y agoAs you said, you can do slow data transfer extremely easily and stealthily with this method. Bulk data transfer, not so much.