Research Article

Cyber-Security: Dos Attack Outcomes are Dangerous

M. Mattah Islam
National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Pakistan
Saifullah Shahid
National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Pakistan
Khush  Bakhat Awar
Air University, Pakistan
Rashid Khan
University of Science and Technology of China, China
Muhammad Sohail
University of Science and Technology of China, China
* Corresponding author
DOI icon 10.24018/ejece.2021.5.3.297

Read Counter
805

Downloads
565

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2021-02-01
Published 2021-06-16

Read counter = 805 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

Dos attacks are an attractive and hot topic nowadays because it is very common for attackers to make a victim and exploit it. In this paper, different kinds of techniques and commands have implemented and contrast for the outcomes of these attacks. By performing, experiments problems are identified. By following experiments, the goal is prevention and mitigation of Dos attacks at large extent by knowing the outcomes of the attacks. For proving the work, different types of experiments are performed on different platforms and observed that Dos attacks are how dangerous to our systems. In this paper, hping3 and syn flooding are performed. Hping3 is used for sending packets in a modified, crafted form. It is the networking tool used by developers to perform a DOS attack. SYN flooding is used for sending so many requests in an insane amount to the server and used all of the resources of the server.

Keywords: DOS, DDoS, DOS Outcomes

References

  1. Yan, Ye, Yi Qian, Hamid Sharif, and David Tipper. "A survey on cyber security for smart grid communications." IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 14, no. 4 (2012): 998-1010.
     Google Scholar
  2. Andrijcic, Eva, and Barry Horowitz. "A macro?economic framework for evaluation of cyber security risks related to protection of intellectual property." Risk analysis 26, no. 4 (2006): 907-923.
     Google Scholar
  3. Johnson, Vincent R. "Cybersecurity, Identity Theft, and the Limits of Tort Liability." ScL REv. 57 (2005): 255.
     Google Scholar
  4. Gordon, Lawrence A., Martin P. Loeb, William Lucyshyn, and Lei Zhou. "Externalities and the magnitude of cyber security underinvestment by private sector firms: a modification of the Gordon-Loeb model." Journal of Information Security 6, no. 01 (2014): 24.
     Google Scholar
  5. Elmaghraby, Adel S., and Michael M. Losavio. "Cyber security challenges in Smart Cities: Safety, security and privacy." Journal of advanced research 5, no. 4 (2014): 491-497.
     Google Scholar
  6. Kent, Alexander D. "Cyber security data sources for dynamic network research." In Dynamic Networks and Cyber-Security, pp. 37-65. 2016.
     Google Scholar
  7. Abomhara, Mohamed. "Cyber security and the internet of things: vulnerabilities, threats, intruders and attacks." Journal of Cyber Security and Mobility 4, no. 1 (2015): 65-88.
     Google Scholar
  8. Johnson, Vincent R. "Cybersecurity, Identity Theft, and the Limits of Tort Liability." ScL REv. 57 (2005): 255.
     Google Scholar
  9. Hu, Songlin, Dong Yue, Qing-Long Han, Xiangpeng Xie, Xiaoli Chen, and Chunxia Dou. "Observer-based event-triggered control for networked linear systems subject to denial-of-service attacks." IEEE transactions on cybernetics (2019).
     Google Scholar
  10. Shen, Yubin, Minrui Fei, and Dajun Du. "Cyber security study for power systems under denial of service attacks." Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 41, no. 6 (2019): 1600-1614.
     Google Scholar
  11. Khalaf, Bashar Ahmed, Salama A. Mostafa, Aida Mustapha, Mazin Abed Mohammed, and Wafaa Mustafa Abduallah. "Comprehensive review of artificial intelligence and statistical approaches in distributed denial of service attack and defense methods." IEEE Access 7 (2019): 51691-51713.
     Google Scholar
  12. Muraleedharan, N., Arun Parmar, and Manish Kumar. "A flow based anomaly detection system using chi-square technique." In 2010 IEEE 2nd international Advance computing conference (IACC), pp. 285-289. IEEE, 2010.
     Google Scholar
  13. Gavaskar, S., R. Surendiran, and Dr E. Ramaraj. "Three counter defense mechanism for TCP SYN flooding attacks." International Journal of Computer Applications 6, no. 6 (2010): 0975-8887.
     Google Scholar
  14. Acharya, Saket, and Nitesh Pradhan. "DDoS Simulation and Hybrid DDoS Defense Mechanism." International Journal of Computer Applications 163, no. 9 (2017).
     Google Scholar
  15. Bellovin, Steven M. "Distributed firewalls." (1999): 37-47.
     Google Scholar
  16. Luna, Raul, Emily Rhine, Matthew Myhra, Ross Sullivan, and Clemens Scott Kruse. "Cyber threats to health information systems: A systematic review." Technology and Health Care 24, no. 1 (2016): 1-9.
     Google Scholar