The increasingly important availability of online services is constantly threatened by malicious software such as botnets. Attackers have gained power through devices that are part of the rising Internet of Things (IoT), mostly through infections caused by Mirai. The botnets created by Mirai are used for the purpose of DDoS attacks, which can take away the availability of an online service. Although Mirai can be detected relatively easily due to its superficial signature, the remediation process of Mirai infected IoT devices runs far from smoothly.
As end-users often do not notice the presence of Mirai and manufacturers lack incentives to invest in better security or support, ISPs like KPN are amongst the few viable actors that could defend against botnets like Mirai. As ISPs are able to link infection feeds to their customers, they are able to send out notifications accompanied by protocols that can resolve Mirai infections when executed properly. Although research exists on the remediation rates, it is not clear what processes take place at end-users homes during the remediation process and what critical points of error exist throughout the phases of the anti-botnet cycle. As the remediation rate of Mirai infections is currently only 60 – 76 percent, it can be worth looking into the remediation processes to see where they could be improved.
The main research question is the following: “What do we learn about how and to what extent Internet Service Providers can improve the remediation process of malware infected Internet of Things devices by monitoring end-users while they are cleaning their Mirai infections?”. To answer this question, we have closely followed 17 Mirai infected end-users over a period of 7 weeks, at the KPN Abuse Desk, after a 1 week pilot phase to test our email notification and think aloud protocol. We have prepared and analyzed all steps from identification of a Mirai infection until successful remediation took place. The lion’s share of this experiment is about a virtual visit; a phone call with an option to upgrade to a video conference, in which infected end-users get advanced support in performing the 5 cleaning steps stated in the protocol they received. As the end-users thought aloud during the calls, we were able to follow them closely and pinpoint arising issues. Using a thematic content analysis, we synthesized the personal stories that end-users shared.
During the 7 week experiment, we saw 37 unique IP addresses infected with Mirai, of which 12 were excluded due to the ISP policy of not providing support during the weekends. Of the 25 remaining IP addresses, 3 could not be notified due to technical issues within KPN, 2 did not pick up the phone after being notified and 3 were not willing to take part in the experiment due to trust issues.
16 out of 17 participants that were responsible for the internet security were male, but their varying household sizes shows that this does not relate to men becoming infected more often. The age of the end-users was normally distributed between 21 and 80 and we found a household size of 1 to 6, excluding 3 small business locations that became victim of Mirai. End-users can often only identify 1 or 2 IoT devices in their network (13 out of 17) and are almost always able to pinpoint the infected device (16 out of 17). Many issues arose during the virtual visits, such as a lack of trust, not willing to spend effort, a lack of support by the manufacturer, or the idea that regular protection measures should have protected against Mirai.
Only 6 out of 17 end-users were able to perform all steps successfully. In most cases end-users failed to change the password of their device or performed a regular reset on their router instead of a factory reset. This caused 3 failing remediation efforts and 5 reinfections during the experiment phase. The remediation process has barriers in each phase that could be addressed. The biggest improvement can be made in the awareness of end-users, which would lead to higher prevention of infections. Prevention would keep the many potential issues in the remediation process from arising altogether.