Hubbry Logo
UDP flood attackUDP flood attackMain
Open search
UDP flood attack
Community hub
UDP flood attack
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
UDP flood attack
UDP flood attack
UDP flood attack
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A UDP flood attack is a volumetric denial-of-service (DoS) attack using the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), a sessionless/connectionless computer networking protocol.

Using UDP for denial-of-service attacks is not as straightforward as with the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). However, a UDP flood attack can be initiated by sending a large number of UDP packets to random ports on a remote host. As a result, the distant host will:

  • Check for the application listening at that port;
  • See that no application listens at that port;
  • Reply with an ICMP Destination Unreachable packet.

Thus, for a large number of UDP packets, the victimized system will be forced into sending many ICMP packets, eventually leading it to be unreachable by other clients. The attacker(s) may also spoof the IP address of the UDP packets, ensuring that the excessive ICMP return packets do not reach them, and anonymizing their network location(s). Most operating systems mitigate this part of the attack by limiting the rate at which ICMP responses are sent.

UDP Flood Attack Tools:

This attack can be managed by deploying firewalls at key points in a network to filter out unwanted network traffic. The potential victim never receives and never responds to the malicious UDP packets because the firewall stops them. However, as firewalls are 'stateful' i.e. can only hold a number of sessions, firewalls can also be susceptible to flood attacks.

There are ways to protect a system against UDP flood attacks. Here are examples of some of the possible measures:

  • ICMP rate-limiting: This limitation is generally placed on ICMP responses at operating system level.
  • Firewall-level filtering on the server: This enables suspicious packets to be rejected. However, it is possible for the firewall to collapse under the strain of a UDP flood attack.
  • Filtering UDP packets (except for DNS) at network level: DNS requests are typically made using UDP. Any other source generating huge amounts of UDP traffic is considered suspicious, which leads to the packets in question being rejected.[1]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

UDP flood attack

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A UDP flood attack is a type of volumetric denial-of-service (DoS) attack in which an attacker sends a large number of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) packets to random ports on a targeted server or network, aiming to overwhelm the victim's bandwidth and processing resources, thereby rendering it unavailable to legitimate users. This exploits UDP's connectionless nature, which lacks session establishment or error-checking mechanisms, allowing attackers to generate high-volume traffic with minimal resources on their end. The attack typically involves spoofed source IP addresses to hide the attacker's identity and amplify the flood's impact, forcing the target system to expend resources checking each packet for an active application and responding with ICMP Destination Unreachable messages when none is found. UDP floods are among the most common DDoS variants due to their simplicity and effectiveness in saturating network infrastructure, often accounting for a significant portion of reported attacks—such as approximately 75% as of the fourth quarter of 2015 in certain quarterly analyses. They can manifest as direct floods, where traffic is sent straight to the victim, or more sophisticated reflection and amplification attacks, which leverage vulnerable third-party servers (e.g., DNS, NTP, or SSDP services) to bounce and multiply the traffic volume—sometimes by factors of 28 to over 500 times. These amplification techniques exploit open UDP-based protocols that respond with larger payloads than received, turning unwitting servers into unwilling participants and escalating the attack's scale to multi-gigabit or even terabit per second levels. The consequences of a successful UDP flood include disrupted services, financial losses from downtime, particularly targeting UDP-reliant applications like online gaming, VoIP, or DNS resolvers. Mitigation strategies focus on network-level defenses, such as configuring firewalls and routers for UDP , blocking unnecessary ports, and deploying stateful inspection to filter spoofed or anomalous traffic. Advanced protections involve outsourcing to DDoS mitigation services that use global scrubbing centers, networks, and behavioral analysis to absorb and cleanse malicious floods without impacting legitimate traffic.

Fundamentals

Definition and Overview

A UDP flood attack is a volumetric denial-of-service (DoS) assault in which an attacker directs a large volume of unsolicited (UDP) packets to random or high-numbered ports on a target system, compelling the victim to allocate significant resources for processing and generating responses, thereby disrupting legitimate network traffic. This attack is classified as a DoS threat when launched from a single source but escalates to a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) when orchestrated via botnets or multiple compromised devices, with the core objective of saturating the target's bandwidth, CPU cycles, or memory to render services unavailable to authorized users. Unlike connection-oriented protocols such as TCP, UDP's stateless design facilitates this by eliminating the need for handshake acknowledgments, allowing attackers to generate packets rapidly and at low cost. A hallmark of UDP floods is the ease of source IP address spoofing, which conceals the attacker's origin and prevents response packets from reaching them, further amplifying the one-way resource drain on the victim. In the basic vector, when UDP packets arrive at unoccupied ports, the target's operating system typically issues (ICMP) "destination unreachable" messages, exacerbating the exhaustion of processing power.

UDP Protocol Basics

The (UDP) is a connectionless protocol operating at Layer 4 of the , designed to provide a simple mechanism for applications to exchange datagrams without establishing a connection. Unlike TCP, UDP does not implement a three-way , correction, acknowledgments, or flow control, making it unreliable and best-effort in delivery. Its structure consists of an 8-byte header including source and destination port numbers (each 16 bits), a 16-bit length field indicating the total datagram size, and an optional 16-bit for basic verification. This minimalistic design introduces key vulnerabilities that facilitate denial-of-service exploits. The absence of session state or verification means UDP packets can be easily spoofed, as the protocol does not authenticate the source address or require prior . Additionally, the compact header allows attackers to generate high volumes of packets with low per-packet overhead, enabling rapid flooding without significant resource expenditure on the sender side. UDP interacts with the (ICMP) in ways that exacerbate potential resource strain during floods. When a UDP datagram arrives at a closed port on the target host, the operating system typically generates an ICMP Destination Unreachable message (Type 3), with Code 3 specifically indicating "Port Unreachable," to notify the sender of the failure. This response consumes additional bandwidth and CPU cycles on the target, as it requires processing and transmission of the ICMP packet back toward the apparent source. These behaviors are defined in RFC 768 for UDP and RFC 792 for ICMP, underscoring UDP's suitability for amplification-based attacks due to its stateless nature.

Attack Mechanics

Execution Process

In a UDP flood attack, the attacker begins by configuring their system or network of compromised devices, such as a , to generate and send UDP packets. This setup typically involves spoofing the source in the packet headers to either the victim's or random IPs, which obscures the attacker's origin and prevents direct responses from reaching them. The attacker selects the target's and specifies random destination ports, often ranging from 1 to , to maximize the likelihood of hitting closed ports and triggering resource-intensive responses. Common tools for this include command-line utilities like hping3, which allow crafting UDP packets with custom parameters, or custom scripts in languages such as Python using libraries like for automated generation. Once configured, the attacker initiates packet generation by flooding the target with a high volume of UDP datagrams, each containing minimal or garbage payloads to minimize their own resource usage while overwhelming the victim. These payloads might simulate legitimate requests, such as bogus DNS queries, to exploit responsive services if amplification is intended. The transmission rate can escalate to millions of packets per second when leveraging distributed botnets, enabling volumetric scale without requiring significant bandwidth from any single source. This connectionless nature of UDP, which lacks handshakes or session verification, facilitates rapid packet dispatch without prior establishment of communication. On the victim side, the operating system processes each incoming UDP packet by consulting its socket tables to determine if an application is listening on the specified . For closed ports, which constitute the majority in such randomized attacks, the system generates and sends an ICMP "Port Unreachable" or "Destination Unreachable" message back to the apparent source IP, consuming additional CPU cycles, , and network bandwidth in the process. If the packet arrives at an , the associated application may attempt to respond, such as by processing a query and replying, which further amplifies the load on the victim's resources. This iterative response cycle exacerbates the attack's effectiveness, as the victim expends effort on every packet regardless of legitimacy. Amplification variants of the UDP flood enhance the attack's potency by exploiting third-party services that generate larger responses than the incoming requests. In these reflection attacks, the attacker sends small UDP packets—such as spoofed DNS queries or NTP monlist requests—to publicly accessible servers, forging the source IP as the victim's address. The servers then reply with significantly larger payloads (e.g., DNS responses up to 50 times the request size or NTP replies hundreds of times larger), directing the amplified traffic toward the victim and multiplying the overall volume without the attacker needing equivalent outbound bandwidth. This technique, common with protocols like DNS and NTP due to their UDP reliance and response asymmetry, allows even modest attacker resources to produce terabit-scale floods.

Resource Depletion Mechanism

In a UDP flood attack, the primary mechanism of begins with bandwidth saturation, where the victim receives an overwhelming influx of UDP packets directed at random or specific ports, consuming the inbound link capacity and preventing legitimate from reaching the . For closed ports, the victim's operating generates ICMP "destination unreachable" responses to the spoofed source addresses, further depleting outbound bandwidth; this can effectively double the load if most ports are closed, as each inbound packet triggers an outbound reply. For instance, on a symmetric 100 Mbps link, an inbound flood of 50 Mbps UDP packets could lead to an additional 50 Mbps of ICMP responses, fully saturating both directions and causing packet drops for all . Beyond bandwidth, the attack induces CPU and memory overload at the kernel level, as the system must process each incoming UDP packet through operations such as context switching, checksum validation, and port lookup to determine if an application is listening. Socket buffers in the network stack fill rapidly under high packet rates, leading to widespread packet drops and increased latency; in extreme cases, sustained processing demands can trigger kernel panics or system reboots due to resource exhaustion. Memory consumption escalates from buffering these stateless packets, amplifying inefficiency since UDP lacks connection tracking, forcing the kernel to handle each one independently without optimization. At the , depletion occurs if the flood targets open ports associated with services like VoIP or SIP servers, overwhelming them with spurious traffic and causing crashes or unresponsiveness, as applications must allocate resources to parse and discard invalid datagrams without the benefit of UDP's connectionless safeguards. This inefficiency is heightened by the protocol's design, which does not maintain session state, allowing attackers to exploit services repeatedly without establishing legitimacy. Key thresholds for failure in UDP floods are often measured in packets per second (pps) for processing-intensive depletion versus bits per second (bps) for volumetric bandwidth exhaustion; for example, high pps rates primarily strain CPU and memory by forcing rapid packet inspections, while bps metrics highlight link saturation, with systems typically failing when inbound traffic approaches 80-100% of capacity. These distinctions underscore how UDP floods can transition from bandwidth-focused volumetric attacks to CPU-bound protocol exploits depending on packet size and rate.

Impacts

Effects on Target Systems

A UDP flood attack, classified as a volumetric denial-of-service (DoS) assault, renders target systems unresponsive to legitimate traffic by overwhelming them with spurious UDP packets, resulting in complete service outages for critical applications such as web servers, email systems, and online databases. This unavailability manifests as a total DoS, where the victim's infrastructure fails to process or respond to genuine requests, effectively halting operations and isolating the target from its users. For instance, during a mitigated UDP flood peaking at 25 million packets per second, the targeted system became entirely unreachable, disrupting business continuity. Performance degradation during a UDP flood is characterized by severe latency spikes and rates often exceeding 90%, as the influx of illegitimate packets saturates bandwidth and capabilities. In partial failure scenarios, certain ports may remain sporadically accessible, but overall throughput plummets, causing intermittent slowdowns or complete halts in service delivery for real-time applications like VoIP or streaming. This degradation not only affects user experience but also amplifies operational disruptions, with systems struggling to differentiate and prioritize valid traffic amid the flood. Hardware components on the target system, including routers and firewalls, experience significant strain from the high-volume packet bombardment, leading to overheating, throttling, or outright overload that exacerbates the DoS. In cloud environments, such attacks can trigger automatic scaling mechanisms, incurring unnecessary resource provisioning costs—potentially thousands per minute—before takes effect. These effects compound the immediate impact, as strained hardware reduces the system's capacity to handle even baseline loads post-flood initiation. Recovery from a UDP flood involves clearing processing backlogs and restoring normal operations, a process that can extend for several hours depending on attack duration and intensity, though no permanent hardware damage typically occurs. Repeated incidents foster fatigue among monitoring and response teams, increasing the risk of delayed detection in subsequent attacks and prolonging overall downtime.

Broader Network Consequences

UDP flood attacks, particularly those employing amplification techniques, propagate upstream from the target, imposing significant strain on Internet Service Provider (ISP) backbones and peering points. Amplified floods, such as those using DNS reflection, can generate traffic volumes exceeding 1 Tbps, saturating shared infrastructure like internet exchange points (IXPs) and backbone links, which disrupts legitimate data flows across interconnected networks. For instance, the 2016 Dyn attack, a UDP-based reflection assault reaching 1.2 Tbps, congested multiple upstream providers and IXPs, leading to widespread service degradations for millions of users beyond the primary DNS target. More recently, in September 2025, a massive 11.5 Tbps UDP flood attack, originating from compromised Google Cloud instances, saturated networks and affected global connectivity. Similarly, in Q2 2025, Cloudflare mitigated a 7.3 Tbps UDP-based attack, underscoring the escalating scale and potential for collateral disruptions. These attacks also inflict on innocent third parties through spoofed source addresses and unintended surges. Victims of spoofing may receive erroneous ICMP error messages or amplified responses from open UDP services, resulting in localized network slowdowns and resource exhaustion for non-targeted entities sharing the same . This congestion extends to broader network stability, as excessive can destabilize global tables and affect connectivity at IXPs, where even a 300 Gbps has historically impacted multiple exchange points and their users. Economically, UDP floods contribute to ripple effects across enterprises and ISPs, including elevated costs for DDoS-specific coverage. As of , businesses facing frequent attacks report average costs of around $500,000 per damaging incident, with per-minute downtime expenses estimated at $6,000, prompting insurers to raise premiums for cyber policies that include DDoS clauses, as claims data reflects increasing volumetric threats. ISPs, in turn, encounter regulatory scrutiny for inadequate upstream filtering; under the EU's NIS2 Directive, operators of must implement robust DDoS defenses, with non-compliance risking fines up to 2% of global annual turnover and heightened oversight from national authorities. On a systemic level, recurrent UDP floods foster "DDoS fatigue" within the ecosystem, where organizations grow desensitized to threats, leading to normalized suboptimal practices and delayed responses to incidents. This phenomenon erodes overall health by diverting resources from proactive defenses to reactive , while exacerbating inequalities for under-resourced in developing regions, where limited amplifies the disruptive effects of even modest floods on critical services.

Detection and Mitigation

Identification Methods

Identifying a UDP flood attack involves monitoring network traffic for characteristic anomalies that deviate from normal patterns, such as sudden spikes in UDP packets directed to random ports on the target system. As of Q3 2025, UDP floods accounted for approximately 12% of DDoS attacks, underscoring the need for robust detection. Tools like can capture and analyze these packets by applying filters for UDP traffic, revealing high packets-per-second (pps) rates from a diverse array of source IP addresses, which often indicate distributed origins. Similarly, analyzers process flow data to identify volumetric surges in UDP traffic, helping network administrators spot the flood early through visualizations of abnormal volume and source diversity. Behavioral indicators of a UDP flood include a noticeable surge in ICMP Type 3 (destination unreachable) messages generated by the target in response to unsolicited UDP packets arriving at unused ports. This creates an asymmetry where inbound UDP traffic vastly outpaces outbound ICMP responses, as the system expends resources processing and replying to invalid packets. Additionally, entropy analysis of source IP addresses can reveal spoofing or distributed patterns; high values may suggest floods from numerous fabricated sources, unlike the typically lower in legitimate traffic from fewer origins. Threshold-based alerts provide a straightforward mechanism for detection by establishing baselines for UDP traffic, such as flagging rates exceeding those baselines as potentially anomalous depending on the network's scale. Integration with (SIEM) systems like allows correlation of these thresholds with system logs, enabling automated alerts when UDP influxes surpass predefined limits and correlate with other indicators like CPU spikes. Advanced methods leverage models to detect deviations from learned traffic baselines, classifying UDP floods by analyzing features like packet rates and source distribution in real-time for higher accuracy in dynamic environments. BGP Flowspec enables ISPs to propagate filtering rules for malicious traffic upstream, helping to block floods including UDP variants before they impact the target and aiding in mitigation.

Defensive Strategies

Defensive strategies against UDP flood attacks focus on proactive measures to limit the attack's effectiveness and reactive techniques to restore normal operations, emphasizing network hardening and traffic management. These approaches aim to reduce the volume of malicious UDP packets reaching the target while preserving legitimate traffic, often combining hardware, software, and service-based solutions. At the network level, implementing on UDP traffic helps throttle excessive packets from a single source, preventing resource exhaustion on routers and servers. Deploying BCP 38, also known as ingress filtering, blocks spoofed IP packets at network edges by ensuring outgoing traffic uses valid source addresses, which is particularly effective against UDP floods that rely on IP spoofing. Additionally, using anycast DNS distributes query loads across multiple geographically dispersed servers, mitigating amplification-based UDP floods by spreading the impact and enabling faster failover. Firewall and intrusion detection system (IDS) configurations play a crucial role in filtering UDP traffic. Firewalls can be set to drop UDP packets directed to non-essential ports, such as those not used for DNS or NTP, thereby reducing the . Stateful inspection in firewalls or IDS tools ignores unsolicited UDP packets lacking corresponding session states, effectively discarding flood attempts without established connections. Tools like on systems allow rules for or blackholing specific UDP traffic, while Cisco Access Control Lists (ACLs) enable similar packet dropping at the router level. Cloud and (CDN) solutions provide scalable defenses by absorbing and scrubbing malicious traffic before it reaches the origin server. Services such as and Akamai operate scrubbing centers that analyze incoming UDP flows in real-time, using to distinguish floods from legitimate traffic and reroute or block the former. These platforms support auto-scaling to handle surge volumes and to prioritize authenticated or whitelisted UDP sessions, ensuring minimal disruption during attacks. Best practices include disabling unnecessary UDP-based services on servers to minimize exploitable ports and regularly monitoring network traffic with dedicated DDoS protection suites, such as those from (now part of NetScout), which provide and automated mitigation. Collaboration with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) for upstream filtering ensures that floods are intercepted closer to their sources, enhancing overall resilience through shared threat intelligence and blackholing routes for known attackers.

Historical Context

Notable Incidents

One of the most prominent early examples of a UDP flood attack occurred in March 2013 against , a dedicated to combating . Attackers exploited open DNS resolvers for a reflection-based UDP flood, spoofing the victim's to amplify traffic and peaking at over 300 Gbps. This volumetric assault overwhelmed upstream providers, causing widespread internet slowdowns and disruptions to European network backbones for several hours, affecting millions of users. In October , the Mirai botnet orchestrated multiple waves of UDP flood attacks as part of a broader DDoS campaign targeting Dyn, a major DNS provider. Compromised IoT devices, infected due to default credentials and poor security practices, generated up to 1 Tbps of UDP traffic, including floods to random ports. The assault disrupted DNS resolution, leading to outages for high-profile services such as , , and across the and for several hours. A record-setting UDP flood struck (AWS) in February 2020, peaking at 2.3 Tbps against customer-hosted online gaming applications. The attack leveraged amplification via CLDAP and protocols over UDP, with spoofed queries to public servers multiplying the traffic volume. AWS automatically mitigated the threat, preventing downtime, but the event underscored the escalating capabilities of reflection-based UDP attacks on cloud infrastructure. In January 2022, faced a massive UDP-based DDoS attack peaking at 3.47 Tbps, utilizing reflection and amplification techniques over protocols including SSDP, CLDAP, NTP, and DNS. The attack, one of the largest recorded at the time, targeted various ports and was mitigated without service disruption, highlighting the continued growth in attack sophistication and scale. DDoS campaigns during geopolitical tensions, such as those against Ukrainian infrastructure amid the 2014 protests and annexation of Crimea, involved volumetric floods that temporarily disrupted , illustrating how such attacks serve as tools for disruption amid political instability. Overall, notable UDP floods typically measure in hundreds of Gbps to Tbps, with durations ranging from minutes to days, often relying on amplification techniques for scale.

Evolution Over Time

UDP flood attacks originated in the late 1990s as rudimentary volumetric denial-of-service (DoS) techniques transitioned into distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) threats, primarily through single-source flooding before widespread botnet coordination. The Trinoo tool, one of the earliest known DDoS implementations, emerged in August 1999 and relied on UDP packet floods to saturate targets with traffic from compromised Unix systems, marking a shift toward coordinated, multi-source assaults that overwhelmed network resources. During the 2000s, UDP floods advanced into amplification and reflection variants, exploiting protocols such as DNS and NTP to multiply attack traffic by forging source IP addresses and eliciting oversized responses from legitimate servers. This era saw botnets dramatically scale attack volumes, with the exemplifying the tactic through coordinated UDP floods that peaked at around 100 Mbps, disrupting government and via millions of infected hosts. In the 2010s and 2020s, the proliferation of (IoT) devices fueled even more potent UDP flood variants, with botnets like Mirai in 2016 leveraging unsecured devices to generate terabit-per-second (Tbps) assaults, including reflection attacks via SSDP and CLDAP protocols that amplified by factors of 30 to 70 times. These modern iterations often combine UDP floods with multi-vector DDoS strategies, targeting diverse ports and services to evade detection and sustain prolonged disruptions, with attacks reaching over 3 Tbps by 2022 and continuing to escalate as of 2025. Defensive responses to UDP floods have evolved from reactive packet filtering and to proactive measures, including the adoption of DNSSEC to authenticate DNS responses and reduce the efficacy of reflection-based amplifications, alongside network ingress filtering to block spoofed traffic. Regulatory bodies have bolstered these efforts through heightened awareness campaigns, such as U.S. (CISA) alerts addressing surges in DDoS incidents post-2020, which emphasized UDP flood mitigations like traffic normalization and collaboration with internet service providers.

References

  1. https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ddos/udp-flood-ddos-attack/
  2. https://www.akamai.com/glossary/what-is-udp-flood-ddos-attack/
  3. https://www.imperva.com/learn/ddos/udp-flood/
  4. https://www.sei.cmu.edu/blog/distributed-denial-of-service-attacks-four-best-practices-for-prevention-and-response/
  5. https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DDoS%20Quick%20Guide.pdf
  6. https://www.cyber.nj.gov/threat-landscape/ddos-attacks/ddos-attack-types-and-mitigation-strategies
  7. https://www.akamai.com/glossary/what-is-udp-flood-ddos-attack
  8. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc768.txt
  9. https://www.imperva.com/learn/ddos/udp-user-datagram-protocol/
  10. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc792
  11. https://www.netscout.com/what-is-ddos/udp-flood
  12. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2014/01/17/udp-based-amplification-attacks
  13. https://www.imperva.com/learn/ddos/ntp-amplification/
  14. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/whitepapers/latest/aws-best-practices-ddos-resiliency/udp-reflection-attacks.html
  15. https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ddos/ntp-amplification-ddos-attack/
  16. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2022/05/23/anatomy-of-ddos-amplification-attacks/
  17. https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1498/002/
  18. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1550147717741463
  19. https://www.usna.edu/Users/cs/choi/it430/lec/l09/lec.html
  20. https://www.corero.com/what-is-udp-flood-ddos-attack/
  21. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.5158
  22. https://www.imperva.com/blog/gbps-pps-rps-ddos-attacks/
  23. https://gcore.com/learning/volumetric-ddos-attacks
  24. https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/ta14-017a
  25. https://www.akamai.com/glossary/what-is-a-volumetric-attack
  26. https://www.radware.com/blog/ddos-protection/protect-your-environment-from-udp-flood-attacks/
  27. https://www.radware.com/cyberpedia/ddospedia/ddos-meaning-what-is-ddos-attack/
  28. https://aws.amazon.com/shield/faqs/
  29. https://www.netscout.com/blog/how-long-does-ddos-attack-last
  30. https://vercara.digicert.com/resources/udp-flood-ddos-attacks
  31. https://www.cisco.com/site/us/en/learn/topics/security/what-is-a-ddos-attack.html
  32. https://www.nokia.com/blog/the-internet-commons-under-siege-why-33-tbps-ddos-attacks-are-everyones-problem/
  33. https://gbhackers.com/massive-11-5-tbps-udp-flood-ddos-attack/
  34. https://blog.cloudflare.com/ddos-threat-report-for-2025-q2/
  35. https://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-065-en.pdf
  36. https://www.cloudflare.com/static/c14f1244a3b819345f92da3e4f59846e/DNS_and_the_Threat_of_DDoS_Whitepaper.pdf
  37. https://mazebolt.com/blog/cost-of-damaging-ddos-attacks-in-2025-annual-trends-report
  38. https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2024/08/21/ddos-attacks-duration-surge/
  39. https://www.corero.com/true-cost-of-a-ddos-attack/
  40. https://mazebolt.com/blog/doing-business-in-the-eu-october-17-is-the-nis2-deadline
  41. https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2016/12/security-fatigue-complicates-the-battle-against-data-breaches/
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10122089/
  43. https://qrator.net/blog/details/q3-2025-ddos-bad-bots-and-bgp-incidents-statistics
  44. https://www.hackers4u.com/how-can-wireshark-help-you-analyze-a-ddos-attack-step-by-step
  45. https://jis-eurasipjournals.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13635-018-0079-6
  46. https://knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com/KCSArticleDetail?id=kA10g0000008UDFCA2
  47. https://blog.sflow.com/2022/03/ddos-attacks-and-bgp-flowspec-responses.html
  48. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/how-spamhaus-attackers-turned-dns-into-a-weapon-of-mass-destruction/
  49. https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ddos/famous-ddos-attacks/
  50. https://blog.cloudflare.com/inside-mirai-the-infamous-iot-botnet-a-retrospective-analysis/
  51. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2016/10/14/heightened-ddos-threat-posed-mirai-and-other-botnets
  52. https://securityaffairs.com/104908/hacking/aws-worlds-largest-ddos.html
  53. https://www.a10networks.com/blog/aws-hit-by-largest-reported-ddos-attack-of-2-3-tbps/
  54. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/01/microsoft-fends-off-record-breaking-3-47-tbps-ddos-attack/
  55. https://ccdcoe.org/uploads/2018/10/Ch07_CyberWarinPerspective_Pakharenko.pdf
  56. https://stormwall.network/resources/blog/ddos-attack-trends-2025-q2
  57. https://www.radware.com/security/ddos-knowledge-center/ddos-chronicles/ddos-attacks-history/
  58. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc739628/m2/1/high_res_d/792253.pdf
  59. https://blog.qrator.net/en/the-evolution-of-ddos-attacks-a-journey-from-1994_192/
  60. https://ccdcoe.org/uploads/2018/10/Ottis2008_AnalysisOf2007FromTheInformationWarfarePerspective.pdf
  61. https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/cyber_attacks_estonia.pdf
  62. https://www.f5.com/labs/articles/mirai-the-iot-bot-that-took-down-krebs-and-launched-a-tbps-attack-on-ovh-22422
  63. https://www.akamai.com/blog/security/relentless-evolution-of-ddos-attacks
  64. https://www.esecurityplanet.com/networks/how-to-prevent-dns-attacks/
  65. https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2020/06/03/mitigating-ddos-attacks
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.