Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Proactive Defense for Internet-of-things: Moving Target Defense With Cyberdeception

Published: 14 September 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Resource constrained Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices are highly likely to be compromised by attackers, because strong security protections may not be suitable to be deployed. This requires an alternative approach to protect vulnerable components in IoT networks. In this article, we propose an integrated defense technique to achieve intrusion prevention by leveraging cyberdeception (i.e., a decoy system) and moving target defense (i.e., network topology shuffling). We evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of our proposed technique analytically based on a graphical security model in a software-defined networking (SDN)-based IoT network. We develop four strategies (i.e., fixed/random and adaptive/hybrid) to address “when” to perform network topology shuffling and three strategies (i.e., genetic algorithm/decoy attack path-based optimization/random) to address “how” to perform network topology shuffling on a decoy-populated IoT network, and we analyze which strategy can best achieve a system goal, such as prolonging the system lifetime, maximizing deception effectiveness, maximizing service availability, or minimizing defense cost. We demonstrated that a software-defined IoT network running our intrusion prevention technique at the optimal parameter setting prolongs system lifetime, increases attack complexity of compromising critical nodes, and maintains superior service availability compared with a counterpart IoT network without running our intrusion prevention technique. Further, when given a single goal or a multi-objective goal (e.g., maximizing the system lifetime and service availability while minimizing the defense cost) as input, the best combination of “when” and “how” strategies is identified for executing our proposed technique under which the specified goal can be best achieved.

References

[1]
H. Abie and I. Balasingham. 2012. Risk-based adaptive security for smart IoT in eHealth. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Body Area Networks (BodyNets’12). ICST, 269–275.
[2]
H. Alavizadeh, D. S. Kim, and J. Jang-Jaccard. 2020. Model-based evaluation of combinations of Shuffle and Diversity MTD techniques on the cloud. Future Gen. Comput. Syst. 111 (2020), 507–522.
[3]
A. Almohaimeed, S. Gampa, and G. Singh. 2019. Privacy-preserving IoT devices. In Proceedings of the IEEE Long Island Systems, Applications and Technology Conference (LISAT’19). 1–5.
[4]
M. Anirudh, S. A. Thileeban, and D. J. Nallathambi. 2017. Use of honeypots for mitigating DoS attacks targeted on IoT networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer, Communication, and Signal Processing (ICCCSP’17). IEEE, 1–4.
[5]
C. J. Bernardos, A. de la Oliva, P. Serrano, A. Banchs, L. M. Contreras, H. Jin, and J. C. Zuniga. 2014. An architecture for software defined wireless networking. IEEE Wireless Commun. 21, 3 (2014), 52–61.
[6]
V. Casola, A. D. Benedictis, and M. Albanese. 2013. Integration of Reusable Systems. Springer International Publishing, Chapter A Multi-Layer Moving Target Defense Approach for Protecting Resource-Constrained Distributed Devices.
[7]
J. Cho, D. P. Sharma, H. Alavizadeh, S. Yoon, N. Ben-Asher, T. J. Moore, D. S. Kim, H. Lim, and F. F. Nelson. 2020. Toward proactive, adaptive defense: A survey on moving target defense. IEEE Commun. Surveys Tutor. (2020), 1–1.
[8]
J. H. Cho and N. Ben-Asher. 2018. Cyber defense in breadth: Modeling and analysis of integrated defense systems. J. Defense Model. Simul. 15, 2 (2018), 147–160.
[9]
J. H. Cho, Y. Wang, I. R. Chen, K. S. Chan, and A. Swami. 2017a. A survey on modeling and optimizing multi-objective systems. IEEE Commun. Surveys Tutor. 19, 3 (2017), 1867–1901.
[10]
J. H. Cho, Y. Wang, R. Chen, K. S. Chan, and A. Swami. 2017b. A survey on modeling and optimizing multi-objective systems. IEEE Commun. Surveys Tutor. 19, 3 (2017), 1867–1901.
[11]
B. T. De Oliveira, L. B. Gabriel, and C. B. Margi. 2015. TinySDN: Enabling multiple controllers for software-defined wireless sensor networks. IEEE Latin America Trans. 13, 11 (2015), 3690–3696.
[12]
K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evolution. Comput. 6, 2 (2002), 182–197.
[13]
S. Dowling, M. Schukat, and H. Melvin. 2017. A ZigBee Honeypot to assess IoT cyberattack behaviour. In Proceedings of the 28th Irish Signals and Systems Conference (ISSC’17). IEEE, 1–6.
[14]
Open Network Foundation. 2012. OpenFlow Switch Specification (Version 1.3.0). Technical Report.
[15]
L. Galluccio, S. Milardo, G. Morabito, and S. Palazzo. 2015. SDN-WISE: Design, prototyping and experimentation of a stateful SDN solution for WIreless SEnsor networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’15). 513–521.
[16]
F. C. Gärtner. 2003. Byzantine failures and security: Arbitrary is not (always) random. Technical Report.
[17]
M. Ge. 2020. IoT_IntegratedDefence. (2020). Retrieved from https://github.com/mmge88/IoT_IntegratedDefence.
[18]
M. Ge, J. Cho, C. A. Kamhoua, and D. S. Kim. 2018. Optimal deployments of defense mechanisms for the internet of things. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Secure Internet of Things (SIoT’18). IEEE, 8–17.
[19]
M. Ge, J. H. Cho, B. Ishfaq, and D. S. Kim. 2020. Modeling and Design of Secure Internet of Things. Wiley, Chapter Modeling and Analysis of Proactive Defense Mechanisms for Internet-of-Things. IEEE Press.
[20]
M. Ge, J. B. Hong, W. Guttmann, and D. S. Kim. 2017. A framework for automating security analysis of the internet of things. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 83 (2017), 12–27.
[21]
M. Ge, J. B. Hong, S. E. Yusuf, and D. S. Kim. 2018. Proactive defense mechanisms for the software-defined Internet of Things with non-patchable vulnerabilities. Future Gen. Comput. Syst. 78 (2018), 568–582.
[22]
A. O. Hamada, M. Azab, and A. Mokhtar. 2018. Honeypot-like Moving-target Defense for secure IoT Operation. In Proceedings of the IEEE 9th Annual Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference (IEMCON’18). 971–977.
[23]
J. B. Hong and D. S. Kim. 2015. Assessing the effectiveness of moving target defenses using security models. IEEE Trans. Depend. Secure Comput. 13, 2 (2015), 163–177.
[24]
Jin B. Hong, Dong Seong Kim, Chun-Jen Chung, and Dijiang Huang. 2017. A survey on the usability and practical applications of graphical security models. Comput. Sci. Rev. 26 (2017), 1–16.
[25]
M. Kahla, M. Azab, and A. Mansour. 2018. Secure, Resilient, and self-configuring fog architecture for untrustworthy IoT environments. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Conference On Trust, Security And Privacy In Computing And Communications/ 12th IEEE International Conference On Big Data Science And Engineering (TrustCom/BigDataSE’18). 49–54.
[26]
D. Kennedy, J. O’Gorman, D. Kearns, and M. Aharoni. 2011. Metasploit: The Penetration Tester’s Guide. No Starch Press.
[27]
A. I. Kouachi, S. Sahraoui, and A. Bachir. 2018. Per packet flow anonymization in 6LoWPAN IoT networks. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Wireless Networks and Mobile Communications (WINCOM’18). 1–7.
[28]
M. Kuźniar, P. Perešíni, and D. Kostić. 2015. What you need to know about SDN flow tables. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Passive and Active Network Measurement. Springer International Publishing, 347–359.
[29]
Q. D. La, T. Q. S. Quek, J. Lee, S. Jin, and H. Zhu. 2016. Deceptive attack and defense game in honeypot-enabled networks for the internet of things. IEEE Internet Things J. 3, 6 (2016), 1025–1035.
[30]
T. Lei, Z. Lu, X. Wen, X. Zhao, and L. Wang. 2014. SWAN: An SDN Based Campus WLAN framework. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Vehicular Technology, Information Theory and Aerospace Electronic Systems (VITAE’14). 1–5.
[31]
G. Lin, M. Dong, K. Ota, J. Li, W. Yang, and J. Wu. 2019. Security function virtualization based moving target defense of SDN-enabled smart grid. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’19). 1–6.
[32]
J. Liu, Y. Li, M. Chen, W. Dong, and D. Jin. 2015. Software-defined internet of things for smart urban sensing. IEEE Commun. Mag. 53, 9 (2015), 55–63.
[33]
Y. Liu, G. Grigoryan, C. A. Kamhoua, and L. L. Njilla. 2020. Modeling and Design of Secure Internet of Things. Wiley, Chapter Leverage SDN for Cyber-Security Deception in Internet of Things. IEEE Press.
[34]
K. Mahmood and D. M. Shila. 2016. Moving target defense for Internet of Things using context aware code partitioning and code diversification. In Proceedings of the IEEE 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT’16). IEEE, 329–330.
[35]
T. Miyazaki, S. Yamaguchi, K. Kobayashi, J. Kitamichi, Song Guo, T. Tsukahara, and T. Hayashi. 2014. A software defined wireless sensor network. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2014 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC’14). 847–852.
[36]
NIST. 2005. National Vulnerability Database (NVD). Retrieved from https://nvd.nist.gov/.
[37]
F. Nizzi, T. Pecorella, F. Esposito, L. Pierucci, and R. Fantacci. 2019. IoT security via address shuffling: The easy way. IEEE Internet Things J. 6, 2 (2019), 3764–3774.
[38]
L. Pingree. 2016. Emerging Technology Analysis: Deception Techniques and Technologies Create Security Technology Business Opportunities. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/doc/reprints?id=1-2LSQOX3&ct=150824&st=sb&aliId=87768.
[39]
S. Plaga, N. Wiedermann, M. Niedermaier, A. Giehl, and T. Newe. 2018. Future proofing iot embedded platforms for cryptographic primitives support. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Sensing Technology (ICST’18). 52–57.
[40]
H. Poston. 2019. Top 10 network recon tools. Retrieved from https://resources.infosecinstitute.com/topic/top-10-network-recon-tools/.
[41]
R. Roman, J. Zhou, and J. Lopez. 2013. On the features and challenges of security and privacy in distributed internet of things. Comput. Netw. 57, 10 (2013), 2266–2279.
[42]
A. Rullo, D. Midi, E. Serra, and E. Bertino. 2017a. Pareto optimal security resource allocation for internet of things. ACM Trans. Privacy Secur. 20, 4 (2017), 15:1–15:30.
[43]
A. Rullo, E. Serra, E. Bertino, and J. Lobo. 2017b. Shortfall-based optimal placement of security resources for mobile IoT scenarios. In Proceedings of the 22nd European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS’17). Springer International Publishing, 419–436.
[44]
K. Rusek, J. Suárez-Varela, A. Mestres, P. Barlet-Ros, and A. Cabellos-Aparicio. 2019. Unveiling the potential of graph neural networks for network modeling and optimization in SDN. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on SDN Research (SOSR’19). Association for Computing Machinery, 140–151.
[45]
V. Saini, Q. Duan, and V. Paruchuri. 2008. Threat modeling using attack trees. J. Comput. Sci. Colleges 23, 4 (2008), 124–131.
[46]
R. M. Savola, H. Abie, and M. Sihvonen. 2012. Towards metrics-driven adaptive security management in e-health IoT applications. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Body Area Networks (BodyNets’12). ICST, 276–281.
[47]
S. Sengupta, A. Chowdhary, A. Sabur, A. Alshamrani, Huang D., and S. Kambhampati. 2020. A Survey of Moving Target Defenses for Network Security. Retrieved from https://arXiv:1905.00964.
[48]
M. Sherburne, R. Marchany, and J. Tront. 2014. Implementing moving target ipv6 defense to secure 6lowpan in the internet of things and smart grid. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Cyber and Information Security Research Conference (CISR’14). ACM, 37–40.
[49]
O. Sheyner, J. Haines, S. Jha, R. Lippmann, and J. M. Wing. 2002. Automated generation and analysis of attack graphs. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP’02). IEEE Computer Society, 273–284.
[50]
The Python Standard Library. 2021. Generate pseudo-random numbers. Retrieved from https://docs.python.org/3/library/random.html.
[51]
S. Vuppala, A. E. Mady, and A. Kuenzi. 2019. Rekeying-based moving target defence mechanism for side-channel attacks. In Proceedings of the Global IoT Summit (GIoTS’19). 1–5.
[52]
S. Wang, H. Shi, Q. Hu, B. Lin, and X. Cheng. 2019. Moving target defense for internet of things based on the zero-determinant theory. IEEE Internet Things J. (2019), 1–1.
[53]
K. Zeitz, M. Cantrell, R. Marchany, and J. Tront. 2017. Designing a micro-moving target ipv6 defense for the internet of things. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM Second International Conference on Internet-of-Things Design and Implementation (IoTDI’17). IEEE, 179–184.
[54]
K. Zeitz, M. Cantrell, R. Marchany, and J. Tront. 2018. Changing the Game: A micro moving target IPv6 Defense for the internet of things. IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. 7, 4 (2018), 578–581.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)A Proactive Decoy Selection Scheme for Cyber Deception using MITRE ATT&CKComputers & Security10.1016/j.cose.2024.104144148(104144)Online publication date: Jan-2025
  • (2024)A Review of the Weaponization of IoT: Security Threats and Countermeasures2024 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Applied Computational Intelligence and Informatics (SACI)10.1109/SACI60582.2024.10619778(000279-000284)Online publication date: 23-May-2024
  • (2024)MTFS: a Moving Target Defense-Enabled File System for Malware Mitigation2024 IEEE 49th Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN)10.1109/LCN60385.2024.10639803(1-6)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Proactive Defense for Internet-of-things: Moving Target Defense With Cyberdeception

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
    ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 22, Issue 1
    February 2022
    717 pages
    ISSN:1533-5399
    EISSN:1557-6051
    DOI:10.1145/3483347
    • Editor:
    • Ling Liu
    Issue’s Table of Contents
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 14 September 2021
    Accepted: 01 May 2021
    Revised: 01 March 2021
    Received: 01 December 2020
    Published in TOIT Volume 22, Issue 1

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Internet-of-Things
    2. moving target defense
    3. graphical security models
    4. software defined networking

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Refereed

    Funding Sources

    • Army Research Office

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)481
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)48
    Reflects downloads up to 14 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2025)A Proactive Decoy Selection Scheme for Cyber Deception using MITRE ATT&CKComputers & Security10.1016/j.cose.2024.104144148(104144)Online publication date: Jan-2025
    • (2024)A Review of the Weaponization of IoT: Security Threats and Countermeasures2024 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Applied Computational Intelligence and Informatics (SACI)10.1109/SACI60582.2024.10619778(000279-000284)Online publication date: 23-May-2024
    • (2024)MTFS: a Moving Target Defense-Enabled File System for Malware Mitigation2024 IEEE 49th Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN)10.1109/LCN60385.2024.10639803(1-6)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
    • (2024)Can Migration-Based Dynamic Platform Technique Work Effectively: A Quantitative Analysis PerspectiveIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2024.345776312(138319-138328)Online publication date: 2024
    • (2024)On the Road to Proactive Vulnerability Analysis and Mitigation Leveraged by Software Defined Networks: A Systematic ReviewIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2024.342926912(98546-98566)Online publication date: 2024
    • (2024)BSDN-HMTD: A blockchain supported SDN framework for detecting DDoS attacks using deep learning methodEgyptian Informatics Journal10.1016/j.eij.2024.10051527(100515)Online publication date: Sep-2024
    • (2024)IoT-PRIDS: Leveraging packet representations for intrusion detection in IoT networksComputers & Security10.1016/j.cose.2024.104034146(104034)Online publication date: Nov-2024
    • (2024)Proactive defense mechanismComputers and Security10.1016/j.cose.2023.103685139:COnline publication date: 16-May-2024
    • (2024)IoTSecSimComputers and Security10.1016/j.cose.2023.103534136:COnline publication date: 1-Feb-2024
    • (2024)A hybrid cyber defense framework for reconnaissance attack in industrial control systemsComputers and Security10.1016/j.cose.2023.103506136:COnline publication date: 1-Feb-2024
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Get Access

    Login options

    Full Access

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media