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

skip to main content
10.1109/RAMS48097.2021.9605784guideproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesConference Proceedingsacm-pubtype
research-article

Model-based Cybersecurity Analysis: Past Work and Future Directions

Published: 24 May 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Summary & ConclusionsModel-based evaluation in cybersecurity has a long history. Attack Graphs (AGs) and Attack Trees (ATs) were the earlier developed graphical security models for cybersecurity analysis. However, they have limitations (e.g., scalability problem, state-space explosion problem, etc.) and lack the ability to capture other security features (e.g., countermeasures). To address the limitations and to cope with various security features, a graphical security model named attack countermeasure tree (ACT) was developed to perform security analysis by taking into account both attacks and countermeasures. In our research, we have developed different variants of a hierarchical graphical security model to solve the complexity, dynamicity, and scalability issues involved with security models in the security analysis of systems. In this paper, we summarize and classify security models into the following; graph-based, tree-based, and hybrid security models. We discuss the development of a hierarchical attack representation model (HARM) and different variants of the HARM, its applications, and usability in a variety of domains including the Internet of Things (IoT), Cloud, Software- Defined Networking, and Moving Target Defenses. Moreover, we discuss the pros and cons of each variant of HARM based on its applications and usage. Furthermore, several security metrics have been developed to be used with the graphical security model (including HARMs) to analyze the security posture of the systems and evaluate the effectiveness of defense mechanisms which is also being taken as input into optimization algorithms to compute optimal defense deployment. Thus, we provide the classification of the security metrics, including their discussions. Finally, we highlight existing problems and suggest future research directions in the area of graphical security models and applications. As a result of this work, a decision-maker can understand which type of HARM will suit their network or security analysis requirements.

References

[1]
Phillips, C., and Swiler, L.P.: ‘A Graph-based System for Network Vulnerability Analysis’, in ‘Workshop on New Security Paradigms’ (1998), pp. 71-79
[2]
Schneier, B. : ‘Attack trees’, Dr. Dobb’s Journal, 1999, 24, (12), pp. 21-29
[3]
Bistarelli, S., Fioravanti, F., and Peretti, P.: ‘Defense trees for the economic evaluation of security investments’ in ‘Conference on Availability, Reliability & Security’, 2006.
[4]
Roy, A., Kim, D.S., and Trivedi, K.S.: ‘Cyber security analysis using attack countermeasure trees’, in ‘Workshop on Cyber Security and Info Intelligence Research’ 2010.
[5]
Hong, J., and Kim, D.-S.: ‘Harms: Hierarchical attack representation models for network security analysis’, 2012
[6]
Hong, J.B., and Kim, D.S.: ‘Towards scalable security analysis using multi-layered security models’, JNCA, 2016.
[7]
Enoch, S.Y., Ge, M., Hong, J.B., Alzaid, H., and Kim, D.S.: ‘A systematic evaluation of cybersecurity metrics for dynamic networks’, Computer Networks, 2018, 144, pp. 216-229
[8]
An, S., Eom, T., Park, J.S., Hong, J.B., Nhlabatsi, A., Fetais, N., Khan, K.M., and Kim, D.S.: ‘Cloudsafe: A tool for an automated security analysis for cloud computing’, in‘ IEEE TrustCom’, 2019.
[9]
Ge, M., Hong, J.B., Guttmann, W., and Kim, D.S.: ‘A framework for automating security analysis of the internet of things’, JNCA, 2017, 83, pp. 12-27
[10]
Dacier, M., and Deswarte, Y.: ‘Privilege graph: an extension to the typed access matrix model’, in ‘European Symposium on Research in Computer Security’, Springer, 1994.
[11]
Weiss, J.D. : ‘A system security engineering process’, in ‘A system security engineering process’, pp. 572-581
[12]
Salter, C., Saydjari, O.S., Schneier, B., and Wallner, J.: ‘Toward a secure system engineering methodolgy’, in ‘Workshop in New Security Paradigms’, 1998, pp. 2-10
[13]
Zonouz, S.A., Khurana, H., Sanders, W.H., and Yardley, T.M.: ‘RRE: A game-theoretic intrusion response and recovery engine’, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2013, 25, (2), pp. 395-406
[14]
Roy, A., Kim, D.S., and Trivedi, K.S.: ‘Attack countermeasure trees (ACT): towards unifying the constructs of attack and defense trees’, Security and Communication Networks, 2012, 5, (8), pp. 929-943
[15]
Enoch, S.Y., Ge, M., Hong, J.B., Kim, H.K., Kim, P., and Kim, D.S.: ‘Security modelling and analysis of dynamic enterprise networks’, in IEEE CIT, 2016, pp. 249-256
[16]
Enoch, S.Y., Hong, J.B., and Kim, D.S.: ‘Time independent security analysis for dynamic networks using graphical security models’, in ‘IEEE TrustCom’, 2018, pp. 588-595
[17]
Enoch, S.Y., Hong, J.B., and Kim, D.S.: ‘Security modelling and assessment of modern networks using time independent Graphical Security Models’, JNCA, 2019, 148, (102448)
[18]
Eom, T., Hong, J.B., An, S., Park, J.S., and Kim, D.S.: ‘A Systematic Approach to Threat Modeling and Security Analysis for Software Defined Networking’, IEEE Access, 2019, 7, pp. 137432-137445
[19]
Jia, F., Hong, J.B., and Kim, D.S.: ‘Towards automated generation and visualization of hierarchical attack representation models’, in ‘ Int'l Conference on Computer and Information Technology’ (IEEE, 2015), pp. 1689-1696
[20]
Alavizadeh, H., Hong, J.B., Jang-Jaccard, J., and Kim, D.S.: ‘Comprehensive security assessment of combined MTD techniques for the cloud’, in IEEE ICSE, (2018), pp. 11-20
[21]
Enoch, S.Y., Hong, J.B., Ge, M., and Kim, D.S.: ‘Composite Metrics for Network Security Analysis’, Software Networking, 2018, 2018, (1), pp. 137-160
[22]
Nhlabatsi, A.M., Hong, J.B., Kim, D.S.D., Fernandez, R., Hussein, A., Fetais, N., and Khan, K.M.: ‘Threat-specific security risk evaluation in the cloud’, IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing, 2018
[23]
Ge, M., Cho, J.H., Ishfaq, B., and Kim, D.S.: ‘Modeling and Analysis of Integrated Proactive Defense Mechanisms for Internet of Things’, in Modeling and Design of Secure Internet of Things, 2020, pp. 217-247
[24]
Ge, M., Cho, J.-H., Kim, D.S., Dixit, G., and Chen, I.-R.: ‘Proactive Defense for Internet-of-Things: Integrating Moving Target Defense with Cyberdeception’, arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.04220, 2020
[25]
Ge, M., Kim, H.K., and Kim, D.S.: ‘Evaluating security and availability of multiple redundancy designs when applying security patches’, in ‘DSN-Workshop’ (IEEE, 2017), pp. 53-60
[26]
Enoch, S.Y., Hong, J.B., Ge, M., Alzaid, H., and Kim, D.S.: ‘Automated security investment analysis of dynamic networks’, in ‘Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference’ 2018, pp. 1-10
[27]
Hong, J.B., Enoch, S.Y., Kim, D.S., Nhlabatsi, A., Fetais, N., and Khan, K.M.: ‘Dynamic security metrics for measuring the effectiveness of moving target defense techniques’, Computers & Security, 2018, 79, pp. 33-52
[28]
Enoch, S.Y., Hong, J.B., Ge, M., Khan, K.M., and Kim, D.S.: ‘Multi-Objective Security Hardening Optimisation for Dynamic Networks’, in IEEE ICC, 2019.
[29]
Hong, J.B., Enoch, S.Y., Kim, D.S., and Khan, K.M.: ‘Stateless Security Risk Assessment for Dynamic Networks’, in DSN Workshop, 2018.

Index Terms

  1. Model-based Cybersecurity Analysis: Past Work and Future Directions
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Guide Proceedings
    2021 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS)
    May 2021
    609 pages

    Publisher

    IEEE Press

    Publication History

    Published: 24 May 2021

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 0
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 16 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    View options

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media