skip to main content
10.1145/2554850.2555071acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Risk assessment of code injection vulnerabilities using fuzzy logic-based system

Published:24 March 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Web applications are notoriously vulnerable to code injection attacks. Given that, practitioners need to assess the risk posed by applications due to code injection attacks to plan ahead on employing necessary mitigation approaches. This paper proposes a risk assessment approach for code injection vulnerability in web applications. We are motivated by the observation that traditional risk assessment approaches work well when quantitative values of specific parameters of the risk computation model is known in advance. In practice, they are difficult to predict correctly. Moreover, one specific code injection vulnerabilities can be exploited in different ways that may result in different types of severity level. Further, diverse types of injection vulnerabilities and their implications cannot be combined in existing approaches. To address these limitations, we propose a Fuzzy Logic-based System (FLS) to assess the risk due to different types of code injection vulnerabilities. Our further contribution is a set of proposed code-level metrics that can be used to establish the linguistic terms to express vulnerability levels and their impact subjectively. We apply nested FLS to combine risk from multiple vulnerabilities to assess a single value representing the overall risk. We evaluate our approach with three real-world web applications implemented in PHP, and apply for SQL Injection (SQLI) and Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), the two most widely reported vulnerabilities in today's web applications. The initial results indicate that the proposed approach can effectively assess high risks present in vulnerable applications.

References

  1. SQL Injection, https://www.owasp.org/index.php/SQL_Injection.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Cross-site Scripting (XSS), Accessed from https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross-site_Scripting_(XSS).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. OWASP Top 10 2013, Accessed from https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2013-Top_10Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. R. Schaffer, National Information Assurance Glossary, July 2012, http://www.cnss.gov/Assets/pdf/cnssi_4009.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. C. May, M. Baker, D. Gabbard, T. Good, G. Grimes, M. Holmgren, R. Nolan, R. Nowark, and S. Pennline, Advanced Information Assurance Handbook, CMU/SEI-2004-HB-001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. March 2004. XSS Session Hijacking proof of concept, http://msujaws.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/xss-session-hijacking-proof-of-concept/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. W3af, Open Source Web Application Security Scanner, http://w3af.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Sqlifuzzer, http://code.google.com/p/sqlifuzzer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. L. Shar, H. Tan, "Auditing the XSS defence features implemented in web application programs," IET Software, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 377--390.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. SQL-inject-me, https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/sql-inject-me/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. S. Chen and S. Chen, "Fuzzy Risk Analysis Based on Similarity Measures of Generalized Fuzzy Numbers," IEEE Transactions of Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 11, No. 1, February 2003, pp. 45--56. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. E. Han and G. Karypis, "Centroid-based Document Classification: Analysis and Experimental Results," Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, LNCS, Volume 1910, 2000, pp. 116--123. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. B. Lazzerini and L. Mkrtchyan, "Analyzing Risk Impact Factors Using Extended Fuzzy Cognitive Maps," IEEE Systems Journals, Vol. 5, Issue 2, June 2011, pp. 288--297.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. R. Kangari and L. Riggs, "Construction Risk Assessment by Linguistics", IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Volume 36, No. 2, May 1989, pp. 126--131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. J. Spears, "A Holistic Risk Analysis Method for Identifying Information Security", IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, Springer, Vol 193, 2006, pp. 185--202.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. W. Ru and J. Eloff, "Risk Analysis Modeling with the Use of Fuzzy Logic", Computers & Security, 15 (3), 1996, pp. 239--248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. E. Smith and J. Eloff, "Cognitive Fuzzy Modeling for Enhanced Risk Assessment in a Health Care Institution," IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications, Volume 15, Issue 2, March 2000, pp. 69--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. E. Mamdani, "Applications of Fuzzy Algorithm for Control a Simple Dynamic Plant," IEEE, 121 (12), 1974, pp. 1585--1588.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. W. G. Halfond, J. Viegas, and A. Orso, "A Classification of SQL-Injection Attacks and Countermeasures," Proc. of the Int. Symposium on Secure Software Engineering, Mar. 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. SQL Injection Walkthrough, Accessed from http://www.securiteam.com/securityreviews/5DP0N1P76E.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. T. Tuncer and Y. Tatar, "Detection SYN Flooding Attacks Using Fuzzy Logic," Proc. of Int. Conf. on Information Security and Assurance, Korea, April 2008, pp. 321--325. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. M. Aburrous, M. Hossain, K. Dahal, and F. Thabtah, "Intelligent Phishing Detection System for E-banking using Fuzzy Data Mining," J. of Expert Systems with Applications, Elsevier, Vol 37, Issue 12, Dec 2010, pp. 7913--7921. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. C. Jang, J. Kim, H. Jang, S. Park, B. Jang, B. Kim, and E. Choi, "Rule-based Auditing System for Software Security Assurance," Proc. of 1st Int. Conf. on Ubiquitous and Future Networks, Hong Kong, June 2009, pp. 198--202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. H. Shahriar and M. Zulkernine, "A Fuzzy Logic-Based Buffer Overflow Vulnerability Auditor," Proc. of the 9th IEEE DASC, December 2011, Sydney, Australia, pp. 137--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. S. Halkidis, N. Tsantalis, A. Chatzigeorgiou, and G. Stephanides, "Architectural Risk Analysis of Software Systems Based on Security Patterns," IEEE Tran. on Dependable and Secure Computing, Volume 5 Issue 3, July 2008, pp. 129--142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. B. Lazzerini and L. Mkrtchyan, "Analyzing Risk Impact Factors Using Extended Fuzzy Cognitive Maps," IEEE Systems Journals, Vol. 5, Issue 2, June 2011, pp. 288--297.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. P Hanacek, P. Peringer, and Z. Rabova, "Knowledge-based Approach to Risk Analysis Modelling," Proc. of JCKBSE 2000, Brno, CZ, pp. 25--30, http://www.fit.vutbr.cz/~hanacek/papers/JCKBSE00.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. K. Sanguansat and S. Chen, "A New Method for Analyzing Fuzzy Risk Based on A New Fuzzy Ranking Method Between Generalized Fuzzy Numbers," Proc. of the 8th International Conf. on Machine Learning and Cyber Security, Baoding, China, 2009, pp. 2823--2827.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. J. Kim, "Injection Attack Detection Using the Removal of SQL Query Attribute Values," Proc. of the International Conf. on Information Science and Applications, Jeju, Korea, 2011, pp. 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. G. Buehrer, B. W. Weide, P. A. G. Sivilotti, "Using parse tree validation to prevent SQL injection attacks," Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Software Engineering and Middleware (SEM '05), Lisbon, Portugal, 2005, pp. 106--113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. G. Agosta, A. Barenghi, A. Parata, G. Pelosi, "Automated Security Analysis of Dynamic Web Applications through Symbolic Code Execution," Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Information Technology: New Generations, April 2012, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 189--194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Y. Kosuga, K. Kono, M. Hanaoka, M. Hishiyama, Y. Takahama, "Sania: Syntactic and Semantic Analysis for Automated Testing against SQL Injection," Proc. of the 23rd Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC), Miami, Dec 2007, pp. 107--117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. CVSS Scoring System, http://nvd.nist.gov/cvss.cfmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. H. Shahriar and M. Zulkernine, "S2XS2: A Server Side Approach to Automatically Detect XSS Attacks," Proc. of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing (DASC), Sydney, Australia, December 2011, pp. 7--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. H. Shahriar, S. North, W. Chen, and E. Mawangi, "Design and Development of Anti-XSS Proxy," Proc. of the 8th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST), December 2013, London, UK, 6 pp. (to appear).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. H. Shahriar and M. Zulkernine, "Information Theoretic Detection of SQLI Attacks," Proc. of 14th IEEE International High Assurance Systems Engineering Symposium, Omaha, NE, Oct 2012, pp. 40--47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. jFuzzyLogic, http://jfuzzylogic.sourceforge.net.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Risk assessment of code injection vulnerabilities using fuzzy logic-based system

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            SAC '14: Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing
            March 2014
            1890 pages
            ISBN:9781450324694
            DOI:10.1145/2554850

            Copyright © 2014 ACM

            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: 24 March 2014

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            SAC '14 Paper Acceptance Rate218of939submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader