skip to main content
10.1145/2557547.2557562acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescodaspyConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Situational awareness through reasoning on network incidents

Published:03 March 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Corporations worldwide work with teams of often dedicated system administrators to maintain, detect and prevent network infringements. This is a highly user-driven process that consumes hundreds (if not thousands) of man hours yearly. User reporting, the basis of most of these incident detection systems suffers from various biases and leads to below-par security measures. In the paper, we provide an approach for near real-time analysis of ongoing events on controlled networks, while requiring no end-user interaction and saving on system administrator's effort. Our proposed solution, ReasONets, a lightweight, distributed system, provides situational awareness in case of network incidents. ReasONets combines aspects of anomaly detection with Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) methodologies to reason about ongoing security events in a network, including their nature, severity and sources. We build a fully running prototype of ReasONets, to demonstrate the accuracy of the system, in doing reasoning and inference on the network status by exploiting events and network features. To the best of our knowledge, ReasONets is the first of its kind system combining detection and classification of network events with realtime reasoning while being capable of scaling up to large network sizes.

References

  1. Snort, a lightweight network intrusion detection system. http://www.snort.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Stefan Axelsson. The base-rate fallacy and the difficulty of intrusion detection. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., 3(3):186--205, August 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Leyla Bilge, Davide Balzarotti, William Robertson, Engin Kirda, and Christopher Kruegel. Disclosure: detecting botnet command and control servers through large-scale netflow analysis. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pages 129--138. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Leyla Bilge, Engin Kirda, Christopher Kruegel, and Marco Balduzzi. Exposure: Finding malicious domains using passive dns analysis. In NDSS, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. BitTorrent. Official website for bittorrent. http://www.bittorrent.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Eleazar Eskin. Anomaly detection over noisy data using learned probability distributions. 2000. http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/item/ac:125813. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Mansour Esmaili, Bala Balachandran, Reihaneh Safavi-Naini, and Josef Pieprzyk. Case-based reasoning for intrusion detection. In Computer Security Applications Conference, 1996., 12th Annual, pages 214--223. IEEE, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Juan M. Estévez-Tapiador, Pedro Garcia-Teodoro, and Jesús E. Díaz-Verdejo. Measuring normality in http traffic for anomaly-based intrusion detection. Computer Networks, 45(2):175--193, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. P. García-Teodoro, J. Díaz-Verdejo, G. Maciá-Fernández, and E. Vázquez. Anomaly-based network intrusion detection: Techniques, systems and challenges. Computers & Security, 28(1-2):18--28, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. R. Guha, O. Kachirski, D. Schwartz, S. Stoecklin, and Y. Yilmaz. Case-based agents for packet-level intrusion detection in ad hoc networks. In Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Computer and Information Sciences, pages 315--320. CRC Press, October 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Paul Hick. The CAIDA DDoS Attack 2007 Dataset (collection). http://imdc.datcat.org/collection/1-06Y1-W=The+CAIDA+DDoS+Attack+2007+Dataset (accessed on 2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Xuan Dau Hoang, Jiankun Hu, and Peter Bertok. A multi-layer model for anomaly intrusion detection using program sequences of system calls. In Proc. 11th IEEE Int'l. Conf. Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Steven A. Hofmeyr, Stephanie Forrest, and Anil Somayaji. Intrusion detection using sequences of system calls. Journal of Computer Security, 6(3):151--180, 01 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Eyke Hüllermeier, Didier Dubois, Henri Prade, De Toulouse, and Universit'e Paul Sabatier. Fuzzy rules in case-based reasoning. In in Conf. AFIA99 Raisonnement à Partir de Cas, pages 45--54, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Christopher Kruegel and Thomas Toth. Using decision trees to improve signature-based intrusion detection. In Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, pages 173--191. Springer, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. David B. Leake. Case-based reasoning. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 9(01):61--64, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Wenke Lee, S. J. Stolfo, and K. W. Mok. A data mining framework for building intrusion detection models. In Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 120--132, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Malware Domain List. http://www.malwaredomainlist.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Microsoft. Windows based performance counter data logger. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490960.aspx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitre. Common attack pattern enumeration and classification. http://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/113.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Mitre. Structured threat information expression. http://stix.mitre.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Soumyo D. Moitra. Situational awareness metrics from flow and other data sources. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Official Website for uTorrent. http://www.utorrent.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Roberto Perdisci, Wenke Lee, and Nick Feamster. Behavioral clustering of http-based malware and signature generation using malicious network traces. In Proceedings of the 7th USENIX conference on Networked systems design and implementation, NSDI'10, pages 26--26, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2010. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Predict. Protected repository for the defense of infrastructure against cyberthreats. http://www.predict.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. J. Reason. Too little and too late: A commentary on accident and incident reporting systems. 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Timothy J. Ross. Fuzzy Logic, pages i-xxi. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Sans Education. https://isc.sans.edu/feeds/suspiciousdomains_high.txt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Shalla Secure Services KG. Shalla list website blacklist database. http://www.shallalist.de/Downloads/shallalist.tar.gz.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Jessica Steinberger, Lisa Schehlmann, Sebastian Abt, and Harald Baier. Anomaly detection and mitigation at internet scale: A survey. In Emerging Management Mechanisms for the Future Internet, pages 49--60. Springer, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Vimal Vaidya. Dynamic signature inspection-based network intrusion detection, August 21 2001. US Patent 6,279,113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Christina Warrender, Stephanie Forrest, and Barak Pearlmutter. Detecting intrusions using system calls: Alternative data models. In Security and Privacy, 1999. Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE Symposium on, pages 133--145. IEEE, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. M. West-Brown, D. Stikvoort, K.-P. Kossakowski, G. Killcrece, R. Ruefle, and M. Zajicek. Handbook for computer security incident response teams (csirts), 2003. Technical Report Carnegie Mellon University/SEI-2003-HB-002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Dit-Yan Yeung and Yuxin Ding. Host-based intrusion detection using dynamic and static behavioral models. Pattern Recognition, 36(1):229--243, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Zeus Tracker Domain Blocklist. https://secure.mayhemiclabs.com/malhosts/malhosts.txt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Loai Zomlot, Sathya Chandran Sundaramurthy, Kui Luo, Xinming Ou, and S. Raj Rajagopalan. Prioritizing intrusion analysis using dempster-shafer theory. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM workshop on Security and artificial intelligence, AISec '11, pages 59--70, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Situational awareness through reasoning on network incidents

            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
              CODASPY '14: Proceedings of the 4th ACM conference on Data and application security and privacy
              March 2014
              368 pages
              ISBN:9781450322782
              DOI:10.1145/2557547

              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: 3 March 2014

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              CODASPY '14 Paper Acceptance Rate19of119submissions,16%Overall Acceptance Rate149of789submissions,19%

              Upcoming Conference

              CODASPY '24

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader