skip to main content
10.1145/3176258.3176319acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescodaspyConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Denial of Engineering Operations Attacks in Industrial Control Systems

Published:13 March 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present a new type of attack termed denial of engineering operations in which an attacker can interfere with the normal cycle of an engineering operation leading to a loss of situational awareness. Specifically, the attacker can deceive the engineering software during attempts to retrieve the ladder logic program from a programmable logic controller (PLC) by manipulating the ladder logic on the PLC, such that the software is unable to process it while the PLC continues to execute it successfully. This attack vector can provide sufficient cover for the attacker»s actual scenario to play out while the owner tries to understand the problem and reestablish positive operational control. To enable the forensic analysis and, eventually, eliminate the threat, we have developed the first decompiler for ladder logic programs.

Ladder logic is a graphical programming language for PLCs that control physical processes such as power grid, pipelines, and chemical plants; PLCs are a common target of malicious modifications leading to the compromise of the control behavior (and potentially serious consequences). Our decompiler, Laddis, transforms a low-level representation to its corresponding high-level original representation comprising of graphical symbols and connections. The evaluation of the accuracy of the decompiler on the program of varying complexity demonstrates perfect reconstruction of the original program. We present three new attack scenarios on PLC-deployed ladder logic and demonstrate the effectiveness of the decompiler on these scenarios.

References

  1. 1996. DF1 Protocol and Command Set Reference Manual. http://ow.ly/ N61S30fsdqg. (1996). {Online; accessed 23-Sept-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2017. GNU Diffutils. https://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/. (2017). {Online; accessed 23-Sept-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2017. Hex-Rays. https://www.hex-rays.com/. (2017). {Online; accessed 23-Sept- 2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 2017. IRONGATE ICS Malware. https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat-research/2016/06/irongate_ics_malware.html. (2017). {Online; accessed 23-Sept-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 2017. Kaspersky. https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/industrial-vulnerabilities/ 12596/. (2017). {Online; accessed 23-Sept-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 2017. Man-in the middle attack in ICS. https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/content/ overview-cyber-vulnerabilities#man. (2017). {Online; accessed 23-Sept-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 2017. PLCS.net. http://www.plcs.net/downloads/index.php?&direction=0& order=&directory=Allen_Bradley. (2017). {Online; accessed 23-Sept-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 2017. Python Package Index Pyshark. https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyshark. (2017). {Online; accessed 23-Sept-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 2017. Python Software Foundation. https://www.python.org/. (2017). {Online; accessed 23-Sept-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. I. Ahmed, S. Obermeier, S. Sudhakaran, and V. Roussev. 2017. Programmable Logic Controller Forensics. IEEE Security Privacy 15, 6 (November 2017), 18--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Irfan Ahmed, Vassil Roussev, William Johnson, Saranyan Senthivel, and Sneha Sudhakaran. 2016. A SCADA System Testbed for Cybersecurity and Forensic Research and Pedagogy. In Proceedings of the 2Nd Annual Industrial Control System Security Workshop (ICSS '16) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. T. M. Chen and S. Abu-Nimeh. 2011. Lessons from Stuxnet. Computer 44, 4 (April 2011), 91--93. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. Cheung, B. Dutertre, M. Fong, U. Lindqvist, K. Skinner, and A. Valdes. 2007. Using Model-based Intrusion Detection for SCADA Networks. (jan 2007), 127-- 134.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. M. Deraman, J. M. Desa, and Z. A. Othman. 2010. Multilayer packet tagging for network behaviour analysis. In 2010 International Symposium on Information Technology, Vol. 2. 909--913.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Nicolas Falliere, Liam O Murchu,, and Eric Chien. 2011). W32.Stuxnet Dossier. Technical Report. Symantec.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. I. N. Fovino, A. Carcano, T. D. L. Murel, A. Trombetta, and M. Masera. 2010. Modbus/DNP3 State-Based Intrusion Detection System. In 2010 24th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications. 729--736. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Luis Garcia, Ferdinand Brasser, Mehmet H. Cintuglu, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, Osama Mohammed, and Saman A. Zonouz. 2017. Hey, My Malware Knows Physics! Attacking PLCs with Physical Model Aware Rootkit. In 24th Annual Network & Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Simson Garfunkel, Alex Nelson, and Joel Young. 2012. A General Strategy for Differential Forensic Analysis. In The Digital Forensic Research Conference DFRWS. S50--S59.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Naman Govil, Anand Agrawal, and Nils Ole Tippenhauer. 2017. On Ladder Logic Bombs in Industrial Control Systems. CoRR abs/1702.05241 (2017). http: //arxiv.org/abs/1702.05241Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. S. Kottler, M. Khayamy, S. R. Hasan, and O. Elkeelany. 2017. Formal verification of ladder logic programs using NuSMV. In SoutheastCon 2017. 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. R. Langner. 2011. Stuxnet: Dissecting a Cyberwarfare Weapon. IEEE Security Privacy 9, 3 (May 2011), 49--51. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. John Narayan, Sandeep K. Shukla, and T. Charles Clancy. 2015. A Survey of Automatic Protocol Reverse Engineering Tools. ACM Comput. Surv. 48, 3, Article 40 (dec 2015), 26 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Ornaghi and M. Valleri. 2017. Ettercap. https://ettercap.github.io/ettercap/. (2017). {Online; accessed 23-Sept-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Sandip C. Patel, Ganesh D. Bhatt, and James H. Graham. 2009. Improving the Cyber Security of SCADA Communication Networks. Commun. ACM 52, 7 (July 2009), 139--142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Martin Roesch et al. 1999. Snort: Lightweight intrusion detection for networks.. In Lisa, Vol. 99. 229--238. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Saranyan Senthivel, Irfan Ahmed, and Vassil Roussev. 2017. SCADA network forensics of the PCCC protocol. Digital Investigation 22 (2017), S57--S65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. S. Valentine and C. Farkas. 2011. Software security: Application-level vulnera- bilities in SCADA systems. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse Integration. 498--499.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. K. Yakdan, S. Dechand, E. Gerhards-Padilla, and M. Smith. 2016. Helping Johnny to Analyze Malware: A Usability-Optimized Decompiler and Malware AGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Denial of Engineering Operations Attacks in Industrial Control Systems

    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 '18: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy
      March 2018
      401 pages
      ISBN:9781450356329
      DOI:10.1145/3176258

      Copyright © 2018 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: 13 March 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CODASPY '18 Paper Acceptance Rate23of110submissions,21%Overall Acceptance Rate149of789submissions,19%

      Upcoming Conference

      CODASPY '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader