DDoS-Capable IoT Malwares: comparative analysis and Mirai Investigation

The Internet of Things (IoT) revolution has not only carried the astonishing promise to interconnect a whole generation of traditionally “dumb” devices, but also brought to the Internet the menace of billions of badly protected and easily hackable objects. Not surprisingly, this sudden flooding of fresh and insecure devices fueled older threats, such as Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks. In this paper, we first propose an updated and comprehensive taxonomy of DDoS attacks, together with a number of examples on how this classification maps to real-world attacks. Then, we outline the current situation of DDoS-enabled malwares in IoT networks, highlighting how recent data support our concerns about the growing in popularity of these malwares. Finally, we give a detailed analysis of the general framework and the operating principles of Mirai, the most disruptive DDoS-capable IoT malware seen so far

SUTMS - Unified Threat Management Framework for Home Networks

Home networks were initially designed for web browsing and non-business critical applications. As infrastructure improved, internet broadband costs decreased, and home internet usage transferred to e-commerce and business-critical applications. Today’s home computers host personnel identifiable information and financial data and act as a bridge to corporate networks via remote access technologies like VPN. The expansion of remote work and the transition to cloud computing have broadened the attack surface for potential threats. Home networks have become the extension of critical networks and services, hackers can get access to corporate data by compromising devices attacked to broad- band routers. All these challenges depict the importance of home-based Unified Threat Management (UTM) systems. There is a need of unified threat management framework that is developed specifically for home and small networks to address emerging security challenges. In this research, the proposed Smart Unified Threat Management (SUTMS) framework serves as a comprehensive solution for implementing home network security, incorporating firewall, anti-bot, intrusion detection, and anomaly detection engines into a unified system. SUTMS is able to provide 99.99% accuracy with 56.83% memory improvements. IPS stands out as the most resource-intensive UTM service, SUTMS successfully reduces the performance overhead of IDS by integrating it with the flow detection mod- ule. The artifact employs flow analysis to identify network anomalies and categorizes encrypted traffic according to its abnormalities. SUTMS can be scaled by introducing optional functions, i.e., routing and smart logging (utilizing Apriori algorithms). The research also tackles one of the limitations identified by SUTMS through the introduction of a second artifact called Secure Centralized Management System (SCMS). SCMS is a lightweight asset management platform with built-in security intelligence that can seamlessly integrate with a cloud for real-time updates

Selection of maintenance, renewal and improvement projects in rail lines using the analytic network process

[EN] This paper addresses one of the most common problems that a railway infrastructure manager has to face: to prioritise a portfolio of maintenance, renewal and improvement (MR&I) projects in a railway network. This decision-making problem is complex due to the large number of MR&I projects in the portfolio and the different criteria to take into consideration, most of which are influenced and interrelated to each other. To address this problem, the use of the analytic network process (ANP) is proposed. The method is applied to a case study in which the Local Manager of the public company, who is responsible for the MR&I of Spanish Rail Lines, has to select the MR&I projects which have to be executed first. Based on the results, it becomes evident that, for this case study, the main factor of preference for a project is the location of application rather than the type of project. The main contributions of this work are: the deep analysis done to identify and weigh the decision criteria, how to assess the alternatives and provide a rigorous and systematic decision-making process, based on an exhaustive revision of the literature and expertiseThe translation of this paper was funded by the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia.Montesinos-Valera, J.; Aragonés-Beltrán, P.; Pastor-Ferrando, J. (2017). Selection of maintenance, renewal and improvement projects in rail lines using the analytic network process. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. 13(11):1476-1496. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2017.1294189S147614961311Abril, M., Barber, F., Ingolotti, L., Salido, M. A., Tormos, P., & Lova, A. (2008). An assessment of railway capacity. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 44(5), 774-806. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2007.04.001Ahern, A., & Anandarajah, G. (2007). Railway projects prioritisation for investment: Application of goal programming. Transport Policy, 14(1), 70-80. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2006.10.003Al-Harbi, K. M. A.-S. (2001). Application of the AHP in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 19(1), 19-27. doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(99)00038-1Aragonés-Beltrán, P., Chaparro-González, F., Pastor-Ferrando, J. P., & Rodríguez-Pozo, F. (2010). An ANP-based approach for the selection of photovoltaic solar power plant investment projects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(1), 249-264. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.012Aragonés-Beltrán, P., Chaparro-González, F., Pastor-Ferrando, J.-P., & Pla-Rubio, A. (2014). An AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic Network Process)-based multi-criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power plant investment projects. Energy, 66, 222-238. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.016Arif, F., Bayraktar, M. E., & Chowdhury, A. G. (2016). Decision Support Framework for Infrastructure Maintenance Investment Decision Making. Journal of Management in Engineering, 32(1), 04015030. doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000372Arunraj, N. S., & Maiti, J. (2010). Risk-based maintenance policy selection using AHP and goal programming. Safety Science, 48(2), 238-247. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2009.09.005Asensio, J., & Matas, A. (2008). Commuters’ valuation of travel time variability. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 44(6), 1074-1085. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2007.12.002Bana e Costa, C. A., & Oliveira, R. C. (2002). Assigning priorities for maintenance, repair and refurbishment in managing a municipal housing stock. European Journal of Operational Research, 138(2), 380-391. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(01)00253-3Bana e Costa, C. A., & Vansnick, J.-C. (2008). A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 187(3), 1422-1428. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.09.022Belton, V., & Stewart, T. J. (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4Bouch, C. J., Roberts, C., & Amoore, J. (2010). Development of a common set of European high-level track maintenance cost categories. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 224(4), 327-335. doi:10.1243/09544097jrrt316Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., Pirlot, M., Perny, P., Tsoukiàs, A., & Vincke, P. (2000). Evaluation and Decision Models. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-1593-7Evaluation and Decision Models with Multiple Criteria. (2006). International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. doi:10.1007/0-387-31099-1Brans, J. P., Vincke, P., & Mareschal, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: The Promethee method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24(2), 228-238. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5Cantarelli, C. C., van Wee, B., Molin, E. J. E., & Flyvbjerg, B. (2012). Different cost performance: different determinants? Transport Policy, 22, 88-95. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.04.002Cheng, C.-H. (1997). Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy AHP based on the grade value of membership function. European Journal of Operational Research, 96(2), 343-350. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(96)00026-4Cheng, E. W. L., & Li, H. (2005). Analytic Network Process Applied to Project Selection. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(4), 459-466. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2005)131:4(459)Damart, S., & Roy, B. (2009). The uses of cost–benefit analysis in public transportation decision-making in France. Transport Policy, 16(4), 200-212. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.06.002Durango-Cohen, P. L., & Madanat, S. M. (2008). Optimization of inspection and maintenance decisions for infrastructure facilities under performance model uncertainty: A quasi-Bayes approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(8), 1074-1085. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2008.03.004Durango-Cohen, P. L., & Sarutipand, P. (2009). Maintenance optimization for transportation systems with demand responsiveness. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 17(4), 337-348. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2009.01.001Dyer, J. S. (1990). Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 36(3), 249-258. doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.3.249Famurewa, S. M., Asplund, M., Rantatalo, M., Parida, A., & Kumar, U. (2014). Maintenance analysis for continuous improvement of railway infrastructure performance. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 11(7), 957-969. doi:10.1080/15732479.2014.921929Famurewa, S. M., Stenström, C., Asplund, M., Galar, D., & Kumar, U. (2014). Composite indicator for railway infrastructure management. Journal of Modern Transportation, 22(4), 214-224. doi:10.1007/s40534-014-0051-1Figueira, J., Greco, S., & Ehrogott, M. (2005). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. doi:10.1007/b100605FitzRoy, F., & Smith, I. (1995). The demand for rail transport in European countries. Transport Policy, 2(3), 153-158. doi:10.1016/0967-070x(95)96745-7Furuya, A., & Madanat, S. (2013). Accounting for Network Effects in Railway Asset Management. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 139(1), 92-100. doi:10.1061/(asce)te.1943-5436.0000477Gao, L., Guo, R., & Zhang, Z. (2013). An augmented Lagrangian decomposition approach for infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation decisions under budget uncertainty. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9(5), 448-457. doi:10.1080/15732479.2011.557388Gerçek, H., Karpak, B., & Kılınçaslan, T. (2004). A multiple criteria approach for the evaluation of the rail transit networks in Istanbul. Transportation, 31(2), 203-228. doi:10.1023/b:port.0000016572.41816.d2Goverde, R. M. P. (2010). A delay propagation algorithm for large-scale railway traffic networks. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 18(3), 269-287. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2010.01.002Grimes, G. A., & Barkan, C. P. L. (2006). Cost-Effectiveness of Railway Infrastructure Renewal Maintenance. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 132(8), 601-608. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-947x(2006)132:8(601)Harker, P. T., & Vargas, L. G. (1990). Reply to «Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process» by J. S. Dyer. Management Science, 36(3), 269-273. doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.3.269Huisman, T., & Boucherie, R. J. (2001). Running times on railway sections with heterogeneous train traffic. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 35(3), 271-292. doi:10.1016/s0191-2615(99)00051-xHwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9Ieda, H., Kanayama, Y., Ota, M., Yamazaki, T., & Okamura, T. (2001). How can the quality of rail services in Tokyo be further improved? Transport Policy, 8(2), 97-106. doi:10.1016/s0967-070x(01)00002-6Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143Ishizaka, A., & Nemery, P. (2013). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. doi:10.1002/9781118644898Ivanović, I., Grujičić, D., Macura, D., Jović, J., & Bojović, N. (2013). One approach for road transport project selection. Transport Policy, 25, 22-29. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.10.001Johansson, P., & Nilsson, J.-E. (2004). An economic analysis of track maintenance costs. Transport Policy, 11(3), 277-286. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2003.12.002Kabir, G., Sadiq, R., & Tesfamariam, S. (2013). A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 10(9), 1176-1210. doi:10.1080/15732479.2013.795978Karanik, M., Wanderer, L., Gomez-Ruiz, J. A., & Pelaez, J. I. (2016). Reconstruction methods for AHP pairwise matrices: How reliable are they? Applied Mathematics and Computation, 279, 103-124. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2016.01.008Karydas, D. M., & Gifun, J. F. (2006). A method for the efficient prioritization of infrastructure renewal projects. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 91(1), 84-99. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2004.11.016Kułakowski, K. (2015). Notes on order preservation and consistency in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 245(1), 333-337. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.03.010Kumar, G., & Maiti, J. (2012). Modeling risk based maintenance using fuzzy analytic network process. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(11), 9946-9954. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.004Lee, A. H. I., Chen, H. H., & Kang, H.-Y. (2009). Operations management of new project development: innovation, efficient, effective aspects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(6), 797-809. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602605LEE, A. H. I., KANG, H.-Y., & CHANG, C.-C. (2011). AN INTEGRATED INTERPRETIVE STRUCTURAL MODELING–FUZZY ANALYTIC NETWORK PROCESS–BENEFITS, OPPORTUNITIES, COSTS AND RISKS MODEL FOR SELECTING TECHNOLOGIES. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 10(05), 843-871. doi:10.1142/s0219622011004592Liang, C., & Li, Q. (2008). Enterprise information system project selection with regard to BOCR. International Journal of Project Management, 26(8), 810-820. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.11.001Macharis, C., & Bernardini, A. (2015). Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach. Transport Policy, 37, 177-186. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.11.002Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2015). Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications – Two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(8), 4126-4148. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.003Medury, A., & Madanat, S. (2013). Incorporating network considerations into pavement management systems: A case for approximate dynamic programming. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 33, 134-150. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2013.03.003Millet, I., & Saaty, T. L. (2000). On the relativity of relative measures – accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 121(1), 205-212. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00040-5Nyström, B., & Söderholm, P. (2010). Selection of maintenance actions using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP): decision-making in railway infrastructure. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 6(4), 467-479. doi:10.1080/15732470801990209Olsson, N. O. E., Økland, A., & Halvorsen, S. B. (2012). Consequences of differences in cost-benefit methodology in railway infrastructure appraisal—A comparison between selected countries. Transport Policy, 22, 29-35. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.03.005Özgür, Ö. (2011). Performance analysis of rail transit investments in Turkey: İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir and Bursa. Transport Policy, 18(1), 147-155. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.07.004Özkır, V., & Demirel, T. (2012). A fuzzy assessment framework to select among transportation investment projects in Turkey. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 74-80. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.06.051Pardo-Bosch, F., & Aguado, A. (2014). Investment priorities for the management of hydraulic structures. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 11(10), 1338-1351. doi:10.1080/15732479.2014.964267Phillips, L. D., & Bana e Costa, C. A. (2007). Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing. Annals of Operations Research, 154(1), 51-68. doi:10.1007/s10479-007-0183-3Roy, B. (1991). The outranking approach and the foundations of electre methods. Theory and Decision, 31(1), 49-73. doi:10.1007/bf00134132Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-iSaaty, T. L. (2006). Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes. European Journal of Operational Research, 168(2), 557-570. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.032Saaty, T. L. (2008). Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors the analytic hierarchy/network process. Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matematicas, 102(2), 251-318. doi:10.1007/bf03191825SAATY, T. L., & SAGIR, M. (2009). EXTENDING THE MEASUREMENT OF TANGIBLES TO INTANGIBLES. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 08(01), 7-27. doi:10.1142/s0219622009003247Saaty, T. L., & Shih, H.-S. (2009). Structures in decision making: On the subjective geometry of hierarchies and networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 199(3), 867-872. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.064Saaty, T. L., & Tran, L. T. (2007). On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7-8), 962-975. doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.022Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (1993). Experiments on rank preservation and reversal in relative measurement. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(4-5), 13-18. doi:10.1016/0895-7177(93)90171-tSalem, O. M., Miller, R. A., Deshpande, A. S., & Arurkar, T. P. (2013). Multi-criteria decision-making system for selecting an effective plan for bridge rehabilitation. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9(8), 806-816. doi:10.1080/15732479.2011.615843Seyedshohadaie, S. R., Damnjanovic, I., & Butenko, S. (2010). Risk-based maintenance and rehabilitation decisions for transportation infrastructure networks. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44(4), 236-248. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2010.01.005Shattuck, M., & Wagner, C. (2016). Peter Fishburn’s analysis of ambiguity. Theory and Decision, 81(2), 153-165. doi:10.1007/s11238-016-9534-3Sohn, K. (2008). A systematic decision criterion for the elimination of useless overpasses. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(8), 1043-1055. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2008.03.003Thomas, L. J., Rhind, D. J. A., & Robinson, K. J. (2005). Rail passenger perceptions of risk and safety and priorities for improvement. Cognition, Technology & Work, 8(1), 67-75. doi:10.1007/s10111-005-0021-9Tsamboulas, D. A. (2007). A tool for prioritizing multinational transport infrastructure investments. Transport Policy, 14(1), 11-26. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2006.06.001Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1-29. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028Wallenius, J., Dyer, J. S., Fishburn, P. C., Steuer, R. E., Zionts, S., & Deb, K. (2008). Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead. Management Science, 54(7), 1336-1349. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1070.083

Methods of information protection in telecommunication systems

The manual covers the basics of information security in ITS. Examples of practical implementation of modern methods and means of providing security in local networks are given. Each example is designed as a laboratory work. Laboratory work contains basic information about methods of information protection in local networks, methodical instructions on the procedure for its implementation and requirements for the formulation of conclusions. The material is aimed at a wide range of researchers and pedagogical staff who deal with information security and ITS safety issues, as well as graduate students and undergraduates of higher education institutions who study the specialty "Information and Communication Systems Security" in specialty 125 "Cybersecurity" in the field of knowledge " Information Technology"

QoS SOLUTIONS FORVIDEOCONFERENCING

This project is intended to gain knowledge and apply the theory leamt about the need of QoS in videoconferencing and the various options available. Today's conferencing applications are now IP friendly, it can run on either dedicated lines (like ISDN or telephone lines) or IP networks. However, as most network administrators know, conferencingapplications can wreak havoc on unprepared corporate networks. The key to successfully deploying conferencing applications is the activation of Quality of Service (QoS). QoS refers to a network's ability to reliably and consistently provide a certain level of throughput and performance. QoS for conferencing typically involves network availability, bandwidth, end-to-end delay, jitter, and packet loss. Simply stated, if the network doesn't conform to the minimum requirements in any of these areas, the conferences are doomed to fail. QoS can be achieved in a variety of ways, including over-provisioning (deploying additional bandwidth), data prioritization, and the use of QoS-enabled overlay or converged networks. Organizations have two main options for deploying QoS within their organizations; convergence or overlay. Convergence requires the use of QoS-capable WAN links throughout the organization. In many cases, this requires a fork-lift upgrade and migration of all network resources, which can place convergence out of reach of many cost-sensitive organizations. On the other hand, overlay networks allow a step-by-step migration from a non-QoS to a QoS network without the high cost and inherent risk of major network reconfigurations. In this way, overlay networks are a first step toward convergenc

Catch, Clean, and Release: A Survey of Obstacles and Opportunities for Network Trace Sanitization

Network researchers benefit tremendously from access to traces of production networks, and several repositories of such network traces exist. By their very nature, these traces capture sensitive business and personal activity. Furthermore, network traces contain significant operational information about the target network, such as its structure, identity of the network provider, or addresses of important servers. To protect private or proprietary information, researchers must “sanitize” a trace before sharing it. \par In this chapter, we survey the growing body of research that addresses the risks, methods, and evaluation of network trace sanitization. Research on the risks of network trace sanitization attempts to extract information from published network traces, while research on sanitization methods investigates approaches that may protect against such attacks. Although researchers have recently proposed both quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate the effectiveness of sanitization methods, such work has several shortcomings, some of which we highlight in a discussion of open problems. Sanitizing a network trace, however challenging, remains an important method for advancing network–based research

SIP based IP-telephony network security analysis

Masteroppgave i informasjons- og kommunikasjonsteknologi 2004 - Høgskolen i Agder, GrimstadThis thesis evaluates the SIP Protocol implementation used in the Voice over IP (VoIP) solution at the fibre/DSL network of Èlla Kommunikasjon AS. The evaluation focuses on security in the telephony service, and is performed from the perspective of an attacker trying to find weaknesses in the network. For each type of attempt by the malicious attacker, we examined the security level and possible solutions to flaws in the system. The conclusion of this analysis is that the VoIP service is exploitable, and that serious improvements are needed to achieve a satisfying level of security for the system