Towards Adversarial Resilience in Proactive Detection of Botnet Domain Names by using MTD

Artificial Intelligence is often part of state-of-the-art Intrusion Detection Systems. However, attackers use Artificial Intelligence to improve their attacks and circumvent IDS systems. Botnets use artificial intelligence to improve their Domain Name Generation Algorithms. Botnets pose a serious threat to networks that are connected to the Internet and are an enabler for many cyber-criminal activities (e.g., DDoS attacks, banking fraud and cyber-espionage) and cause substantial economic damage. To circumvent detection and prevent takedown actions, bot-masters use DGAs to create, maintain and hide C&C infrastructures. Furthermore, botmasters often release its source code to prevent detection, leading to numerous similar botnets that are created and maintained by different botmasters. As these botnets are based on nearly the same source code basis, they often share similar observable behavior. Current work on detection of DGAs is often based on applying machine learning techniques, as they are capable to generalize and to also detect yet unknown derivatives of a known botnets. However, these machine learning based classifiers can be circumvented by applying adversarial learning techniques. As a consequence, there is a need for resilience against adversarial learning in current Intrusion Detection Systems. In our work, we focus on adversarial learning in DNS based IDSs from the perspective of a network operator. Further, we present our concept to make existing and future machine learning based IDSs more resilient against adversarial learning attacks by applying multi-level Moving Target Defense strategies

Measuring the Changing Cost of Cybercrime

In 2012 we presented the first systematic study of the costs of cybercrime. In this paper, we report what has changed in the seven years since. The period has seen major platform evolution, with the mobile phone replacing the PC and laptop as the consumer terminal of choice, with Android replacing Windows, and with many services moving to the cloud. The use of social networks has become extremely widespread. The executive summary is that about half of all property crime, by volume and by value, is now online. We hypothesised in 2012 that this might be so; it is now established by multiple victimisation studies. Many cybercrime patterns appear to be fairly stable, but there are some interesting changes. Payment fraud, for example, has more than doubled in value but has fallen slightly as a proportion of payment value; the payment system has simply become bigger, and slightly more efficient. Several new cybercrimes are significant enough to mention, including business email compromise and crimes involving cryptocurrencies. The move to the cloud means that system misconfiguration may now be responsible for as many breaches as phishing. Some companies have suffered large losses as a side-effect of denial-of-service worms released by state actors, such as NotPetya; we have to take a view on whether they count as cybercrime. The infrastructure supporting cybercrime, such as botnets, continues to evolve, and specific crimes such as premium-rate phone scams have evolved some interesting variants. The overall picture is the same as in 2012: traditional offences that are now technically ‘computer crimes’ such as tax and welfare fraud cost the typical citizen in the low hundreds of Euros/dollars a year; payment frauds and similar offences, where the modus operandi has been completely changed by computers, cost in the tens; while the new computer crimes cost in the tens of cents. Defending against the platforms used to support the latter two types of crime cost citizens in the tens of dollars. Our conclusions remain broadly the same as in 2012: it would be economically rational to spend less in anticipation of cybercrime (on antivirus, firewalls, etc.) and more on response. We are particularly bad at prosecuting criminals who operate infrastructure that other wrongdoers exploit. Given the growing realisation among policymakers that crime hasn’t been falling over the past decade, merely moving online, we might reasonably hope for better funded and coordinated law-enforcement action

Ethical and Unethical Hacking

The goal of this chapter is to provide a conceptual analysis of ethical, comprising history, common usage and the attempt to provide a systematic classification that is both compatible with common usage and normatively adequate. Subsequently, the article identifies a tension between common usage and a normativelyadequate nomenclature. ‘Ethical hackers’ are often identified with hackers that abide to a code of ethics privileging business-friendly values. However, there is no guarantee that respecting such values is always compatible with the all-things-considered morally best act. It is recognised, however, that in terms of assessment, it may be quite difficult to determine who is an ethical hacker in the ‘all things considered’ sense, while society may agree more easily on the determination of who is one in the ‘business-friendly’ limited sense. The article concludes by suggesting a pragmatic best-practice approach for characterising ethical hacking, which reaches beyond business-friendly values and helps in the taking of decisions that are respectful of the hackers’ individual ethics in morally debatable, grey zones

The Ethics of Cybersecurity

This open access book provides the first comprehensive collection of papers that provide an integrative view on cybersecurity. It discusses theories, problems and solutions on the relevant ethical issues involved. This work is sorely needed in a world where cybersecurity has become indispensable to protect trust and confidence in the digital infrastructure whilst respecting fundamental values like equality, fairness, freedom, or privacy. The book has a strong practical focus as it includes case studies outlining ethical issues in cybersecurity and presenting guidelines and other measures to tackle those issues. It is thus not only relevant for academics but also for practitioners in cybersecurity such as providers of security software, governmental CERTs or Chief Security Officers in companies