FIELD - GUIDE : 3 STEPS FOR WORKING IN FRAGILE AND CONFLICT-AFFECTED SITUATIONS (WFCS)

This Manual was developed by HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation together with the Centre for Peacebuilding (KOFF) at swisspeace. It aims at providing hands on guidance to field-based staff of development organisations that are working in fragile and conlict affected situations

TRAAC: Trust and Risk Aware Access Control

Postprin

Privacy-Friendly Collaboration for Cyber Threat Mitigation

Sharing of security data across organizational boundaries has often been advocated as a promising way to enhance cyber threat mitigation. However, collaborative security faces a number of important challenges, including privacy, trust, and liability concerns with the potential disclosure of sensitive data. In this paper, we focus on data sharing for predictive blacklisting, i.e., forecasting attack sources based on past attack information. We propose a novel privacy-enhanced data sharing approach in which organizations estimate collaboration benefits without disclosing their datasets, organize into coalitions of allied organizations, and securely share data within these coalitions. We study how different partner selection strategies affect prediction accuracy by experimenting on a real-world dataset of 2 billion IP addresses and observe up to a 105% prediction improvement.Comment: This paper has been withdrawn as it has been superseded by arXiv:1502.0533

The threats of social networking : old wine in new bottles?

Despite the many potential benefits to its users, social networking appears to provide a rich setting for criminal activities and other misdeeds. In this paper we consider whether the risks of social networking are unique and novel to this context. Having considered the nature and range of applications to which social networks may be applied, we conclude that there are no exploits or fundamental threats inherent to the social networking setting. Rather, the risks and associated threats treat this communicative and social context as an enabler for existing, long established and well-recognised exploits and activities

Controlled Data Sharing for Collaborative Predictive Blacklisting

Although sharing data across organizations is often advocated as a promising way to enhance cybersecurity, collaborative initiatives are rarely put into practice owing to confidentiality, trust, and liability challenges. In this paper, we investigate whether collaborative threat mitigation can be realized via a controlled data sharing approach, whereby organizations make informed decisions as to whether or not, and how much, to share. Using appropriate cryptographic tools, entities can estimate the benefits of collaboration and agree on what to share in a privacy-preserving way, without having to disclose their datasets. We focus on collaborative predictive blacklisting, i.e., forecasting attack sources based on one's logs and those contributed by other organizations. We study the impact of different sharing strategies by experimenting on a real-world dataset of two billion suspicious IP addresses collected from Dshield over two months. We find that controlled data sharing yields up to 105% accuracy improvement on average, while also reducing the false positive rate.Comment: A preliminary version of this paper appears in DIMVA 2015. This is the full version. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1403.212

Sharing Computer Network Logs for Security and Privacy: A Motivation for New Methodologies of Anonymization

Logs are one of the most fundamental resources to any security professional. It is widely recognized by the government and industry that it is both beneficial and desirable to share logs for the purpose of security research. However, the sharing is not happening or not to the degree or magnitude that is desired. Organizations are reluctant to share logs because of the risk of exposing sensitive information to potential attackers. We believe this reluctance remains high because current anonymization techniques are weak and one-size-fits-all--or better put, one size tries to fit all. We must develop standards and make anonymization available at varying levels, striking a balance between privacy and utility. Organizations have different needs and trust other organizations to different degrees. They must be able to map multiple anonymization levels with defined risks to the trust levels they share with (would-be) receivers. It is not until there are industry standards for multiple levels of anonymization that we will be able to move forward and achieve the goal of widespread sharing of logs for security researchers.Comment: 17 pages, 1 figur