4 research outputs found

    Optimal deployments of defense mechanisms for the internet of things

    Full text link
    Internet of Things (IoT) devices can be exploited by the attackers as entry points to break into the IoT networks without early detection. Little work has taken hybrid approaches that combine different defense mechanisms in an optimal way to increase the security of the IoT against sophisticated attacks. In this work, we propose a novel approach to generate the strategic deployment of adaptive deception technology and the patch management solution for the IoT under a budget constraint. We use a graphical security model along with three evaluation metrics to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed defense mechanisms. We apply the multi-objective genetic algorithm (GA) to compute the {\em Pareto optimal} deployments of defense mechanisms to maximize the security and minimize the deployment cost. We present a case study to show the feasibility of the proposed approach and to provide the defenders with various ways to choose optimal deployments of defense mechanisms for the IoT. We compare the GA with the exhaustive search algorithm (ESA) in terms of the runtime complexity and performance accuracy in optimality. Our results show that the GA is much more efficient in computing a good spread of the deployments than the ESA, in proportion to the increase of the IoT devices

    A principled approach to measuring the IoT ecosystem

    Get PDF
    Internet of Things (IoT) devices combine network connectivity, cheap hardware, and actuation to provide new ways to interface with the world. In spite of this growth, little work has been done to measure the network properties of IoT devices. Such measurements can help to inform systems designers and security researchers of IoT networking behavior in practice to guide future research. Unfortunately, properly measuring the IoT ecosystem is not trivial. Devices may have different capabilities and behaviors, which require both active measurements and passive observation to quantify. Furthermore, the IoT devices that are connected to the public Internet may vary from those connected inside home networks, requiring both an external and internal vantage point to draw measurements from. In this thesis, we demonstrate how IoT measurements drawn from a single vantage point or mesaurement technique lead to a biased view of the network services in the IoT ecosystem. To do this, we conduct several real-world IoT measurements, drawn from both inside and outside home networks using active and passive monitoring. First, we leverage active scanning and passive observation in understanding the Mirai botnet---chiefly, we report on the devices it infected, the command and control infrastructure behind the botnet, and how the malware evolved over time. We then conduct active measurements from inside 16M home networks spanning 83M devices from 11~geographic regions to survey the IoT devices installed around the world. We demonstrate how these measurements can uncover the device types that are most at risk and the vendors who manufacture the weakest devices. We compare our measurements with passive external observation by detecting compromised scanning behavior from smart homes. We find that while passive external observation can drive insight about compromised networks, it offers little by way of concrete device attribution. We next compare our results from active external scanning with active internal scanning and show how relying solely on external scanning for IoT measurements under-reports security important IoT protocols, potentially skewing the services investigated by the security community. Finally, we conduct passive measurements of 275~smart home networks to investigate IoT behavior. We find that IoT device behavior varies by type and devices regularly communicate over a myriad of bespoke ports, in many cases to speak standard protocols (e.g., HTTP). Finally, we observe that devices regularly offer active services (e.g., Telnet, rpcbind) that are rarely, if ever, used in actual communication, demonstrating the need for both active and passive measurements to properly compare device capabilities and behaviors. Our results highlight the need for a confluence of measurement perspectives to comprehensively understand IoT ecosystem. We conclude with recommendations for future measurements of IoT devices as well as directions for the systems and security community informed by our work

    Australia and Cyberwarfare

    Get PDF
    This book explores Australia’s prospective cyber-warfare requirements and challenges. It describes the current state of planning and thinking within the Australian Defence Force with respect to Network Centric Warfare, and discusses the vulnerabilities that accompany the use by Defence of the National Information Infrastructure (NII), as well as Defence’s responsibility for the protection of the NII. It notes the multitude of agencies concerned in various ways with information security, and argues that mechanisms are required to enhance coordination between them. It also argues that Australia has been laggard with respect to the development of offensive cyber-warfare plans and capabilities. Finally, it proposes the establishment of an Australian Cyber-warfare Centre responsible for the planning and conduct of both the defensive and offensive dimensions of cyber-warfare, for developing doctrine and operational concepts, and for identifying new capability requirements. It argues that the matter is urgent in order to ensure that Australia will have the necessary capabilities for conducting technically and strategically sophisticated cyber-warfare activities by the 2020s. The Foreword has been contributed by Professor Kim C. Beazley, former Minister for Defence (1984–90), who describes it as ‘a timely book which transcends old debates on priorities for the defence of Australia or forward commitments, [and] debates about globalism and regionalism’, and as ‘an invaluable compendium’ to the current process of refining the strategic guidance for Australia’s future defence policies and capabilities
    corecore