Automatic Handling of Protocol Dependencies and Reaction to 0-Day Attacks with ScriptGen Based Honeypots

Abstract. Spitzner proposed to classify honeypots into low, medium and high interaction ones. Several instances of low interaction exist, such as honeyd, as well as high interaction, such as GenII. Medium interaction systems have recently received increased attention. ScriptGen and Role-Player, for instance, are as talkative as a high interaction system while limiting the associated risks. In this paper, we do build upon the work we have proposed on ScriptGen to automatically create honeyd scripts able to interact with attack tools without relying on any a-priori knowl-edge of the protocols involved. The main contributions of this paper are threefold. First, we propose a solution to detect and handle so-called intra-protocol dependencies. Second, we do the same for inter-protocols dependencies. Last but not least, we show how, by modifying our initial refinement analysis, we can, on the fly, generate new scripts as new at-tacks, i.e. 0-day, show up. As few as 50 samples of attacks, i.e. less than one per platform we have currently deployed in the world, is enough to produce a script that can then automatically enrich all these platforms.

TrustedPals: Secure Multiparty Computation Implemented with Smart Cards

We study the problem of Secure Multi-party Computation (SMC) in a model where individual processes contain a tamper-proof security module, and introduce the TrustedPals framework, an efficient smart card based implementation of SMC for any number of participating entities in such a model. Security modules can be trusted by other processes and can establish secure channels between each other. However, their availability is restricted by their host, that is, a corrupted party can stop the computation of its own security module as well as drop any message sent by or to its security module. We show that in this model SMC can be implemented by reducing it to a fault-tolerance problem at the level of security modules. Since the critical part of the computation can be executed locally on the smart card, we can compute any function securely with a protocol complexity which is polynomial only in the number of processes (that is, the complexity does not depend on the function which is computed), in contrast to previous approaches

A taxonomy on component-based software engineering methods

The component paradigm promises to address many of the productivity and quality problems currently faced by the software industry. However, its correct application requires systematic, methodological support. A wide range of theoretical and practical methods have been developed in the context of the component paradigm. A taxonomy of these methods can provide a. tool for increasing the understanding of the ways in which component-based development is currently addressed and directions for future development. This paper outlines a taxonomy based on the fundamental criteria and definitions, and provides examples to justify this classification. It can therefore serve as a first orientation for new researchers interested in the area of component-based software engineering

A Comparison of Market Approaches to Software Vulnerability Disclosure

Practical computer (in)security is largely driven by the existence of and knowledge about vulnerabilities, which can be exploited to breach security mechanisms. Although the discussion on details of responsible vulnerability disclosure is controversial, there is a sort of consensus that better information sharing is socially beneficial. In the recent years we observe the emerging of “vulnerability markets ” as means to stimulate exchange of information. However, this term subsumes a broad range of different concepts, which are prone to confusion. This paper provides a first attempt to structure the field by (1) proposing a terminology for distinct concepts and (2) defining criteria to allow for a better comparability between different approaches. An application of this framework on four market types shows notable differences between the approaches