On the Significance of Process Comprehension for Conducting Targeted ICS Attacks

The exploitation of Industrial Control Systems (ICSs) has been described as both easy and impossible, where is the truth? Post-Stuxnet works have included a plethora of ICS focused cyber secu- rity research activities, with topics covering device maturity, network protocols, and overall cyber security culture. We often hear the notion of ICSs being highly vulnerable due to a lack of inbuilt security mechanisms, considered a low hanging fruit to a variety of low skilled threat actors. While there is substantial evidence to support such a notion, when considering targeted attacks on ICS, it is hard to believe an attacker with limited resources, such as a script kiddie or hacktivist, using publicly accessible tools and exploits alone, would have adequate knowledge and resources to achieve targeted operational process manipulation, while simultaneously evade detection. Through use of a testbed environment, this paper provides two practical examples based on a Man-In-The-Middle scenario, demonstrating the types of information an attacker would need obtain, collate, and comprehend, in order to begin targeted process manipulation and detection avoidance. This allows for a clearer view of associated challenges, and illustrate why targeted ICS exploitation might not be possible for every malicious actor

Expression of <i>GmARP1</i> enhances SDS resistance in transgenic soybean plants.

<p>R₁ plants were tested for resistance to <i>F</i>. <i>virguliforme</i> under growth chamber conditions. A. Root phenotype of a resistant (R) and a susceptible (S) R₁ progeny of a transformant, Prom2-ARP1-7, carrying the <i>Prom2-GmARP1</i> fusion gene. B. Enhanced foliar SDS resistance among R₁ progenies. W82, the SDS susceptible line Williams 82; MN1606, the SDS resistant line. C. Chlorophyll content per individual R₁ progeny carrying <i>GmARP1</i> of three independent transformants. ‘Resistant’ and ‘Susceptible’ classes are defined as in (A). D. Average root weight of R₁ progeny of three independent transformants. ‘Resistant’ and ‘Susceptible’ classes are defined as in A. E. Enhanced root resistance among R₁ progenies. Extent of root resistance to the pathogen was expressed in percent; e.g., 100%, healthy roots with no obvious blackening caused by necrosis and rotting due to infection of <i>F</i>. <i>virguliforme</i>. F. Expression of <i>GmARP1</i> transgenes. Two random SDS resistant and susceptible R₁ progenies from each R₀ line were analyzed. Top panel, resistant plants (two representatives from each line). Bottom panel, susceptible plants (two representatives from each line). Red arrow, <i>GmARP1</i>; black arrow, <i>ELF1b</i> internal control. *, significantly different at <i>p<0</i>.<i>01</i>. Results are means ±SE of three independent experiments.</p

Reduced expression levels of soybean genes following <i>F</i>. <i>virguliforme</i> infection as compared to the water control.

<p>A. Expression levels of four selected soybean genes following water treatment at early (S1: 3 and 5 d) and late time (S2: 10 and 24 d) periods and <i>F</i>. <i>virguliforme</i> infection at early (S3: 3 and 5 d) and late time (S4: 10 and 24 d) periods. B. RT-PCR analyses of the selected soybean genes. RT-PCR products of each of the four selected soybean amplified from RNAs of root tissues harvested 8 and 12 h, and 1, 2, 3, 5 days following (i) water treatment or (ii) infection with the <i>F</i>. <i>virguliforme</i> Mont-1. The results presented here are from one of three independent experiments showing similar results. <i>Glyma12g12470</i> is from the Glyma.Wm82.a1.v1.1 version of the soybean genome sequence. Other three genes are from the recent version of the soybean genome sequence (Glyma.Wm82.a2v1). <i>Elf1b</i>, elongation factor 1-β encoded by <i>Glyma02g44460</i>. C–F. Quantified expression levels of four selected genes. Gel pictures of the three biological replications are presented in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0163106#pone.0163106.s008" target="_blank">S8 Fig</a>.</p

Average <i>GmARP1</i> transgene copy numbers among the transgenic lines.

<p>Average <i>GmARP1</i> transgene copy numbers among the transgenic lines.</p

Distribution of differentially expressed genes in soybean roots in response to <i>F</i>. <i>virguliforme</i> infection.

<p>A. Total number of genes differentially (with FC ≥ 10) regulated by <i>F</i>. <i>virguliforme</i> infection. B. Number of genes up-regulated in the infected roots at early and late time-periods. C. Number of genes repressed in the infected roots at early and late time-periods. S1, pooled RNA samples prepared from roots harvested 3 and 5 days following water treatment; S2, pooled RNA samples prepared from roots harvested 10 and 24 days following water treatment; S3, pooled RNA samples prepared from roots harvested 3 and 5 days following <i>F</i>. <i>virguliforme</i> infection; S4, pooled RNA samples prepared from roots harvested 10 and 24 days following <i>F</i>. <i>virguliforme</i> infection.</p

Genes down-regulated at late time period in soybean roots infected with <i>F</i>. <i>virguliforme</i>.

<p>Genes down-regulated at late time period in soybean roots infected with <i>F</i>. <i>virguliforme</i>.</p

Genes down-regulated (with FC >10) in soybean roots during early time period following infection with <i>F</i>. <i>virguliforme</i>.

<p>The full list is reported in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0163106#pone.0163106.s014" target="_blank">S2 Dataset</a>.</p