DOCSLIB.ORG

Towards Semi-Automated Detection of Trigger-Based Behavior for Software Security Assurance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Towards Semi-Automated Detection of Trigger-Based Behavior for Software Security Assurance Towards Semi-automated Detection of Trigger-based Behavior for Software Security Assurance Dorottya Papp Levente Buttyán Zhendong Ma CrySyS Lab, Dept. of Networked CrySyS Lab, Dept. of Networked Center of Digital Safety and Security, Systems and Services, BME Systems and Services, BME Austrian Institute of Technology Magyar tudósok krt 2. Magyar tudósok krt 2. Donau-City-Straβe 1. Budapest 1117, Hungary Budapest 1117, Hungary Vienna, Austria Center of Digital Safety and Security, [email protected] [email protected] Austrian Institute of Technology Donau-City-Straβe 1. Vienna, Austria [email protected] ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION A program exhibits trigger-based behavior if it performs undocu- Trigger-based behavior in software refers to execution of code that mented, often malicious, functions when the environmental condi- is activated on specific input values (the so called trigger inputs) tions and/or specific input values match some pre-specified criteria. and that performs some undocumented functions. Often, the users Checking whether such hidden functions exist in the program is are not aware of the existence of those undocumented functions important for increasing trustworthiness of software. In this paper, in the software. It is clear that using an application that has such we propose a framework to effectively detect trigger-based behav- hidden functions, which can be triggered by non-legitimate par- ior at the source code level. Our approach is semi-automated: We ties, is dangerous, as those functions can potentially implement use automated source code instrumentation and mixed concrete malicious actions. Indeed, the best examples for trigger-based be- and symbolic execution to generate potentially suspicious test cases havior include backdoors and logic bombs hidden in applications that may trigger hidden, potentially malicious functions. The test by malicious parties [25], although there are benign examples as cases must be investigated by a human analyst manually to decide well, such as easter eggs. Malware can also exhibit trigger-based which of them are real triggers. While our approach is not fully behavior [9, 17, 19]; however, in this paper, we are more interested automated, it greatly reduces manual work by allowing analysts to in trigger-based behavior in legitimate applications. focus on a few test cases found by our automated tools. The adversary model of trigger-based behavior assumes that the attacker has access to the software and is able to modify the CCS CONCEPTS implementation to implant the hidden, malicious behavior, which • Security and privacy → Malware and its mitigation; Soft- will be triggered during the execution of the software. In practice, ware security engineering; • Software and its engineering → the attacker may be a compromised developer or a compromised Operational analysis; contractor in the supply-chain trying to insert malicious code in the software, which can be exploited later in a targeted attack against KEYWORDS the user [6]. Or, the attacker may be a disgruntled employee at a company with access to the software used by that company [14]. Mixed Concrete and Symbolic Execution, Trigger-based Behavior, From a software security assurance perspective, the detection Static Analysis, Source Code Analysis, Software Security of trigger-based behavior in software is of paramount importance. ACM Reference format: Unfortunately, it is a difficult task. One approach is to try detecting Dorottya Papp, Levente Buttyán, and Zhendong Ma. 2017. Towards Semi- hidden functions by software testing. However, current software automated Detection of Trigger-based Behavior for Software Security Assur- testing approaches have limitations. Specification-based (or black- ance. In Proceedings of ARES ’17, Reggio Calabria, Italy, August 29-September box) testing techniques have no knowledge of the internal structure 01, 2017, 6 pages. of the software, therefore, they may only discover the hidden be- https://doi.org/10.1145/3098954.3105821 havior if the correct trigger inputs are specified. This limitation reduces their effectiveness because of the assumption that no one, Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed but the attacker has knowledge of the trigger inputs. Structural for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation (or white-box) testing, on the other hand, takes into account the on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the internal structure of the software which the hidden behavior is author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission part of. As such, white-box testing approaches can generate better and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]. results. ARES ’17, August 29-September 01, 2017, Reggio Calabria, Italy White-box analysis can be performed at the binary level or at the © 2017 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to Associa- tion for Computing Machinery. source code level. However, analyzing the binary can be difficult ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-5257-4/17/08...$15.00 due to the lack of semantic abstractions in low level code. And https://doi.org/10.1145/3098954.3105821 ARES ’17, August 29-September 01, 2017, Reggio Calabria, Italy D. Papp, L. Buttyán and Z. Ma even if one has access to the source code, detecting trigger-based correctly guess them. Considering the threat model, it is unreason- behavior by manual inspection can be tedious and error prone, able to assume that the tester knows the trigger inputs. In addition, as the human analyst has to interpret a potentially large amount the probability of correctly guessing the trigger inputs is low. of code written by someone else. Yet, today, manual source code White-box testing approaches, on the other hand, take into ac- analysis seems to be the approach that is used by practitioners count the internal structure of software. However, current auto- [1]. Although some researchers tried to automate the detection mated vulnerability-finding tools tend to focus on typical program- of trigger-based behavior, most of those works focus on binary ming vulnerabilities that are exploited by well-known and under- analysis of malware (see e.g., [2]), in which we are not interested stood attacks (e.g. buffer overflow). To assist analysts in creating test in this work. cases that cover trigger-based behavior as well, the SQA Tool [1] In this paper, we apply open-source and commercially available highlights code segments based on how much test-coverage would tools to effectively detect trigger-based behavior at the source code improve with their execution. This approach certainly improves level. We propose a framework which utilizes existing white-box the performance of human analysts, but the detection process is not analysis tools. Our approach is based on automated source code automated enough. Test cases must still be written by the analysts, instrumentation that makes the source code amenable to analysis which requires interpretation of the source code, as well as correctly by tools. Detection of trigger-based behavior is achieved by mixed determining of trigger inputs based on the source code. concrete and symbolic execution, which automatically outputs nu- Taking into account the internal structure of software is useful merous test cases for uncovered execution paths in the analyzed for the detection of trigger-based behavior, as shown in [8]. The au- software. Among those test cases, a small subset of potentially sus- thors modeled malicious behavior observed during execution, and picious test cases are automatically highlighted by our tools. Those were able to detect similar code segments in new malware samples. highlighted test cases must be investigated by a human analyst to However, this approach relies on already observed behavior and decide which of them could be a trigger input. Thus, our approach cannot detect new types of trigger-based behavior. is not fully automated, but it greatly reduces manual work by al- The ideal approach for detecting trigger-based behavior should lowing analysts to focus on the few highlighted test cases found by be able to: our automated tools. More specifically, our contributions are the following: (1) interpret how input values are handled, which is analogous to how input values modify the behavior of the analyzed (1) we present a framework for semi-automated detection of software, trigger-based behavior based on existing tools. To the best (2) automatically generate input values based on the interpre- of our knowledge, we are the first to show that existing tation, mixed concrete and symbolic execution tools can be suc- (3) identify conditions required to reach any part of the code, cessfully deployed for detecting trigger-based behavior; (4) detect suspicious conditions and decide whether the exe- (2) we demonstrate a proof-of-concept implementation of the cution path is malicious or benign framework for programs written in C using the LLVM toolchain; The first three requirements can be satisfied with symbolic exe- (3) we evaluate the results on real-world, open-source soft- cution [5], a technique that is able to calculate the constraints on ware samples. Our first result suggests that if mixed con- inputs such that execution takes a certain path (also known as the crete and symbolic execution succeeds, the hidden, mali- path condition). The technique assigns symbolic values to variables, cious behavior can be detected. that describe and track how the value of the variables depend on The paper is structured as follows. The challenges of detecting the input. At branches in the software, symbolic execution splits trigger-based behavior are discussed in Section ??, together with into two instances: in one instance, the symbolic variables are con- existing approaches to overcome those challenges.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Security , Hacking, Threats & Tools for Security
    SECURITY , HACKING, THREATS & TOOLS FOR SECURITY N.Anupama Asst Professor ANUCET ANU CONTENT Introduction to security Features of security Hacking Security threats Tools to provide security Conclusion SECURITY Security is the protection of assets. The three main aspects are: Prevention Detection re-action Information can be stolen – how to prevent it. Confidential information may be copied and sold - but the theft might not be detected The criminals try to attack and the system should react to stop it. TYPES OF SECURITY Computer Security deals with the prevention and detection of unauthorised actions by users of a computer system. Network security prevent and monitor unauthorized access, misuse, modification, or denial of a computer network and network- accessible resources. Web security deals specifically with security of websites, web applications and web service. Features of security Confidentiality Integrity Availability Non-repudiation Authentication Access Controls Accountability FEATURES OF SECURITY Confidentiality Confidentiality is keeping information secret or private. The prevention of unauthorized disclosure of information. Confidentiality might be important for military, business or personal reasons. Integrity Integrity means that there is consistency in the system - everything is as it is expected to be. Integrity is the authorised writing or modification of information. Data integrity means that the data stored on a computer is the same as the source documents. FEATURES OF SECURITY Availability Information should be accessible and useable upon appropriate demand by an authorized user. Availability is the prevention of unauthorized withholding of information. Non-repudiation Non repudiation is a method of guaranteeing message transmission between parties via digital signature and/or encryption. Non repudiation is often used for digital contracts, signatures and email messages.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Warfare a “Nuclear Option”?
    CYBER WARFARE A “NUCLEAR OPTION”? ANDREW F. KREPINEVICH CYBER WARFARE: A “NUCLEAR OPTION”? BY ANDREW KREPINEVICH 2012 © 2012 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. About the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, secu- rity policy and resource allocation. CSBA provides timely, impartial, and insight- ful analyses to senior decision makers in the executive and legislative branches, as well as to the media and the broader national security community. CSBA encour- ages thoughtful participation in the development of national security strategy and policy, and in the allocation of scarce human and capital resources. CSBA’s analysis and outreach focus on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to US national security. Meeting these challenges will require transforming the national security establishment, and we are devoted to helping achieve this end. About the Author Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr. is the President of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which he joined following a 21-year career in the U.S. Army. He has served in the Department of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment, on the personal staff of three secretaries of defense, the National Defense Panel, the Defense Science Board Task Force on Joint Experimentation, and the Defense Policy Board. He is the author of 7 Deadly Scenarios: A Military Futurist Explores War in the 21st Century and The Army and Vietnam.
    [Show full text]
  • Address Munging: the Practice of Disguising, Or Munging, an E-Mail Address to Prevent It Being Automatically Collected and Used
    Address Munging: the practice of disguising, or munging, an e-mail address to prevent it being automatically collected and used as a target for people and organizations that send unsolicited bulk e-mail address. Adware: or advertising-supported software is any software package which automatically plays, displays, or downloads advertising material to a computer after the software is installed on it or while the application is being used. Some types of adware are also spyware and can be classified as privacy-invasive software. Adware is software designed to force pre-chosen ads to display on your system. Some adware is designed to be malicious and will pop up ads with such speed and frequency that they seem to be taking over everything, slowing down your system and tying up all of your system resources. When adware is coupled with spyware, it can be a frustrating ride, to say the least. Backdoor: in a computer system (or cryptosystem or algorithm) is a method of bypassing normal authentication, securing remote access to a computer, obtaining access to plaintext, and so on, while attempting to remain undetected. The backdoor may take the form of an installed program (e.g., Back Orifice), or could be a modification to an existing program or hardware device. A back door is a point of entry that circumvents normal security and can be used by a cracker to access a network or computer system. Usually back doors are created by system developers as shortcuts to speed access through security during the development stage and then are overlooked and never properly removed during final implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • Malware Xiaowei Yang Previous Lecture
    590.05 Lecture 5: Malware Xiaowei Yang Previous lecture • Accountability • OS security Today • Malware Malware: Malicious Software 10/21/13 Malware 4 Viruses, Worms, Trojans, Rootkits • Malware can be classified into several categories, depending on propagaon and concealment • Propagaon 10/21/13 • Virus: human-assisted propagaon (e.g., open email aachment) • Worm: automac propagaon without human assistance Malware • Concealment • Rootkit: modifies operang system to hide its existence • Trojan: provides desirable funcBonality but hides malicious operaon • Various types of payloads, ranging from annoyance to crime 5 Insider Attacks • An insider a)ack is a security breach that is caused or facilitated by someone who is a part of the very organizaon that controls or builds the asset that should be protected. • In the case of malware, an insider aack refers to a security 10/21/13 hole that is created in a soXware system by one of its programmers. Malware 6 Backdoors • A backdoor, which is also someBmes called a trapdoor, is a hidden feature or command in a program that allows a user to perform acBons he or she would not normally be allowed to do. • When used in a normal way, this program performs completely as 10/21/13 expected and adverBsed. • But if the hidden feature is acBvated, the program does something Malware unexpected, oXen in violaon of security policies, such as performing a privilege escalaon. • Benign example: Easter Eggs in DVDs and soXware An Easter egg is an intenBonal inside joke, hidden message, or feature in a work such as a computer program, movie, book, or 7 crossword.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Security Software Flaws
    CS 166: Information Security Software Flaws Prof. Tom Austin San José State University If automobiles had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a Rolls- Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside. ¾ Robert X. Cringely My software never has bugs. It just develops random features. ¾ Anonymous Why Software? • Why is software as important to security as crypto, access control, protocols? • Virtually all of information security is implemented in software • If your software is subject to attack, your security can be broken – Regardless of strength of crypto, access control or protocols • Software is a poor foundation for security Bad Software is Ubiquitous • NASA Mars Lander (cost $165 million) – Crashed into Mars due to… – …error in converting English and metric units • Denver airport – Baggage handling system --- very buggy software – Delayed airport opening by 11 months – Cost of delay exceeded $1 million/day • MV-22 Osprey – Advanced military aircraft – Faulty software can be fatal Software Issues Alice and Bob Trudy • Find bugs and flaws by • Actively looks for bugs accident and flaws • Hate bad software… • Likes bad software… • …but must learn to live • …and tries to make it with it misbehave • Must make bad • Attacks systems via bad software work software Complexity “Complexity is the enemy of security”, Paul Kocher, Cryptography Research, Inc. System Lines of Code (LOC) Netscape 17 million Space Shuttle 10 million Linux kernel 2.6.0 5 million Windows XP
    [Show full text]
  • On the (In)Effectiveness of Static Logic Bomb Detector for Android
    1 On The (In)Effectiveness of Static Logic Bomb Detection for Android Apps Jordan Samhi1 Alexandre Bartel1;2;3;∗ 1 University of Luxembourg 2 University of Copenhagen 3 Umeå University Abstract—Android is present in more than 85% of mobile or after a hard-coded date, making it invisible for dynamic devices, making it a prime target for malware. Malicious code is analyses. This behavior shows how simple code logic can becoming increasingly sophisticated and relies on logic bombs to defeat most dynamic analyses leading to undetected malicious hide itself from dynamic analysis. In this paper, we perform a large scale study of TSOPEN, our open-source implementation of applications. the state-of-the-art static logic bomb scanner TRIGGERSCOPE, In the last decade, researchers have developed multiple tools on more than 500k Android applications. Results indicate that to help detecting logic bombs [7] [8] [9]. Most of them are the approach scales. Moreover, we investigate the discrepancies either not fully automated, not generic or have a low recall. and show that the approach can reach a very low false-positive However, one approach, TRIGGERSCOPE [10] stands out rate, 0.3%, but at a particular cost, e.g., removing 90% of sensitive methods. Therefore, it might not be realistic to rely because it is fully automated and has a false positive rate close on such an approach to automatically detect all logic bombs to 0.3%. In this paper, we try to replicate TRIGGERSCOPE and in large datasets. However, it could be used to speed up the perform a large-scale study to show that the approach scales.
    [Show full text]
  • Cybersecurity – Know the Threats & How to Mitigate Them
    Cybersecurity – Know The Threats & How To Mitigate Them Sam Chawkat COO Dynamic Network Solutions Background u Providing IT consulting to organizations of various sizes across several states and regions since 1996 u Our focus is in our slogan, We Take I.T. Personally u We don’t focus on just the tech, we focus on the customer experience and customer satisfaction u Dynamic Network Solutions is your “one stop shop” helping organizations with IT, cabling, AV, security, cameras, and phone systems. If it plugs in or turns on we can take care of it Cybersecurity is Safety Security: We must protect our computers and data in the same way that we secure the doors to our homes. Safety: We must behave in ways that protect us against risks and threats that come with technology. Lets Discuss The Type Of Threats That Exist Importance of Cybersecurity The internet allows an attacker to work from anywhere on the planet. Risks caused by poor security knowledge and practice: Identity Theft Monetary Theft Legal Ramifications (for yourself and your organization) Sanctions or termination if policies are not followed According to the SANS Institute, the top vectors for vulnerabilities available to a cyber criminal are: Web Browser IM Clients Web Applications Excessive User Rights User Awareness System Administrators Some scripts appear useful to manage networks… Cracker: Computer-savvy Posts to programmer creates Hacker Bulletin Board attack softwar e SQL Injection Buffer overflow Password Crackers Script Kiddies : Unsophisticated Password Dictionaries computer users who know how to execute programs Successful attacks! Crazyman broke into … CoolCat penetrated… Criminals: Create & sell bots -> generate spam Malware package earns $1K-2K Sell credit card numbers, 1 M Email addresses earn $8 etc… 10,000 PCs earn6 $1000 Leading Threats u Viruses u Worms u Trojan Horses / Logic Bombs u Social Engineering u Rootkits u Botnets / Zombies u Randsomware Viruses A virus attaches itself to a program, file, or disk.
    [Show full text]
  • “Cybersecurity in the Workplace”
    “Cybersecurity in the Workplace” How to Strengthen and Protect Your Business in an Era of Easy Computer System Access © 2018 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership. All rights reserved. Meet Today’s Presenters Ambrose McCall advises businesses on a range of Ken Yeadon uses his experience as a former Assistant U.S. employment issues, including regulatory, compliance and Attorney and SEC Enforcement Attorney to provide defense, employee program matters; he also counsels employers on representation, and advice to individuals and corporations on employee social media and digital workplace policies. criminal, securities, health care, and civil regulatory matters. Cybersecurity in the Workplace: Learning Objectives 1 2 Review relevant law that Demonstrate cybercrime promotes cybersecurity and potential recourses and protects businesses through case studies 3 Best practices that promote cybersecurity and protect your business Insert Copy Recent Examples Andrew Auernheimer – exploited vulnerability in AT&T website to obtain email addresses of AT&T iPad users Matthew Keys – disgruntled employee gave log-on info to hacker, who used info to alter an LA Times news story David Nosal – talked former colleagues into accessing their company's database to give him trade secrets to launch a competing company Cybersecurity Overview • Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (1984) Federal • Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1986) vs. State • State Laws • Civil Remedies for Employers • Criminal Penalties for Civil vs. Employees Criminal
    [Show full text]
  • Start of Lecture: March 31, 2014
    Start of Lecture: March 31, 2014 Title text: We actually stand around the antivirus displays with the Mac users just waiting for someone to ask. Chapter 15: Security !1 Reminders • Hope you had fun with Bob and Jeeva! • Exercise 5 is due this Wednesday • Assignment 3 is due next Wednesday • I will release a practice final soon • Please check your marks on docsdb for any errors Chapter 15: Security !2 Thought Questions • What is the probability of deadlock? Does that increase or decrease with more cores? • Some results that suggest that deadlock decreases if number resources increases, increases as number of processes increases and (un- intuitively) increases if both resources and processes increase together: • http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=808054 • http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? doi=10.1.1.72.4304&rep=rep1&type=pdf • Not a well understood problem that needs much more research Chapter 15: Security !3 Thought Questions • Is there a technique that tackles both external and internal fragmentation? Which would you consider more detrimental to have happen? • Both are detrimental, though arguably external segmentation builds up over time as processes terminate, whereas internal fragmentation is local to a process and gone when it terminates • Multiple page sizes get some of the best of both worlds, since there can be larger chunks (reducing the number of pages) and then smaller, finer grained pages (reducing internal fragmentation) Chapter 15: Security !4 Chapter 15: Security CMPUT 379, Section B1, Winter 2014 March 31, April 2, April 4 Objectives • Discuss goals of protection in modern systems • Discuss security threats and attacks • Explain fundamentals of encryption, authentication, hashing • Examine the uses of cryptography in computing • Describe various countermeasures to security attacks Chapter 15: Security !6 Protection versus Security • Errors in operation can be accidental or malicious • The role of protection is to provide a mechanism to enforce policies on resource use (an internal problem) • e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Cybercrime: an Overview of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Statute and Related Federal Criminal Laws
    Cybercrime: An Overview of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Statute and Related Federal Criminal Laws Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law October 15, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov 97-1025 Cybercrime: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. 1030 and Related Federal Criminal Laws Summary The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. 1030, outlaws conduct that victimizes computer systems. It is a cyber security law. It protects federal computers, bank computers, and computers connected to the Internet. It shields them from trespassing, threats, damage, espionage, and from being corruptly used as instruments of fraud. It is not a comprehensive provision, but instead it fills cracks and gaps in the protection afforded by other federal criminal laws. This is a brief sketch of CFAA and some of its federal statutory companions, including the amendments found in the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act, P.L. 110-326, 122 Stat. 3560 (2008). In their present form, the seven paragraphs of subsection 1030(a) outlaw • computer trespassing (e.g., hacking) in a government computer, 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(3); • computer trespassing (e.g., hacking) resulting in exposure to certain governmental, credit, financial, or computer-housed information, 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2); • damaging a government computer, a bank computer, or a computer used in, or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce (e.g., a worm, computer virus, Trojan horse, time bomb, a denial of service attack, and other forms of cyber attack, cyber crime, or cyber terrorism), 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Assurance for Executives Definitions
    Definitions Term Definition acquisition Process of obtaining a system, software product, or software service. Software products may include commercial, off-the- shelf (COTS) products; modified, off-the-shelf (MOTS) products; open source products; or fully developed products. The above definition was derived from these references: [IEEE-CS 2008, IEEE-CS 1998] active attack An attack that alters a system or data. [CNSS 2010] Agile An iterative and incremental (evolutionary) approach to software development which is performed in a highly collaborative manner by self-organizing teams within an effective governance framework with “just enough” ceremony that produces high quality software in a cost effective and timely manner which meets the changing needs of its stakeholders. [Ambler 2013] antivirus software Wikipedia: Software used to prevent, detect and remove malware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-virus attack Any kind of malicious activity that attempts to collect, disrupt, deny, degrade, or destroy information system resources or the information itself. [CNSS 2010] authentication 1. Authentication is the process of determining whether someone or something is who or what it declares itself to be. Passwords, security cards, and biometric solutions are often employed as methods to provide user authentication. With respect to computer systems, the use of digital certificates, which include a digital signature and are issued and verified by a certificate authority (CA) as part of a public key infrastructure, are a way to perform authentication on the Internet. There are three classic ways to authenticate: something you know, something you have, something you are. 2. The process of verifying the identity or other attributes claimed by or assumed of an entity (user, process, or device), or to verify the source and integrity of data.
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Attacks and Malicious Software
    L15 - Attacks 4/18/2019 TYPES OF ATTACKS AND MALICIOUS SOFTWARE © Robert F. Kelly, 2012-2019 ISE331 – Fundamentals of Computer Security 2 Reading Some topics in the book chapter have • Chapter 15 been covered in previous lectures • Ping of Death • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping_(networking_utility) • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping_of_death • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping_flood • Advanced Persistent Threat • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_persistent_threat 1 L15 - Attacks 4/18/2019 © Robert F. Kelly, 2012-2019 ISE331 – Fundamentals of Computer Security 3 Objectives • Become familiar with various types of attacks • Be able to identify different types of malicious software • Understand defenses against categories of attacks © Robert F. Kelly, 2012-2019 ISE331 – Fundamentals of Computer Security 4 Reasons for an Attack • Random • Look for vulnerabilities, such as • Lacking current security patches • New attack approaches • Undefended networks • Targeted • Political – Snowden • Military – Iran, Russia, • Financial – e.g., stealing credit card info • Hacktivist – e.g., fur coats 2 L15 - Attacks 4/18/2019 © Robert F. Kelly, 2012-2019 ISE331 – Fundamentals of Computer Security 5 Direct vs. Indirect Attack • Attacker might choose to attack directly • Detection probability is low • Value of attack point is limited • Indirect • Attacker uses a series of intermediate hosts between launch point and target • More difficult to block • Massed • Compromise third-party hosts and use them all • Botnets • Examples: DDoS, distributed capture of target’s network traffic © Robert F. Kelly, 2012-2019 ISE331 – Fundamentals of Computer Security 6 Types of Attacks • Denial-of-service • Phishing/pharming • Backdoors/Trapdoors • Attacks on encryption • Sniffing • Address system attacks • Spoofing • Password guessing • Man-in-the-middle • Hybrid attack • TCP/IP hijacking • Birthday attack • Injection attack 3 L15 - Attacks 4/18/2019 © Robert F.
    [Show full text]