Advertisement

Applied Intelligence

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 369–390 | Cite as

A planner-based approach to generate and analyze minimal attack graph

  • Nirnay Ghosh
  • S. K. Ghosh
Article

Abstract

In the present scenario, even well administered networks are susceptible to sophisticated cyber attacks. Such attack combines vulnerabilities existing on different systems/services and are potentially more harmful than single point attacks. One of the methods for analyzing such security vulnerabilities in an enterprise network is the use of attack graph. It is a complete graph which gives a succinct representation of different attack scenarios, depicted by attack paths. An attack path is a logical succession of exploits, where each exploit in the series satisfies the preconditions for subsequent exploits and makes a causal relationship among them. Thus analysis of the attack graph may help in assessing network security from hackers’ perspective. One of the intrinsic problems with the generation and analysis of such a complete attack graph is its scalability. In this work, an approach based on Planner, a special purpose search algorithm from artificial intelligence domain, has been proposed for time-efficient, scalable representation of the attack graphs. Further, customized algorithms have been developed for automatic generation of attack paths (using Planner as a low-level module). The analysis shows that generation of attack graph using the customized algorithms can be done in polynomial time. A case study has also been presented to demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed methodology.

Keywords

Network security Attack graph Attack path Exploit Planner 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Noel S, Jajodia S, O’Berry B, Jacobs M (2003) Efficient minimum-cost network hardening via exploit dependency graph. In: Proceedings of 19th annual computer security applications conference (ACSAC 2003), Las Vegas, Nevada, pp 86–95 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Phillips C, Swiler LP (1998) A graph-based system for network-vulnerability analysis. In: Proceedings of the workshop on new security paradigms (NSPW), Virginia, USA, pp 71–79 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tidwell T, Larson R, Fitch K, Hale J (2001) Modelling internet attacks. In: Proceedings of the second annual IEEE SMC information assurance workshop, United States Military Academy, West Point, New York. IEEE Press, New York, pp 54–59 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dawkins J, Hale J (2004) A systematic approach to multi-stage network attack analysis. In: Proceedings of the second IEEE internation information assurance workshop (IWIA ’04), IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 48–56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ortalo R, Deswarte Y, Kanniche M (1999) Experimenting with quantitative evaluation tools for monitoring operational security. IEEE Trans Soft Eng 25(5):633–650 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ritchey RW, Ammann P (2000) Using model checking to analyze network vulnerabilities. In: Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE symposium on security and privacy, Oakland, CA, pp 156–165 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Templeton S, Levitt K (2001) A requires/provides model for computer attacks. In: Proceedings of the 2000 workshop on new security paradigms, Ballycotton, County Cork, Ireland. ACM Press, New York, pp 31–38 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sheynar O, Jha S, Wing JM, Lippmann RP, Haines J (2002) Automated generation and analysis of attack graphs. In: Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE symposium on security and privacy, pp 273–284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ammann P, Wijesekera D, Kaushik S (2002) Scalable, graph-based network vulnerability analysis. In: Proceedings of CCS 2002: 9th ACM conference on computer and communications security, Washington, DC. ACM Press, New York, pp 217–224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jajodia S, Noel S, O’Berry B (2005) Topological analysis of network attack vulnerability. In: Managing cyber threats: issues, approaches and challenges, vol V. Springer, New York, pp 247–266 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ammann P, Pamula J, Ritchey R, Street J (2005) A host-based approach to network attack chaining analysis. In: Proceedings of the 21st annual computer security applications conference (ACSAC), pp 72–84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pamula J, Jajodia S, Ammann P, Swarup V (2006) A weakest-adversary security metric for network configuration security analysis. In: Proceedings of 2nd ACM workshop on quality of protection. ACM Press, New York, pp 31–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang T, Hu MZ, Li D, Sun L (2005) An effective method to generate attack graph. In: Proceedings of the international conference on machine learning and cybernetics (ICMLC), Guangzhou, China, pp 3926–3931 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ingols K, Lippmann R, Piwowarski K (2006) Practical attack graph generation for network defense. In: Proceedings of the 22nd annual computer security applications conference (ACSAC ’06), pp 121–130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang L, Islam T, Long T, Singhal A, Jajodia S (2008) An attack graph-based probabilistic security metric. In: Proceedings of the international federation for information processing (IFIP). LNCS, vol 5094, pp 283–296 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang L, Noel S, Jajodia S (2006) Minimum cost-network hardening using attack graphs. Comput Commun 29(18):3812–3824 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Blum AL, Furst ML (1997) Fast planning through planning graph analysis. J Artif Intell 281–300 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bonet B, Geffner H (2001) Planning and control in artificial intelligence: A unifying perspective. Appl Intell 14:237–252 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fox M, Long D (2003) Pddl 2.1: An extension to pddl for expression temporal planning domains. J Artif Intell Res, 61–124 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martin M, Geffner H (2004) Learning generalized policies from planning examples using concept languages. Appl Intell 20:9–19 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sheynar O (2004) Scenario graphs and attack graphs. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, USA Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sheynar O, Wing JM (2004) Tools for generating and analyzing attack graphs. In: Proceedings of the workshop on formal methods for components and objects (FMCO), Leiden, The Netherlands, pp 344–371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen Y, Hsu C, Wah B (2006) Temporal planning using subgoal partitioning and resolution in sgplan. J Artif Intell Res, 323–369 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ghosh N, Ghosh SK (2009) An intelligent technique for generating minimal attack graph. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on intelligent security (security and artificial intelligence, SecArt 2009), 19th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS’09), Thessaloniki, Greece, pp 42–51 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bhattacharya S (2008) Security risk management of local area network. Master’s thesis, School of Information Technology, I.I.T Kharagpur Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ghosh N, Ghosh SK (2010) An intelligent approach for security management of an enterprise network using planner. Studies in computational intelligence, vol 275. Springer, Berlin, pp 187–214 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cuppens F, Ortalo R (2000) Lambda: A language to model a database for detection of attacks. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on the recent advances in intrusion detection (RAID). LNCS, vol 1907. Springer, Berlin, pp 197–216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grinstead CM, Snell JL (1997) Introduction to probability. American Mathematical Society, Providence zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lippmann RP, Ingols IW (2005) An annotated review of past papers on attack graphs. Technical Report ESC-TR-2005-054, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Swiler LP, Phillips C, Ellis D, Chakerian S (2001) Computer-attack graph generation tool. In: Proceedings of the 2nd DARPA information survivability conference & exposition (DISCEX II), vol II. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 307–321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information TechnologyIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations