Assessing Attack Impact on Business Processes by Interconnecting Attack Graphs and Entity Dependency Graphs
- 745 Downloads
Cyber-defense and cyber-resilience techniques sometimes fail in defeating cyber-attacks. One of the primary causes is the ineffectiveness of business process impact assessment in the enterprise network. In this paper, we propose a new business process impact assessment method, which measures the impact of an attack towards a business-process-support enterprise network and produces a numerical score for this impact. The key idea is that all attacks are performed by exploiting vulnerabilities in the enterprise network. So the impact scores for business processes are the function result of the severity of the vulnerabilities and the relations between vulnerabilities and business processes. This paper conducts a case study systematically and the result shows the effectiveness of our method.
KeywordsBusiness Process Attack Graph Impact Score CVSS Scores Interconnection Graph
We thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. This work was supported by NIST 60NANB17D279, NSF CNS-1505664, ARO W911NF-13-1-0421 (MURI), and NSF CNS-1618684.
Disclaimer. This paper is not subject to copyright in the United States. Commercial products are identified in order to adequately specify certain procedures. In no case does such identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the identified products are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
- 1.Ammann, P., Wijesekera, D., Kaushik, S.: Scalable, graph-based network vulnerability analysis. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 217–224. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
- 2.Chen, X., Zhang, M., Mao, Z.M., Bahl, P.: Automating network application dependency discovery: experiences, limitations, and new solutions. In: OSDI, vol. 8, pp. 117–130 (2008)Google Scholar
- 3.Dai, J., Sun, X., Liu, P., Giacobe, N.: Gaining big picture awareness through an interconnected cross-layer situation knowledge reference model. In: 2012 International Conference on Cyber Security (CyberSecurity), pp. 83–92. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
- 4.Dewri, R., Poolsappasit, N., Ray, I., Whitley, D.: Optimal security hardening using multi-objective optimization on attack tree models of networks. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 204–213. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
- 5.Frigault, M., Wang, L.: Measuring network security using Bayesian network-based attack graphs. In: Proceedings of the 2008 32nd Annual IEEE International Computer Software and Applications Conference, pp. 698–703. IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
- 6.Frigault, M., Wang, L., Singhal, A., Jajodia, S.: Measuring network security using dynamic Bayesian network. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Workshop on Quality of Protection, pp. 23–30. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
- 7.Jajodia, S., Noel, S., O’Berry, B.: Topological analysis of network attack vulnerability. In: Kumar, V., Srivastava, J., Lazarevic, A. (eds.) Managing Cyber Threats. Massive Computing, vol. 5, pp. 247–266. Springer, Boston, MA (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24230-9_9
- 8.Jakobson, G.: Mission cyber security situation assessment using impact dependency graphs. In: 2011 Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION), pp. 1–8. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
- 9.NIST: Cvss score (2017). https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln-metrics/cvss
- 10.Noel, S., Jajodia, S., O’Berry, B., Jacobs, M.: Efficient minimum-cost network hardening via exploit dependency graphs. In: 2003 Proceedings of 19th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pp. 86–95. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
- 11.Ou, X., Boyer, W.F., McQueen, M.A.: A scalable approach to attack graph generation. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 336–345. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
- 12.Phillips, C., Swiler, L.P.: A graph-based system for network-vulnerability analysis. In: Proceedings of the 1998 Workshop on New Security Paradigms, pp. 71–79. ACM (1998)Google Scholar
- 14.Racket: Datalog (2017). https://docs.racket-lang.org/datalog/
- 16.Saripalli, P., Walters, B.: QUIRC: a quantitative impact and risk assessment framework for cloud security. In: 2010 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), pp. 280–288. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
- 17.Sheyner, O., Haines, J., Jha, S., Lippmann, R., Wing, J.M.: Automated generation and analysis of attack graphs. In: 2002 Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 273–284. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
- 18.Sun, X., Singhal, A., Liu, P.: Who touched my mission: towards probabilistic mission impact assessment. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Workshop on Automated Decision Making for Active Cyber Defense, pp. 21–26. ACM (2015)Google Scholar