Optimal Adversary Behavior for the Serial Model of Financial Attack Trees

  • Margus Niitsoo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6434)

Abstract

Attack tree analysis is used to estimate different parameters of general security threats based on information available for atomic subthreats. We focus on estimating the expected gains of an adversary based on both the cost and likelihood of the subthreats. Such a multi-parameter analysis is considerably more complicated than separate probability or skill level estimation, requiring exponential time in general. However, this paper shows that under reasonable assumptions a completely different type of optimal substructure exists which can be harnessed into a linear-time algorithm for optimal gains estimation. More concretely, we use a decision-theoretic framework in which a rational adversary sequentially considers and performs the available attacks. The assumption of rationality serves as an upper bound as any irrational behavior will just hurt the end result of the adversary himself. We show that if the attacker considers the attacks in a goal-oriented way, his optimal expected gains can be computed in linear time. Our model places the least restrictions on adversarial behavior of all known attack tree models that analyze economic viability of an attack and, as such, provides for the best efficiently computable estimate for the potential reward.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lippmann, R.P., Ingols, K.: An annotated review of past papers on attack graphs (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ammann, P., Wijesekera, D., Kaushik, S.: Scalable, graph-based network vulnerability analysis. In: CCS 2002: Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 217–224 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jajodia, S., Noel, S., O’Berry, B.: Topological analysis of network attack vulnerability. In: Managing Cyber Threats: Issues, Approaches and Challenges (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ericson II, C.A.: Fault tree analysis - a history. In: Proceedings of the 17th International System Safety Conference (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weiss, J.D.: A system security engineering process. In: Proceedings of the 14th National Computer Security Conference, pp. 572–581 (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schneier, B.: Attack trees: Modeling security threats. Dr. Dobb’s Journal 24, 21–29 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edge, K.S.: A Framework for Analyzing and Mitigating the Vulnerabilities of Complex Systems via Attack and Protection Trees. PhD thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology, Ohio (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Espedahlen, J.H.: Attack trees describing security in distributed internet-enabled metrology. Master’s thesis, Department of Computer Science and Media Technology, Gjøvik University College (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moore, A.P., Ellison, R.J., Linger, R.C.: Attack modeling for information security and survivability. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2001-TN-001, Software Engineering Institute (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mauw, S., Oostdijk, M.: Foundations of attack trees. In: Won, D., Kim, S. (eds.) ICISC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3935, pp. 186–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amenaza: Secur/tree attack tree modeling (2010), http://www.amenaza.com/
  12. 12.
    Buldas, A., Laud, P., Priisalu, J., Saarepera, M., Willemson, J.: Rational Choice of Security Measures via Multi-Parameter Attack Trees. In: López, J. (ed.) CRITIS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4347, pp. 235–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buldas, A., Mägi, T.: Practical security analysis of e-voting systems. In: Miyaji, A., Kikuchi, H., Rannenberg, K. (eds.) IWSEC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4752, pp. 320–335. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jürgenson, A., Willemson, J.: Computing exact outcomes of multi-parameter attack trees. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2008, Part II. LNCS, vol. 5332, pp. 1036–1051. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jürgenson, A., Willemson, J.: Serial model for attack tree computations. In: Lee, D., Hong, S. (eds.) ICISC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5984, pp. 118–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jürgenson, A., Willemson, J.: Processing multi-parameter attacktrees with estimated parameter values. In: Miyaji, A., Kikuchi, H., Rannenberg, K. (eds.) IWSEC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4752, pp. 308–319. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Niitsoo, M.: Optimal adversary behavior for the serial model of financial attack trees. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2010/412 (2010) http://eprint.iacr.org/
  18. 18.
    Jensen, F.V.: Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs. In: Information Science and Statistics. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wegener, I.: Branching programs and binary decision diagrams: theory and applications. SIAM, Philadelphia (2000)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margus Niitsoo
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of TartuTartuEstonia
  2. 2.Cybernetica ASTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations