Collaboration between Competing Mobile Network Operators to Improve CIIP

  • Peter Schoo
  • Manfred Schäfer
  • André Egners
  • Hans Hofinger
  • Sascha Wessel
  • Marian Kuehnel
  • Sascha Todt
  • Michael Montag
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7722)

Abstract

Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) deploy a vital part of today’s Critical Information Infrastructures (CII). Protection of these CIIs shall ensure operational continuity despite of the potential loss of system integrity and malware attacks. Sharing information about security related incidents allows MNOs to better react to attacks and anomalies, and to mitigate the impact of the observed phenomena. The fear to risk its reputation may hinder an MNO to share information that could help other MNOs to improve their protection and assure operational continuity. The contributions of this paper are technical solutions for collaboration between competing MNOs, which prevent loss of reputation and thus improve the acceptance to share information.

Keywords

CIIP Collaboration Information Sharing Mobile Communications Malware Integrity Protection User Equipment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    3GPP: Security of Home Node B (HNB) / Home evolved Node B (HeNB)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    3GPP: System Architecture Evolution (SAE); Security architectureGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apvrille, A., Yang, K.: Defeating mTANs for Profit - part one. Technical report, Virus Bulletin (March 2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bennett, K., Grothoff, C.: gap – Practical Anonymous Networking. In: Dingledine, R. (ed.) PET 2003. LNCS, vol. 2760, pp. 141–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brunner, M., Hofinger, H., Roblee, C., Schoo, P., Todt, S.: Anonymity and Privacy in Distributed Early Warning Systems. In: Xenakis, C., Wolthusen, S. (eds.) CRITIS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6712, pp. 81–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bu, Z., Dirro, T., Greve, P., Lin, Y., Marcus, D., Paget, F., Schmugar, C., Shah, J., Sommer, D., Szor, P., Wostowsky, A.: McAfee Threats Report: First Quarter 2012. Technical report, McAfee Labs (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burkhart, M., Strasser, M., Many, D., Dimitropoulos, X.A.: SEPIA: Privacy-Preserving Aggregation of Multi-Domain Network Events and Statistics. In: USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 223–240 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Danyliw, R., Meijer, J., Demchenko, Y.: The Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF). RFC 5070 (Proposed Standard) (December 2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Egners, A., Rey, E., Schmidt, H., Schneider, P., Wessel, S.: Threat and Risk Analysis for Mobile Communication Networks and Mobile Terminals. Deliverable D5.1 (II), ASMONIA Projekt (March 2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Egners, A., Schäfer, M., Wessel, S.: Evaluating Methods to assure System Integrity and Requirements for Future Protection Concepts. Deliverable D2.1, ASMONIA Projekt (April 2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Egners, A., Schäfer, M., Wessel, S.: Protection Methods for Target Systems - 4G Network Elements and Smart Phones. Deliverable D2.2, ASMONIA Projekt (July 2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kossakowski, K., Sander, J., Grobauer, B., Mehlau, J.I.: A German Early Warning Information System - Challenges and Approaches. Presentation at 18th Annual FIRST Conference (June 2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kursawe, K., Schellekens, D., Preneel, B.: Analyzing trusted platform communication. In: ECRYPT Workshop, CRASH - CRyptographic Advances in Secure Hardware (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Locasto, M., Parekh, J., Misra, V., Stolfo, S.: Collaborative Distributed Intrusion Detection. Technical report, Columbia University (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park, S., Park, H., Won, Y., Lee, J., Kent, S.: Traceable Anonymous Certificate. RFC 5636 (Experimental) (August 2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pinkerton, S.: A Federated Model For Cyber Security. In: Cyberspace Research Workshop, Shreveport, LA (November 2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schäfer, M., Moeller, W.D.: Tailored Concepts for Software Integrity Protection in Mobile Networks. International Journal On Advances in Security (numbers 1 and 2), 54 – 66 (September 2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stratonovich, R.: Conditional Markov Processes. Theory of Probability and its Applications 5(2), 156–178 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    TCG: TPM Main Specifications, Parts 1-3, Specification Version 1.2, Level 2, Revisions 103. Technical report, TCG (July 2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Traynor, P., Lin, M., Ongtang, M., Rao, V., Jaeger, T., McDaniel, P., La Porta, T.: On Cellular Botnets: Measuring the Impact of Malicious Devices on a Cellular Network Core. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2009, pp. 223–234. ACM, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wessel, S., Stumpf, F.: Page-based Runtime Integrity Protection of User and Kernel Code. In: Proceedings of 5th European Workshop on System Security, EuroSec 2012. ACM Press (April 2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Winter, J., Dietrich, K.: A Hijacker’s Guide to the LPC Bus. In: Petkova-Nikova, S., Pashalidis, A., Pernul, G. (eds.) EuroPKI 2011. LNCS, vol. 7163, pp. 176–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yegneswaran, V., Barford, P., Jha, S.: Global Intrusion Detection in the DOMINO Overlay System. In: NDSS (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Schoo
    • 1
  • Manfred Schäfer
    • 2
  • André Egners
    • 3
  • Hans Hofinger
    • 1
  • Sascha Wessel
    • 1
  • Marian Kuehnel
    • 3
  • Sascha Todt
    • 1
  • Michael Montag
    • 2
  1. 1.Fraunhofer AISECGarching near MunichGermany
  2. 2.Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbHMunichGermany
  3. 3.UMIC Research CentreRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations