Cloud Intrusion Detection and Prevention System for M-Voting Application in South Africa: Suricata vs. Snort

  • Moloiyatsana Dina Moloja
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 738)

Abstract

Information and Communication Technology is giving rise to new technologies and solutions that were not possible a few years ago. Electronic voting is one of the technologies that has emerged. One of the subsets of e-voting is mobile voting. Mobile voting is the use of mobile phones to cast a vote outside the restricted electoral boundaries. Mobile phones are pervasive; they offer connection anywhere, at any time. However, utilising a fast-growing medium such as the mobile phone to cast a vote, poses various security threats and challenges such as viruses, Trojans and worms. Many approaches for mobile phone security were based on running a lightweight intrusion detection software on the mobile phone. Nevertheless, such security solutions failed to provide effective protection as they are constrained by the limited memory, storage and computational resources of mobile phones. This paper compared and evaluated two intrusion detection and prevention systems named Suricata and Snort to equate, among the two security systems the one suitable to secure mobile voting application called XaP, while casting a vote. Simulations were used to evaluate the two security systems and results indicated that Suricata is more effective, reliable, accurate and secure than Snort when comes to protecting XaP.

Keywords

Mobile phone voting Cloud computing Intrusion detection and prevention systems 

References

  1. 1.
    F. Breitinger, C. Nickel, User survey on phone security and usage, in BIOSIG 2010, pp. 139–144Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Eilu, R. Baguma, J.S. Pettersson, M-voting in developing countries: findings from Uganda. Commonwealth Governance Handbook 15, 25–28 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. Mpekoa, A model of mobile phone voting system for South Africa (Masters dissertation, Tshwane University of Technology), 2014Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Chin, A.P. Felt, V. Sekar, D. Wagner, Measuring user confidence in smartphone security and privacy, in Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security, 2012, p. 1. ACMGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. He, S. Chan, M. Guizani, Mobile application security: malware threats and defenses. IEEE Wirel Commun 22(1), 138–144 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. La Polla, F. Martinelli, D. Sgandurra, A survey on security for mobile devices. IEEE Commun Surv Tutorials 15(1), 446–471 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Zissis, D. Lekkas, Securing e-Government and e-Voting with an open cloud computing architecture. Gov Inf Q 28(2), 239–251 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. Khamphakdee, N. Benjamas, S. Saiyod, Improving intrusion detection system based on snort rules for network probe attacks detection with association rules technique of data mining. J ICT Res Appl 8(3), 234–250 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Ahmed, A.N. Mahmood, J. Hu, A survey of network anomaly detection techniques. J Netw Comput Appl 60, 19–31 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    N. Hubballi, V. Suryanarayanan, False alarm minimization techniques in signature-based intrusion detection systems: a survey. Comput Commun 49, 1–17 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.S. White, T. Fitzsimmons, J.N. Matthews, Quantitative analysis of intrusion detection systems: Snort and Suricata. in SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing, 2013, 875704Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Zonouz, A. Houmansadr, R. Berthier, N. Borisov, W. Sanders, Secloud: a cloud-based comprehensive and lightweight security solution for smartphones. Comput Secur 37(2013), 215–227 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Albin, N.C. Rowe, A realistic experimental comparison of the Suricata and Snort intrusion-detection systems, in 26th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (WAINA), 2012, pp. 122–127. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Day, B. Burns, A performance analysis of snort and suricata network intrusion detection and prevention engines, in Fifth International Conference on Digital Society, Gosier, Guadeloupe, 2011, pp. 187–192Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. Xing, D. Huang, L. Xu, C.J. Chung, P. Khatkar, Snortflow: a openflow-based intrusion prevention system in cloud environment, in Research and Educational Experiment Workshop (GREE), 2013 Second GENI, 2013, pp. 89–92. IEEEGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Moloiyatsana Dina Moloja
    • 1
  1. 1.Central University of TechnologyWestdeneSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations