Experimental Study and Analysis of Security Threats in Compromised Networks

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 298)


Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs) are an indispensable part of a network infrastructure where inordinate attacks such as Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) and metasploits have posed a major problem to the public and private computer networks. IDS assist the network administrators to monitor activities like gaining unauthorized access, session hijacking etc. These unlawful activities can result in losses to an enterprise, both in terms of money and resources. In this paper we detect and prevent one of the commonly occurring server attacks and follow it up with a fatal attack that can fully immobilize and destroy a server. We study and analyze the responses of the intrusion detection server when the network is exploited and the security of the network is compromised. Several dissimilar exploits are made on various Linux distributions hence, assisting the network administrators relying on the IDS to take appropriate action.


Attacks Denial of service Operating system Server attacks SNORT Vulnerability analysis 



The Usha Banerjee wishes to acknowledge the support of a WOS-A project (ref. no. : SR/WOS-A/ET-20/2008) funded by the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India.


  1. 1.
    Cuppens F (2001) Managing alerts in a multi-intrusion detection environment. In: Proceedings of ACSACGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kleinwaechter J (1998) The limitations of intrusion detection on high speed networks. In: First international workshop on the recent advances in intrusion detection (RAID’98), Louvain-La-Neuve, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marinova Boncheva V (2007) A short survey of intrusion detection systems. Institute of Information Technologies, 1113 Sofia, pp 23–30Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fung C (2011) Collaborative intrusion detection networks and insider attacks. J Wirel Mob Netw Ubiquit Comput Dependable Appl 2(1):63–74Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koch R (2011) Towards next-generation intrusion detection. Institut für Technische Informatik (ITI), Universität der Bundeswehr, MunichGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Singaraju S, Parsi K (2012) A precise survey on intrusion detection systems. Int J Adav Res Comput Sci Softw Eng 2(9):243–247Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xinzhou Q, Lee W (2003) Statistical causality analysis of infosec alert data. In: Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on recent advances in intrusion detection (RAID 2003), pp 73–93Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yasinsac A, Goregaoker S (2002) An intrusion detection system for security protocol traffic. Technical report, Department of computer science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306-4530Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koch R (2012) Fast network-based brute-force detection. In: 8th advanced international conference on telecommunications (AICT)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang Y, Lee W, Huang Y (2003) Intrusion detection techniques for mobile wireless networks. ACM Wirel Netw J 9(5):545–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Todd AD, Raines RA, Baldwin RO, Mullins BE, Rogers SK (2007) Alert verification evasion through server response forging. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on recent advances in intrusion detection (RAID’07), pp 256–275Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Banerjee U, Swaminathan A (2011) A taxonomy of attacks and attackers in MANETs. Int J Res Rev Comput Sci 2:437–441 (Academy Publishers)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    BackTrack Linux (2011)
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Wireshark available at
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Nessus available at
  18. 18.
    Ruby—an open source programming language,

Copyright information

© Springer India 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCollege of Engineering RoorkeeRoorkeeIndia
  2. 2.Department of ICTABV-IIITM GwaliorGwaliorIndia

Personalised recommendations