Skip to main content
Log in

Cybersecurity threat intelligence knowledge exchange based on blockchain

Proposal of a new incentive model based on blockchain and Smart contracts to foster the cyber threat and risk intelligence exchange of information

  • Published:
Telecommunication Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although cyber threat intelligence (CTI) exchange is a theoretically useful technique for improving security of a society, the potential participants are often reluctant to share their CTI and prefer to consume only, at least in voluntary based approaches. Such behavior destroys the idea of information exchange. On the other hand, governments are forcing specific entities and operators to report them specific incidents depending on their impact, otherwise there could be sanctions to those operators which are not reporting them on time. Obligations and sanctions are usually discouraging participants to share information voluntarily which will just share and report what is strictly required. We propose a paradigm shift of cybersecurity information exchange by introducing a new way to encourage all participants involved, at all levels, to share relevant information dynamically. It will also contribute to the support and deployment of Dynamic Risk Management frameworks to keep risks under an acceptance level along the time. Participants will have new and specific incentives to share, invest and consume threat intelligence and risk intelligence information depending on their different roles (producers, consumers, investors, donors and owner). Our proposal leverages from standards like Structured Threat Information Exchange, as well as W3C semantic web standards to enable a workspace of knowledge related to behavioral threat intelligence patterning to characterize tactics, techniques and procedures. At the same time, we propose an Ethereum Blockchain Smart contract Marketplace to better incentivize the sharing of that knowledge between all parties involved as well as creating a standard CTI token as a digital asset with a promising value in the market. Simulations and an experimentation were performed to demonstrate its benefits and incentives, but also its potential limits with regard to storage and cost of transactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/1148/oj.

  2. https://www.w3.org/OWL/.

  3. https://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/.

  4. https://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/develop/abi-spec.html.

  5. https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.

  6. https://www.coingecko.com/en/ico.

  7. https://metamask.io/.

  8. https://infura.io/.

  9. https://remix.ethereum.org/.

  10. https://truffleframework.com/ganache.

  11. https://ropsten.etherscan.io/.

  12. https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-solidity/blob/master/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol.

  13. https://ethgasstation.info/index.php.

  14. https://ipfs.io/.

  15. https://filecoin.io/filecoin.pdf.

  16. https://storj.io/whitepaper/.

References

  1. OSINT, ATP 22-2.29. Open source intelligence headquarters departments of the army. Retrieved June 1, 2019 from https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/atp2-22-9.pdf.

  2. NIST Guide to CTI sharing. (2016). Guide to cyber threat information sharing, Special Publication 800-150. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-150.

  3. Vishik, C., Sheldon, F., & Ott, D. (2013). Economic incentives for cybersecurity: Using economics to design technologies ready for deployment. In H. Reimer, N. Pohlmann & W. Schneider (Eds), ISSE 2013 securing electronic business processes (pp. 133-147). Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-03371-2_12.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Tosh, D., Sengupta, S., Kamhoua, C. A., & Kwiat, K. A. (2018). Establishing evolutionary game models for CYBer security information EXchange (CYBEX). Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 98, 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2016.08.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Skopik, F., Settanni, G., & Fiedler, R. (2016). A problem shared is a problem halved: A survey on the dimensions of collective cyber defense through security information sharing. Computers and Security, 60, 154–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2016.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. de Fuentes, J. M., González-Manzano, L., Tapiador, J., & Peris-Lopez, P. (2017). PRACIS: Privacy-preserving and aggregatable cybersecurity information sharing. Computers and Security, 69, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2016.12.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ring, T. (2014). Threat intelligence: Why people don’t share. Computer Fraud and Security, 2014(3), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-3723(14)70469-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tounsi, W., & Rais, H. (2018). A survey on technical threat intelligence in the age of sophisticated cyber attacks. Computers and Security, 72, 212–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2017.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Riesco, R., & Villagra, V. A. (2019). Leveraging cyber threat intelligence for a dynamic risk framework. International Journal of Information Security. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-019-00433-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sauerwein, C. et al. (2017). Threat intelligence sharing platforms: An exploratory study of software vendors and research perspectives. Wirtschaftsinformatik. Retrieved June 1, 2019 from https://www.wi2017.ch/images/wi2017-0188.pdf.

  11. Leszczyna, R., & Wróbel, M.R. (2019). Threat intelligence platform for the energy sector. In Wiley online library. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.2705.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wagner, C., Dulaunoy, A., Wagener, G., & Iklody, A., MISP: The design and implementation of a collaborative threat intelligence sharing platform. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on workshop on information sharing and collaborative security (WISCS ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA (pp. 49–56). https://doi.org/10.1145/2994539.2994542.

  13. NATO OSINT Handbook. NATO Open source intelligence handbook. Retrieved June 1, 2019 from https://www.academia.edu/4037348/NATO_Open_Source_Intelligence_Handbook.

  14. Bianco, D. (2014). The pyramid of pain. Retrieved June 1, 2019 from http://detect-respond.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-pyramid-of-pain.html.

  15. OASIS. TTP (Techniques, Tactics and Procedures by STIX™. Retrieved June 1, 2019 from https://stixproject.github.io/getting-started/whitepaper/#tactics-techniques-and-procedures-ttp.

  16. ERC20 token IEIP20 - ERC20 standard token. Retrieved June 1, 2019 from https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-20.

  17. W3C. Reasoner. Retrieved June 1, 2019 from https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Category:Reasoner.

  18. OASIS. STIX™2.0 specifications. Retrieved June 1, 2019 from https://oasis-open.github.io/cti-documentation/stix/intro#stix-2-objects.

  19. W3C. OWL. Retrieved June 1, 2019 from https://www.w3.org/OWL/.

  20. W3C. Ontology. Retrieved June 1, 2019 from https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ontology.

  21. W3C. SWRL semantic web rule language. Retrieved June 1, 2019 from https://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/.

  22. Nath, I. (2016). Data exchange platform to fight insurance fraud on blockchain. In IEEE 16th international conference on data mining workshops (ICDMW). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMW.2016.0121.

  23. Polyswarm. Polyswarm decentralized threat detection marketplace. Retrieved June 1, 2019 from https://polyswarm.io.

  24. Graf, R., & King, R. (2018). Neural network and blockchain based technique for cyber threat intelligence and situational awareness. In International conference on cyber conflict, CYCON. https://doi.org/10.23919/CYCON.2018.8405028.

  25. OASIS. STIX™White paper. Retrieved June 1, 2019 from https://stixproject.github.io/about/STIX_Whitepaper_v1.1.pdf.

  26. Ravsan, S.K. (2018). Utility tokens: Discussion, economic model and simulation in R, Hackernoon. Retrieved June 1, 2019 from https://hackernoon.com/utility-tokens-discussion-economic-model-and-simulation-in-r-798c0ff3d26c.

  27. Ciaian, P., Rajcaniova, M., & Kancs, A. (2016). The economics of BitCoin price formation. Applied Economics, 48(19), 1799–1815. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2015.1109038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zheng, Q., Li, Y., Chen, P. & Dong, X. (2018). An innovative IPFS-based storage model for blockchain. In IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence, WI. https://doi.org/10.1109/WI.2018.000-8.

  29. Ethereum contract storage. How to read Ethereum contract storage. Retrieved June 1, 2019 from https://medium.com/aigang-network/how-to-read-ethereum-contract-storage-44252c8af925.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Riesco.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Riesco, R., Larriva-Novo, X. & Villagra, V.A. Cybersecurity threat intelligence knowledge exchange based on blockchain. Telecommun Syst 73, 259–288 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-019-00613-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-019-00613-4

Keywords

Navigation