MTD assessment framework with cyber attack modeling

Moving Target Defense (MTD) has received significant focus in technical publications. The publications describe MTD approaches that periodically change some attribute of the computer network system. The attribute that is changed, in most cases, is one that an adversary attempts to gain knowledge of through reconnaissance and may use its knowledge of the attribute to exploit the system. The fundamental mechanism an MTD uses to secure the system is to change the system attributes such that the adversary never gains the knowledge and cannot execute an exploit prior to the attribute changing value. Thus, the MTD keeps the adversary from gaining the knowledge of attributes necessary to exploit the system. Most papers conduct theoretical analysis or basic simulations to assess the effectiveness of the MTD approach. More effective assessment of MTD approaches should include behavioral characteristics for both the defensive actor and the adversary; however, limited research exists on running actual attacks against an implemented system with the objective of determining the security benefits and total cost of deploying the MTD approach. This paper explores empirical assessment through experimentation of MTD approaches. The cyber-kill chain is used to characterize the actions of the adversary and identify what classes of attacks were successfully thwarted by the MTD approach and what classes of attacks could not be thwarted In this research paper, we identify the experiment environments and where experiment fidelity should be focused to evaluate the effectiveness of MTD approaches. Additionally, experimentation environments that support contemporary technologies used in MTD approaches, such as software defined networking (SDN), are also identified and discussed.

[1]  Angelos Stavrou,et al.  MOTAG: Moving Target Defense against Internet Denial of Service Attacks , 2013, 2013 22nd International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN).

[2]  John R. Levine,et al.  The Remote Framebuffer Protocol , 2011, RFC.

[3]  Qishi Wu,et al.  AVOIDIT: A Cyber Attack Taxonomy , 2009 .

[4]  Brian P. Van Leeuwen,et al.  Operational cost of deploying Moving Target Defenses defensive work factors , 2015, MILCOM 2015 - 2015 IEEE Military Communications Conference.

[5]  George Cybenko,et al.  No free lunch in cyber security , 2014, MTD '14.

[6]  William W. Streilein,et al.  Finding Focus in the Blur of Moving-Target Techniques , 2014, IEEE Security & Privacy.

[7]  Scott A. DeLoach,et al.  Towards a Theory of Moving Target Defense , 2014, MTD '14.

[8]  Sean Peisert,et al.  Techniques for the dynamic randomization of network attributes , 2015, 2015 International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (ICCST).

[9]  Joseph G. Tront,et al.  MT6D: A Moving Target IPv6 Defense , 2011, 2011 - MILCOM 2011 Military Communications Conference.

[10]  Vincent Urias,et al.  Performing cyber security analysis using a live, virtual, and constructive (LVC) testbed , 2010, 2010 - MILCOM 2010 MILITARY COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE.

[11]  Eric Michael Hutchins,et al.  Intelligence-Driven Computer Network Defense Informed by Analysis of Adversary Campaigns and Intrusion Kill Chains , 2010 .

[12]  Hovav Shacham,et al.  On the effectiveness of address-space randomization , 2004, CCS '04.

[13]  Erik Lee,et al.  Network Randomization and Dynamic Defense for Critical Infrastructure Systems , 2015 .