Intrusion detection testing and benchmarking methodologies
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 20

Intrusion Detection Testing and Benchmarking Methodologies PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 47 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Intrusion Detection Testing and Benchmarking Methodologies. Nicholas Athanasiades, Randal Abler, John Levine, Henry Owen, and George Riley School of Electrical and Computer Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology. 1. Introduction. Beginning of the Intrusion Detection Evaluation

Download Presentation

Intrusion Detection Testing and Benchmarking Methodologies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Intrusion detection testing and benchmarking methodologies

Intrusion Detection Testing and Benchmarking Methodologies

Nicholas Athanasiades, Randal Abler, John Levine, Henry Owen, and George Riley

School of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology


1 introduction

1. Introduction

  • Beginning of the Intrusion Detection Evaluation

    • DARPA(1998~1999)

    • LARIAT (Lincoln Adaptable Real-time Information Assurance Test-bed)(2000~2001)

  • Most common methodologies

  • Traffic generation is one of the most difficult ones

    • Synthetic traffic not represent the realities of an actual network

      • SmartBits

      • Scripting tools


2 existing tools and testing methodologies

2. Existing Tools and Testing Methodologies

  • A. DARAPA Environment

  • B. LARIAT Environment

  • C. Nidsbench and IDS Wakeup

  • D. IDSwakeup

  • E. Flame Thrower

  • F. WebAvalanche/WebReflector

  • G. Tcpreplay

  • H. Fragrouter

  • I. Hping2

  • J. Iperf


2 existing tools and testing methodologies1

2. Existing Tools and Testing Methodologies

  • A. DARAPA Environment

    • Approach

      • An off-line (Tune and optimize) and an on-line (actual testing) evaluation executed

      • Tcpreplay

    • Protocol/traffic activity

      • HTTP, X window, SQL, SMTP, DNS, FTP, POP3, Finger, Telnet, IRC, SNMP, and Time


2 existing tools and testing methodologies2

2. Existing Tools and Testing Methodologies

  • A. DARAPA Environment

Figure 1 Attacks in the 1998 DARPA evaluation


2 existing tools and testing methodologies3

2. Existing Tools and Testing Methodologies

  • A. DARAPA Environment

    • 1999: the goals shifted to testing complete systems

    • Changes and additions

      • Victim Windows NT added

      • New stealthy attacks added

      • Two new types of analysis performed

        • An analysis of misses and high-scoring false alarms

        • Participants were allowed to submit information aiding in the identification of many attacks and their appropriate response

      • Detection of novel attacks without first training


2 existing tools and testing methodologies4

2. Existing Tools and Testing Methodologies

  • B. LARIAT Environment

    • LARIAT “emulates the network traffic from a small organization connected to the Internet”

    • Many phases

      • Network discovery phase

      • Then, initializes the network and configures the hosts

      • The test’s conditions are set up

    • Traffic generation is done through the use of defined service models

      • Modified a Linux Kernel that allow their software to generate background traffic

    • Part of a government project and not publicly available


2 existing tools and testing methodologies5

2. Existing Tools and Testing Methodologies

  • C. Nidsbench

    • A NIDS Test Suite released in 1999

    • Made up of the components tcpreplay, idtest and fragrouter

  • D. IDSwakeup

    • Like Nidsbench

    • It generates false attacks, a false positive test utility

    • Consists of IDSwakeup and utilizes hping and iwu

  • E. Flame Thrower

    • Commercial load stress tool used to identify network infrastructure weaknesses

    • Produces transaction in order to test network infrastructure and applications

    • Supports HTTP/HTTPS 1.0, 1.1 and SSL

    • It can emulate over two million IP address

    • FirewallStressor measure throughput under attack conditions

    • Flame Thrower intended for testing firewalls


2 existing tools and testing methodologies6

2. Existing Tools and Testing Methodologies

  • F. WebAvalanche/WebReflector

    • Commercial network appliances used in the testing of IDS

    • WebAvalanche is a stress-testing appliance

    • WebReflector emulates the behavior of large Web, application and data server environments

    • Support such as HTTP 1.0/1.1, SSL, RTSP/RTP and FTP

    • Measure percent dropped packets, latencies, maximum number of users and new user arrival rates

  • G. Tcpreplay

    • Allows captured traffic to be played back on a network at different speeds

    • Tcpdump or snoop


2 existing tools and testing methodologies7

2. Existing Tools and Testing Methodologies

  • H. Fragrouter

    • An attack generation tool

    • For testing anti-evasion techniques and fragmentation queues

  • I. Hping2

    • A command-line packet assembler and analyzer

    • Allows one to create and transmit custom ICMP, UDP, and TCP packets

    • Fingerprint remote operating systems

  • J. Iperf

    • Measures bandwidth, delay jitter and datagram loss

    • Used as a background traffic source


4 examples of intrusion detection evaluation environments

4. Examples of Intrusion Detection Evaluation Environments

  • DARPA Like Environment

  • Custom Software

  • Advanced Security Audit Trail Analysis on Unix

  • Vendor Independent Testing Lab

  • Trade Magazine Evaluation


Darpa like environment

DARPA Like Environment

  • 5 components

    • Traffic generating

    • Victim was “an anonymous FTP server running on a Sun UltraSparc-1 using a Solaris 2.5 OS

    • Attack Injection programs

    • The in house reference programs counted the number of hung connection at the victim server as a measure of attack effectiveness. They used a metric called virulence. Virulence described the intensity of an attack situation.

    • The evaluation method was to use 10, 15, 30, 40 and 60 attacking hosts each utilizing rates of varying rates of attacks per second.


Custom software

Custom Software

  • A software platform that simulates intrusions and tests IDS effectiveness

  • Criteria used included

    • Broad Detection Range

    • Economy in resource usage

    • Resilience to stress

  • The benchmark platform was base on Expect and Tool Command Language Distributed Programming (TCL-DP) package


A dvanced s ecurity audit trail a nalysis on uni x

Advanced Security audit trail Analysis on uniX

  • The test consisted of the following scenarios

    • Trojan horse

    • Attempted break-ins

    • Masquerading

    • Suspicious connections

    • Black listed addresses

    • Nosing: numerous moves through directories

    • Privilege abuse


Vendor independent testing lab

Vendor Independent Testing Lab

  • NSS tests a broad range of features of IDS

    • Convenience: ease of installation, deployment and management

    • UI: reporting and alerts delivered

    • Attack signatures

    • Accuracy

    • Peripheral issues like licensing, documentation and log management


Vendor independent testing lab1

Vendor Independent Testing Lab

  • NSS’s test-bed

    • P3 1GHz 768 MB RAM running Windows 2000 SP2, FreeBSD 4.4 or Red Hat 6.2/7.1

    • Ghost image

    • 100M Ethernet with CAT-5, Intel NetStructure 40T routing Switches and Intel auto-sensing 10/100 network cards

    • IDS installed on a dual-homed PC on each subnet

    • No firewall used


Vendor independent testing lab2

Vendor Independent Testing Lab

  • NSS five types of tests

    • Attack recognition

      • SAN top 20 and/or ICAT top 10 vulnerability lists

    • Performance under load

      • Back Orifice ping

      • 64-byte, 1514-byte packets/25,50,75 and 100 percent of network load

      • Adtech AX/4000 Broadband Test System and SmartBits SMB6000


Vendor independent testing lab3

Vendor Independent Testing Lab

  • NSS five types of tests

    • IDS evasion techniques

      • Tools: Fragrouter and whisker

    • Stateful operation test

      • Tools: stick and snot used to generate false alerts

    • Host performance

      • Network load, CPU and memory utilizations were monitored


Trade magazine evaluation

Trade Magazine Evaluation

  • Interesting approach

    • IDSs in the production network of an ISP

    • Deployed four machines

  • The metrics were accuracy, ease of use, and uptime


Conclusion

Conclusion


  • Login