1 / 15

Summary of my enquiries made so far…

Summary of my enquiries made so far…. Daniel Germanus <daniel.germanus@gmail.com>. !. Intro. Bachelor Thesis was on Threat Modeling Part of Microsofts Security Development Lifecycle Cons can be: Informal method Static approach Wanted: New, or improved attackability measures

charlene-durham
Download Presentation

Summary of my enquiries made so far…

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Summary of my enquiries made so far… Daniel Germanus <daniel.germanus@gmail.com>

  2. ! Intro • Bachelor Thesis was on Threat Modeling • Part of Microsofts Security Development Lifecycle • Cons can be: • Informal method • Static approach • Wanted: • New, or improved attackability measures • Based on exact models • Dynamic system view • (semi) automated

  3. How to achieve? • Enquiries on Security, Metrics, Measures and related Technologies • Looking for Metrics, Methods and Tools • Metrics: Attack Surface, Risk measurement • Methods: Attack Graphs • Tools: OPUS • In the future: model own metrics or methods

  4. Attack surface (CMU) • Definition: Sum of accessible APIs and used resources • Non-orthogonal, three dimensional mapping: • Targets & Enablers (i.e. resources, processes and data) • Channels & Protocols (2 types of channels: message passing and shared memory, every channel associated with a protocol) • Access rights: associated with all resources • Developed state machine model for System, Threat and User behavior

  5. Attack surface (CMU) • Calculating actual attackability … • Relative, not absolute measure • Different approaches possible: • Use of domain specific attack classes (cf. Threat Modeling) • Definition of own system/channel/data attack classes

  6. Attack surface (CMU) • Example for some domain specific attack classes:

  7. Attack surface (CMU) • Example for actual metric application • Using • two different versions of an IMAP server (IMAPD1 and IMAPD2) • own system/channel/data attack classes

  8. IMAPD1 .. Attack surface value is triple <3.5 , 2 , 1.66>

  9. IMAPD2 .. Attack surface value is triple <5 , 2 , 1.33>

  10. Threat Index • Metric with cost/benefit approach

  11. Threat Index Visualization

  12. Network Attack Graphs • Per host basis algorithms • Supports system analysts, automated graph generation • Input parameters are: • a set of host nodes, H • a set of trust relationships, T • a set of access edges, E • a set of network exploits, X • a set of vulnerabilities at each host, V • a new attacker host, h • At this stage, only known attacks are considered

  13. Network Attack Graphs

  14. Tools • OPUS – Online Patches and Updates for Security • Intention: minimize downtime • Granularity: functions (with identical signature) • No globals, • no nonrecurring functions (like main), • no functions which are currently on some stack frame • Currently only supported for C programs • Validated with several Bugtraq incident reports for buffer overflows, double frees, etc.

  15. That‘s it • Thanks. • Please, visit the DEEDS Wiki on Security related content.

More Related