Mitigating the Insider Threat using High-dimensional Search and Modeling - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

tirzah
mitigating the insider threat using high dimensional search and modeling n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Mitigating the Insider Threat using High-dimensional Search and Modeling PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Mitigating the Insider Threat using High-dimensional Search and Modeling

play fullscreen
1 / 21
Download Presentation
Mitigating the Insider Threat using High-dimensional Search and Modeling
103 Views
Download Presentation

Mitigating the Insider Threat using High-dimensional Search and Modeling

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Mitigating the Insider Threat using High-dimensional Search and Modeling DARPA IPTO Program: Self Regenerative Systems (SRS) Program Manager: Lee Badger PI: Eric van den Berg Presenter:Eric van den Berg evdb@research.telcordia.com Wednesday, December 14, 2005 Team: Shambhu Upadhyaya, Hung Ngo (SUNY Buffalo) Muthu Muthukrishnan, Raj Rajagopalan (Rutgers)

  2. Outline • Project overview • Results of Red Team Exercise • Success against program metrics • Lessons learned and insights for system improvement • Future work / Next steps

  3. Project overview • Project goal: to build a system that defends critical services and resources against insiders, which • Correlates large numbers of sensor measurements • Synthesizes appropriate pro-active responses • What is done today? • Reactive systems: Detect attacks late in cycle • Anomaly detection systems: Few streams for correlation • Human-based systems: not scalable • Collateral damage may be large

  4. Project overview (continued) • Technical Approach • Large network of sensors, to let insider trigger alerts • High dimensional network state description using sensor alerts • Search engine finds top-K past states similar to sensor snapshot • Insider modeler and analyzer tool used to identify attack points, train search engine, guide sensor placement • Response engine to analyze impact on critical services and synthesize reconfiguration response • Technical Challenges • Testing SVD-based search technology in a new domain • New ‘Insider analyzer’ key-challenge graph problem is hard • Training search engine, labeling and annotating states

  5. Architecture

  6. Network entity rules MAPIT Engine vulnerabilities Cost Rules Authentication mechanism Social Eng. Awareness Insider analyzer and modeler tool (MAPIT) Network topology Key challenge graph Perform sensitivity analysis Defense centric approach feedback

  7. Telcordia Testbed

  8. Scenario1 – Exploiting a Vulnerability (KCG)

  9. MAPIT next steps • Integrate with detection system: • MAPIT can run e.g. once a day, based on network configuration update • Can recommend sensor (re-)positioning • Refine costing models • Improve heuristics for closer to optimal attack sequence prediction

  10. Red Team Experiment • Red Team given account on Telcordia testbed • Given information about malicious target files: • Directory tree containing target file • Keyword in file • Mimic ‘moderately informed’ inside attacker • Red Team success: read/modify contents of target file • Blue Team success: block network access before read/modify • 10 ‘malicious goals’, 10 ‘non-malicious goals’.

  11. Success against program metric • Metric: thwart or delay >= 10% of malicious insider attacker goals • Results of Red Team exercise: Thwarted 4 out of 9 attacks • Without building additional ‘history’ after attacks • Implemented only binary response

  12. Lessons learned from experiment • Success: current system can thwart moderately fast insider attacks • Designed originally for slower attacks • Sensor configuration • Better configuration based on amount of training data • Response • Interaction between search and response better • Desirable: more varied response

  13. Insights for system improvement • Automatic state generation • E.g.: exchange state definitions among hosts • Sensor configuration • Can we make sensor configuration more automatic? • Sensor configuration and selection e.g. guided by amount of available training data • Response generation • Include e.g. a local ‘preliminary’ response which can be validated by central search/response system

  14. Additional tests • How does the system perform in terms of detection rate / false alarm rate • If we build ‘known attack’ state repository • If we add history under ‘normal operation’ • If we re-configure sensors? • All these can help mitigate false alarms

  15. Improving on the Phase I metrics • It appears possible to thwart / delay a larger range of insider attacks: • Refine response to delay / thwart fast attacks • Implement host-based methods for e.g. delay until detection decision is reached • No inherent limitation in detection or analysis system to include other sources of information • Location access, biometrics, audio/visual • Multi-stage attack allows for better detection / response

  16. Performance increase challenges • So far only detect insider attacks which leave a trace on the network • Collusion, social engineering… • Can detect attacks which are significantly different from ‘normal behavior’ • Easier of insiders to mimic / change normal behavior? • Implemented one response mechanism • Variety of responses (e.g. key-challenges) possible for various levels of attack / detection confidence • Local response helps thwart or delay fast attacks

  17. Sketch-based anomaly detector • Streaming data model • Large data volume and speed: in backbone 1 billion packets/hour/router • Large data domain: IPv4: 2^32 addresses, IPv6: 2^128 • Consequences: • Can scan data (at most) once • Need small-space structure to summarize data • Hard to store O(n) data points when n=2^32 • Cannot store at 2^128 • Idea: build synopsis data structure for IP-packets • CM-sketches, deltoid group-testing • Detect attacks based on changes in traffic volume • Currently: traffic to destination IP address (likely targets) • Can detect attacks exhibiting large changes in packet distribution

  18. Test of anomaly detector • Based on week 2 of 1999 MITLL data • from inside sniffer • Traffic volume based anomaly detection • Ipsweep, portsweep, phf, httptunnel, etc. • Detects targets of all four above attacks • Does give additional big changes ~1%, not attacks • Both periodic and instantaneous, relative and absolute change detection • Sub-linear space sketch methods give results nearly as good as full space methods

  19. Sketch-based anomaly detection:Next steps • Use small-space sketches to profile insider resource usage • E.g. file accesses, user commands • Change detection methods for sketches • Combine various methods to improve efficiency: instantaneous vs periodic, absolute vs relative • Apply sketches to detect change in traffic burstiness

  20. Detecting multistage attacks • How to represent time evolution in multi-stage attacks? • Like learning attacks from documented historical network states, we can also document attack precursors or attack stages • Full attack now represented as a sequence of network state vectors • Robust against slow attacks: no explicit dependence on time • Would like to make ‘precursor’ attack stage annotation (semi-) automatic • Approaches to automatic precursor/state classification • State sharing • Remember occurrences of previous stages

  21. Future work / next steps • Enable local informed response • Share state information among hosts/search engines • Local preliminary response (e.g. delay) helps against fast insider attacks • Integrate MAPIT insider analysis tool with response engine • Share configuration information for periodic static analysis of insider attack vulnerabilities • Integrate other SRS technologies • Sophisticated sensors / response enablers • Large scale system diagnosis / situational awareness