6th European Conference - Academic Conferences

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Karim Hamza and Van Dalen Awareness and Media : create citizen/personal awareness working and dealing with eGovernance framework, on how to protect themselves, how to report violation, be awre with different types of threat and the legal impact of violation 8. Conclusion It is becoming obvious that eGovernance will become the information backbone of any government which creates a strong relation to strategic information warfare; since both are based on information and use technology. In addition, the first will contain most of the government’s and community information and will become the main war fields in the future. This requires different set of attention; since not all existing warfare techniques will be applicable in handling eGovernance threats; this should include non military approaches like Policy, diplomatic and laws. eGovernance framework main challenge is adaptability on dynamic eGovernance framework; since continuous changes on government strategies and the environment surrounding it plus the continuous changes of technology and threat parties either internal or external, will require continuous development to cope with such changes and complex decision making structure, not to forget that some conditions of strategic information warfare have to be taken into account in the design process of eGovernance frameworks, like: control of different stakeholders, monitor and detection, continuous development and defining different sets of response approaches to deal with the rapid changing environment and changing enemy map. References Bhatnagar, Subash EGovernment: From Vision to Implementation” by; Sage Publications; 2004. Clarke , Richard A. (April, 2010) Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About, Ecco Dearth, Douglas H., (2001) “Implications and Challenges of Applied Information Operations”, Joint Military Intelligence Training Centre Washington D.C. Journal of Information Warfare Volume 1, Issue1 Denning, D.E. (1999). Information Warfare and Security, Addison Wesley, Reading: Mass. DoD Dictionary of Military Terms (October,2008), Washington, D.C, Joint Doctrine Division, J-7 Drucker, Peter F. (August 24, 1998) “the Next Information Revolution” , Forbes ASAP. Hutchinson, W. and Warren, M. (2001) “Principles of Information Warfare”, Journal of Information Warfare 1, 1:1 - 6 1 ISSN 1445-3312 print/ISSN 1445-3347 Hutchinson, W.E. Warren, M.J. (1999). Attacking the Attackers: Attitudes of Australian IT Managers to retaliation against Hackers, ACIS (Australasian <strong>Conference</strong> on Information Systems) 99, December, Wellington, New Zealand. Libicki, Martin C. (2009) CyberDeterrence and CyberWar , Rand Corporation, Project Air Force Libicki, Martin C.(May,1995) “What Is Information Warfare?” Strategic Mechling, J. (2000), Eight Imperatives for Leaders in a Networked World, Massachusetts, The Harvard Policy Group Roger C. Molander/Andrew S. Riddile/Peter A. Wilson (1996) “Strategic Information Warfare, A New Face of War” Office of the Secretary of Defense, National Defense Research Institute , Rand Schwartau, W. (1996). Information Warfare – second edition. Thunder’s Mouth Press, New York. UNESCO(2009) http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php- URL_ID=4404&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (extracted 07.10.2010) Waltz, E. (1998) Information Warfare – Principles and Operations. Artech House, Norwood. World Bank : Source: http://go.worldbank.org/M1JHE0Z280 (extracted on 02.10.2010) 112
Intelligence-Driven Computer Network Defense Informed by Analysis of Adversary Campaigns and Intrusion Kill Chains Eric Hutchins, Michael Cloppert and Rohan Amin Lockheed Martin, USA eric.m.hutchins@lmco.com michael.j.cloppert@lmco.com rohan.m.amin@lmco.com Abstract: Conventional network defense tools such as intrusion detection systems and anti-virus focus on the vulnerability component of risk, and traditional incident response methodology presupposes a successful intrusion. An evolution in the goals and sophistication of computer network intrusions has rendered these approaches insufficient for certain actors. A new class of threats, appropriately dubbed the “Advanced Persistent Threat” (APT), represents well-resourced and trained adversaries that conduct multi-year intrusion campaigns targeting highly sensitive economic, proprietary, or national security information. These adversaries accomplish their goals using advanced tools and techniques designed to defeat most conventional computer network defense mechanisms. Network defense techniques which leverage knowledge about these adversaries can create an intelligence feedback loop, enabling defenders to establish a state of information superiority which decreases the adversary's likelihood of success with each subsequent intrusion attempt. Using a kill chain model to describe phases of intrusions, mapping adversary kill chain indicators to defender courses of action, identifying patterns that link individual intrusions into broader campaigns, and understanding the iterative nature of intelligence gathering form the basis of intelligence-driven computer network defense (CND). Institutionalization of this approach reduces the likelihood of adversary success, informs network defense investment and resource prioritization, and yields relevant metrics of performance and effectiveness. The evolution of advanced persistent threats necessitates an intelligence-based model because in this model the defenders mitigate not just vulnerability, but the threat component of risk, too. Keywords: incident response, intrusion detection, intelligence, threat, APT, computer network defense 1. Introduction As long as global computer networks have existed, so have malicious users intent on exploiting vulnerabilities. Early evolutions of threats to computer networks involved self-propagating code. Advancements over time in anti-virus technology significantly reduced this automated risk. More recently, a new class of threats, intent on the compromise of data for economic or military advancement, emerged as the largest element of risk facing some industries. This class of threat has been given the moniker “Advanced Persistent Threat,” or APT. To date, most organizations have relied on the technologies and processes implemented to mitigate risks associated with automated viruses and worms which do not sufficiently address focused, manually operated APT intrusions. Conventional incident response methods fail to mitigate the risk posed by APTs because they make two flawed assumptions: response should happen after the point of compromise, and the compromise was the result of a fixable flaw (Mitropoulos et al., 2006; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2008). APTs have recently been observed and characterized by both industry and the U.S. government. In June and July 2005, the U.K. National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre (UK-NISCC) and the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team (US-CERT) issued technical alert bulletins describing targeted, socially-engineered emails dropping trojans to exfiltrate sensitive information. These intrusions were over a significant period of time, evaded conventional firewall and anti-virus capabilities, and enabled adversaries to harvest sensitive information (UK-NISCC, 2005; US-CERT, 2005). Epstein and Elgin (2008) of Business Week described numerous intrusions into NASA and other government networks where APT actors were undetected and successful in removing sensitive high-performance rocket design information. In February 2010, iSec Partners noted that current approaches such as anti-virus and patching are not sufficient, end users are directly targeted, and threat actors are after sensitive intellectual property (Stamos, 2010). Before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, James Andrew Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies testified that intrusions occurred at various government agencies in 2007, including the Department of 113
Page 1 and 2:
The Proceedings of the 6th Internat
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Paper Title Author(s) Page
Page 5 and 6:
Preface These Proceedings are the w
Page 7 and 8:
Biographies of contributing authors
Page 9 and 10:
Department of Computer Science, IQR
Page 11 and 12:
Using the Longest Common Substring
Page 13 and 14:
Jaime Acosta Some techniques that u
Page 15 and 16:
Jaime Acosta assigned by an anti-vi
Page 17 and 18:
Jaime Acosta Cormen, T.H., Leiserso
Page 19 and 20:
Hind Al Falasi and Liren Zhang tran
Page 21 and 22:
Hind Al Falasi and Liren Zhang ther
Page 23 and 24:
Hind Al Falasi and Liren Zhang the
Page 25 and 26:
Edwin Leigh Armistead and Thomas Mu
Page 27 and 28:
Deception Operations Security (OPS
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
The Uses and Limits of Game Theory
Page 35 and 36:
3. Limits to using game theory 3.1
Page 37 and 38:
Merritt Baer Effective cyberintrusi
Page 39 and 40:
Merritt Baer 1.5), there seems to b
Page 41 and 42:
Merritt Baer Report of the Defense
Page 43 and 44:
Ivan Burke and Renier van Heerden F
Page 45 and 46:
Ivan Burke and Renier van Heerden a
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Marco Carvalho et al. systems start
Page 55 and 56:
Marco Carvalho et al. Benatallah, 2
Page 57 and 58:
Marco Carvalho et al. management la
Page 59 and 60:
Marco Carvalho et al. Figure 4: Sta
Page 61 and 62:
Marco Carvalho et al. Sorrels, D.,
Page 63 and 64:
Manoj Cherukuri and Srinivas Mukkam
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72: Manoj Cherukuri and Srinivas Mukkam
Page 79 and 80: Mecealus Cronkrite et al. to see bo
Page 81 and 82: Mecealus Cronkrite et al. trivial.
Page 83 and 84: Mecealus Cronkrite et al. socially
Page 85 and 86: Mecealus Cronkrite et al. The views
Page 87 and 88: Vincent Garramone and Daniel Likari
Page 95 and 96: Stephen Groat et al. Sections 4 and
Page 97 and 98: Stephen Groat et al. probability fo
Page 99 and 100: Stephen Groat et al. host. In this
Page 101 and 102: Stephen Groat et al. changing addre
Page 103 and 104: Marthie Grobler et al. leadership,
Page 105 and 106: Marthie Grobler et al. apply to sta
Page 107 and 108: Marthie Grobler et al. 6. Working t
Page 109 and 110: Cyber Strategy and the Law of Armed
Page 111 and 112: Ulf Haeussler Alliance and Allies r
Page 113 and 114: Ulf Haeussler following the invocat
Page 115 and 116: Ulf Haeussler NCSA (2009) NCSA Supp
Page 117 and 118: Karim Hamza and Van Dalen of respon
Page 119 and 120: Karim Hamza and Van Dalen From a mi
Page 121: Karim Hamza and Van Dalen productiv
Page 125 and 126: Eric Hutchins et al. of defensive a
Page 127 and 128: Eric Hutchins et al. Defenders can
Page 129 and 130: Eric Hutchins et al. Equally as imp
Page 131 and 132: Eric Hutchins et al. X-Mailer: Yaho
Page 133 and 134: Eric Hutchins et al. Received: (qma
Page 135 and 136: Eric Hutchins et al. U.S.-China Eco
Page 137 and 138: Saara Jantunen and Aki-Mauri Huhtin
Page 145 and 146: Brian Jewell and Justin Beaver In t
Page 147 and 148: Brian Jewell and Justin Beaver Figu
Page 149 and 150: 4. Evaluation Brian Jewell and Just
Page 151 and 152: Brian Jewell and Justin Beaver othe
Page 153 and 154: Detection of YASS Using Calibration
Page 155 and 156: Kesav Kancherla and Srinivas Mukkam
Page 157 and 158: M M M Su−2 Sv ∑∑ u= 1 v= 1 h(
Page 159 and 160: 5.2 ROC curves Kesav Kancherla and
Page 161 and 162: Developing a Knowledge System for I
Page 163 and 164: Louise Leenen et al. We distinction
Page 165 and 166: Louise Leenen et al. There is growi
Page 167 and 168: 3.1 Needs analysis Louise Leenen et
Page 169 and 170: Louise Leenen et al. Kroenke, D.M.
Page 171 and 172: Jose Mas y Rubi et al. As we can se
Page 173 and 174:
Figure 2: CALEA forensic model (Pel
Page 175 and 176:
Jose Mas y Rubi et al. Table 2: Com
Page 177 and 178:
Jose Mas y Rubi et al. Another pend
Page 179 and 180:
Tree of Objectives Acknowledgements
Page 181 and 182:
Secure Proactive Recovery - a Hardw
Page 183 and 184:
Ruchika Mehresh et al. implementing
Page 185 and 186:
Ruchika Mehresh et al. The coordina
Page 187 and 188:
Ruchika Mehresh et al. multiplicati
Page 189 and 190:
Ruchika Mehresh et al. Table 2: App
Page 191 and 192:
2. Network infiltration detection D
Page 193 and 194:
David Merritt and Barry Mullins on
Page 195 and 196:
David Merritt and Barry Mullins Ess
Page 197 and 198:
David Merritt and Barry Mullins Dev
Page 199 and 200:
Muhammad Naveed Pakistan Computer E
Page 201 and 202:
Muhammad Naveed response could also
Page 203 and 204:
Muhammad Naveed Table 10: Aggressiv
Page 205 and 206:
Muhammad Naveed 2006 Tcp Open Mysql
Page 207 and 208:
Muhammad Naveed 8009 Tcp Open Ajp13
Page 209 and 210:
Muhammad Naveed Austalian Taxation
Page 211 and 212:
Alexandru Nitu world and bring it i
Page 213 and 214:
Alexandru Nitu Article 51 restricts
Page 215 and 216:
Alexandru Nitu As IW strategy and t
Page 217 and 218:
Cyberwarfare and Anonymity Christop
Page 219 and 220:
Christopher Perr attacks again help
Page 221 and 222:
Christopher Perr about the current
Page 223 and 224:
Catch me if you can: Cyber Anonymit
Page 225 and 226:
David Rohret and Michael Kraft reve
Page 227 and 228:
David Rohret and Michael Kraft sary
Page 229 and 230:
Data (Evidence) Removal Shield Davi
Page 231 and 232:
Neutrality in the Context of Cyberw
Page 233 and 234:
Julie Ryan and Daniel Ryan 18th cen
Page 235 and 236:
Julie Ryan and Daniel Ryan “Decla
Page 237 and 238:
Julie Ryan and Daniel Ryan von Glah
Page 239 and 240:
Harm Schotanus et al. In the remain
Page 241 and 242:
Harm Schotanus et al. 2.3.1 Secure
Page 243 and 244:
Harm Schotanus et al. In this setup
Page 245 and 246:
Harm Schotanus et al. the label (by
Page 247 and 248:
Harm Schotanus et al. these aspects
Page 249 and 250:
Maria Semmelrock-Picej et al. they
Page 251 and 252:
Maria Semmelrock-Picej et al. User
Page 253 and 254:
Maria Semmelrock-Picej et al. SPIKE
Page 255 and 256:
Maria Semmelrock-Picej et al. A cl
Page 257 and 258:
Maria Semmelrock-Picej et al. in co
Page 259 and 260:
Maria Semmelrock-Picej et al. In th
Page 261 and 262:
Maria Semmelrock-Picej et al. Fuchs
Page 263 and 264:
Madhu Shankarapani and Srinivas Muk
Page 265 and 266:
Figure 1: UPX packed Trojan Figure
Page 267 and 268:
Trojan.Zb ot- 1342.mal Trojan.Sp y.
Page 269 and 270:
Madhu Shankarapani and Srinivas Muk
Page 271 and 272:
Namosha Veerasamy and Marthie Grobl
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
4. Conclusion Namosha Veerasamy and
Page 279 and 280:
Tanya Zlateva et al. Computer Infor
Page 281 and 282:
Tanya Zlateva et al. security and v
Page 283 and 284:
Tanya Zlateva et al. court opinions
Page 285 and 286:
Tanya Zlateva et al. 5. Pedagogy, e
Page 287 and 288:
PhD Research Papers 277
Page 289 and 290:
Shada Alsalamah et al. Level 3 all
Page 291 and 292:
Shada Alsalamah et al. assure the a
Page 293 and 294:
Shada Alsalamah et al. for Health I
Page 295 and 296:
3. Hematology Laboratory System Who
Page 297 and 298:
Shada Alsalamah et al. Pirnejad, H.
Page 299 and 300:
Michael Bilzor a diverse base of U.
Page 301 and 302:
Michael Bilzor In our current exper
Page 303 and 304:
5. Execution monitor theory Michael
Page 305 and 306:
Michael Bilzor design was run in si
Page 307 and 308:
Michael Bilzor over testbench metho
Page 309 and 310:
Evan Dembskey and Elmarie Biermann
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Theoretical Offensive Cyber Militia
Page 319 and 320:
Rain Ottis Last, but not least, it
Page 321 and 322:
Rain Ottis an infantry battalion, w
Page 323 and 324:
Rain Ottis Ottis, R. (2008) “Anal
Page 325 and 326:
Work in Progress Papers 315
Page 327 and 328:
Large-Scale Analysis of Continuous
Page 329 and 330:
References William Acosta Abadi, D.
Page 331 and 332:
Natarajan Vijayarangan top box unit
Page 333 and 334:
Natarajan Vijayarangan The proposed
show all

6th European Conference - Academic Conferences

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?