Professional Documents
Culture Documents
−6
0.2
−8
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 α→
α
BSG
−5 U RS
Figure 2: Objective function values for Uniform
Obj
Random Strategy Vs. Bayesian Stackelberg Game −10
with switching costs as α varies from 0 to 1.
−15
Method Mixed Defender’s Attack sets
Strategy Reward (SK, DH, MH)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
CVE-2016-3477, α→
URS (.25, .25, .25, .25) -5 CVE-2015-3144,
CVE-2016-3477
CVE-2014-0185, Figure 3: Top: Showcases the change in probabili-
BSG (.0, .0, .5, .5) -3.25 CVE-2014-0067, ties associated with a particular configuration. Bot-
CVE-2014-0185 tom: Objective function values for Uniform Ran-
dom Strategy Vs. Bayesian Stackelberg Game with
Table 3: Comparison between the strategies gen- switching costs as α varies from 0 to 2.5 when the
erated by Uniform Random Strategy (URS) Vs. cost of switching are as showcased in Table 1 with
Bayesian Stackelberg Game (BSG) the values in the yellow boxes being 10.
types. The NLR values for both these attackers are 0. This
ScriptKiddie(SK)
5 is the case since the real world attack action used by these
types remain the same even when their probabilities change.
On the other hand, if the probability associated with the
Script Kiddie (SK) is underestimated in our model, we see
0 that the strategies deviate substantially from the optimal.
−100 −50 0 50 100 In this section, we use α = 0.2. The max NLR for our
Varying sensitivity of attacker types (%) BSG strategy is 2.35 Vs. 9 for URS. The average of the 60
NLR values is 0.061 for BSG and 0.88 for URS. These values
indicate our model is more robust to variance in attacker
Figure 4: NLR values for BSG and URS genereated
type uncertainty than the present state-of-the-art.
strategies when attacker type probabilities vary
from 0% to 200% of its original value.
7. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
In this paper, we propose a method to generate a switching
At present, we are trying to develop a single MIQP for- strategy for real-world web application based on the Mov-
mulation that tries to approximately generate the k-CV set. ing Target Defense (MTD) architecture. To find an effec-
To reduce the combinatorial explosion, we plan to use switch tive switching strategy, we model the system as a repeated
variables that can turn attack actions on and off. This comes Bayesian game. We develop methods to assign attack ac-
at the cost of increasing the number of variables in the for- tions to attacker types and generate realistic utilities based
mulated optimization problem. on expertise of security professionals. For obtaining real-
world attack data, we mine vulnerabilities in the National
6.3 Robustness & Attacker Type Sensitivity Vulnerability Database (NVD) and obtain utilities based on
It is often the case that a web application administrator the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS). We for-
(defender) cannot accurately specify the probability for a mulate an optimization problem which outputs a switching
particular attacker type. In this section, we see how this un- strategy that maximizes system security while accounting
certainty affects the optimal rewards generated by the sys- for switching costs. The generated strategy is shown to be
tem. We provide a notion for determining sensitive attacker more effective than the state-of-the-art for a real-world ap-
types and measuring the robustness of a switching strategy. plication. We also provide metrics that can be used to vali-
For each attacker type i, we vary the probability Pθ2i by
date the robustness of switching strategies, absent in litera-
±x% (Pθnew x
= Pθ2i (1 ± 100 )) where x is the sensitivity fac-
2i ture for multi-agent cyber-security systems. Lastly, we pro-
tor, which can be varied from a low value to a high value
as needed. Note that now p = Pθ2i × 100 x
needs to be dis- pose the problem of identifying critical vulnerabilities and
tributed amongst the probabilities of the remaining attacker provide a preliminary solution for the same.
types. To make sure that this distribution is done such that The techniques in this paper are not limited to only web
the sensitivity of attacker i actually stands out, we propose applications. The attack actions mined from the security
to distribute p amongst the other attacker types using a databases relate to all kinds of technologies, like operating
weighted model as per their existing probabilities as shown systems, coding languages etc. Hence, the the MTD archi-
below. For attacker j (6= i), its new probability would be: tecture should be relevant to any software application.
p In the domain of security games, especially cyber-security,
Pθnew = Pθ2j (1 ∓ P
Pθ
) (12)
2j k(6=i) 2k
new attack actions are discovered every day. Fixing vulnera-
When x% is subtracted from the probability P ~θ , then the bilities also invalidate certain attack actions. Moreover, new
2i
sign in the above equation becomes positive, and vice-versa. configurations and new attack types can change the game
We now formally define the loss in reward to the de- tables substantially. Thus, the defined problem should es-
fender as the probability distribution over the attacker types sentially be a repeated and an evolutionary game where the
change. Let Ro be the overall reward for the defender when game tables need to be updated with time. This makes it
he uses the mixed strategy for the assumed (and possibly more difficult to design methods that promise globally opti-
incorrect) model of attacker type uncertainty (P ~θ2 ) on the mal strategies for the defender. We feel that a combination
~ new
true model (Pθ2 ). Let Rn be the defender’s optimal reward of Markov Chain optimization over a short number of moves
value for the true model. We compute the Normalized Loss and updating game tables in tandem may be an effective ap-
in Rewards (NLR) for the defender’s strategy as follows: proach. We defer this investigation to future work.
Rn −Ro
NLR = Rn (13)
Acknowledgments. This research is supported in part by
Note that NLR values are ≥ 0. Higher values of NLR rep- ONR grants N00014161-2892, N00014-13-1-0176, N00014-
resent more sensitive attacker types. Inaccurate probability 13-1-0519, N00014-15-1-2027, & the NASA grant NNX17AD06G.
REFERENCES [17] J. Silver-Greenberg, M. Goldstein, and N. Perlroth.
[1] K. Amin, S. Singh, and M. Wellman. Gradient JPMorgan Chase Hacking Affects 76 Million
methods for stackelberg security games. AAMAS, Households. In The New York Times, 2014.
2016. [18] A. Sinha, T. Nguyen, D. Kar, M. Brown, M. Tambe,
[2] D. Balzarotti, M. Cova, V. Felmetsger, N. Jovanovic, and A. X. Jiang. From physical security to cyber
E. Kirda, C. Kruegel, and G. Vigna. Saner: security. Journal of Cybersecurity, 2016.
Composing static and dynamic analysis to validate [19] M. Taguinod, A. Doupé, Z. Zhao, and G.-J. Ahn.
sanitization in web applications. In Security & Privacy Toward a Moving Target Defense for Web
2008. IEEE Symposium, pages 387–401, 2008. Applications. In Proceedings of 16th IEEE IC-IRI,
[3] K. M. Carter, J. F. Riordan, and H. Okhravi. A game 2015.
theoretic approach to strategy determination for [20] S. G. Vadlamudi, S. Sengupta, M. Taguinod, Z. Zhao,
dynamic platform defenses. In ACM MTD Workshop, A. Doupé, G.-J. Ahn, and S. Kambhampati. Moving
2014, MTD ’14. ACM, 2014. target defense for web applications using bayesian
[4] M. Carvalho and R. Ford. Moving-target defenses for stackelberg games. In Proceedings of AAMAS, 2016,
computer networks. Security Privacy, IEEE, pages 1377–1378, 2016.
12(2):73–76, Mar 2014. [21] M. Van Dijk, A. Juels, A. Oprea, and R. L. Rivest.
[5] V. Conitzer and T. Sandholm. Computing the optimal Flipit: The game of “stealthy takeover”. Journal of
strategy to commit to. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Cryptology, 26(4):655–713, 2013.
Conference on Electronic Commerce, EC ’06, pages [22] H. Von Stackelberg. Market structure and equilibrium.
82–90, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. Springer SBM, 2010.
[6] A. Doupé, L. Cavedon, C. Kruegel, and G. Vigna. [23] D. S. Wicaksono and I. Karimi. Piecewise milp
Enemy of the state: A state-aware black-box web under-and overestimators for global optimization of
vulnerability scanner. In USENIX Security bilinear programs. AIChE Journal, 54(4):991–1008,
Symposium, 2012. 2008.
[7] S. H. Houmb, V. N. Franqueira, and E. A. Engum. [24] D. Wichers. Owasp top-10. OWASP, 2013.
Quantifying security risk level from cvss estimates of [25] M. Winterrose, K. Carter, N. Wagner, and
frequency and impact. JSS, 83(9):1622–1634, 2010. W. Streilein. Adaptive attacker strategy development
[8] S. Jones, A. Outkin, J. Gearhart, J. Hobbs, J. Siirola, against moving target cyber defenses.
C. Phillips, S. Verzi, D. Tauritz, S. Mulder, and arXiv:1407.8540, 2014.
A. Naugle. Evaluating moving target defense with [26] R. Zhuang, S. A. DeLoach, and X. Ou. Towards a
pladd. Technical report, Sandia National Labs-NM, theory of moving target defense. In ACM MTD
Albuquerque, 2015. Workshop, 2014, pages 31–40. ACM, 2014.
[9] P. Manadhata. Game theoretic approaches to attack
surface shifting. In Moving Target Defense II, volume
100 of AIS, pages 1–13. Springer New York, 2013.
[10] J. McCumber. Information systems security: A
comprehensive model. In Proceedings of the 14th
National Computer Security Conference, 1991.
[11] P. Mell, K. Scarfone, and S. Romanosky. Cvss v2
complete documentation, 2007.
[12] H. Okhravi, T. Hobson, D. Bigelow, and W. Streilein.
Finding focus in the blur of moving-target techniques.
Security & Privacy, IEEE, 12(2):16–26, 2014.
[13] P. Paruchuri, J. P. Pearce, J. Marecki, M. Tambe,
F. Ordonez, and S. Kraus. Playing games for security:
An efficient exact algorithm for solving bayesian
stackelberg games. In AAMAS, 2008, pages 895–902,
2008.
[14] J. Pita, M. Jain, J. Marecki, F. Ordóñez, C. Portway,
M. Tambe, C. Western, P. Paruchuri, and S. Kraus.
Deployed ARMOR protection: the application of a
game theoretic model for security at the los angeles
international airport. In AAMAS 2008, Industry and
Applications Track Proceedings, pages 125–132, 2008.
[15] A. Prakash and M. P. Wellman. Empirical
game-theoretic analysis for moving target defense. In
ACM MTD Workshop, 2015, 2015.
[16] S. Sengupta, S. G. Vadlamudi, S. Kambhampati,
M. Taguinod, Z. Zhao, A. Doupé, and G. Ahn. Moving
target defense for web applications using bayesian
stackelberg games. CoRR, abs/1602.07024, 2016.