skip to main content
10.1145/3284557.3284743acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiscsicConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Make it and Break it: An IoT Smart Home Testbed Case Study

Authors Info & Claims
Published:21 September 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Education in the information security domain increasingly integrates practical hands-on training; where exercises focusing on secure cyber operations and secure software development are used for training the participants in designing and building secure systems. These exercises utilize multiple approaches in their context, such as capture the flag, attack/defense, reverse engineering, and incident response, while they are conducted on specifically created testbeds that by design integrate vulnerabilities to support the training scenarios. However, these exercises represent only the perspective of the attacker and/or the defender, without reflecting the perspective of the designer, while they statistically have primary focus on network security. In this article, we argue that the best way to understand the consequences of insecure design and development is to combine engineering and exploitation activities in one exercise, proposing the use of "Make it and break it" type of exercises for security training in cyber physical systems. Accordingly, we conducted a case study for validation and verification, the results of which are presented in this article. The case study was performed over the period of two days, during the training boot camp of the Norwegian national team for the European cyber security challenge 2018. During the boot camp, the team has been separated into two groups, which were challenged to design and build an IoT (Internet of Things) smart home using secure design principles, and then attack each other in order to identify security weaknesses. Pre and post-exercise surveys have been conducted, and the feedback from the participants was used in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the exercise, as a pilot towards further development and optimization.

References

  1. Cowan, Crispin, Seth Arnold, Steve Beattie, Chris Wright, and John Viega. "Defcon capture the flag: Defending vulnerable code from intense attack." In DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, 2003. Proceedings, vol. 1, pp. 120--129. IEEE, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Gurnani, Rahul, Kaushik Pandey, and Shashi Kant Rai. "A scalable model for implementing Cyber Security Exercises." In Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom), 2014 International Conference on, pp. 680--684. IEEE, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Halfond, William G., Jeremy Viegas, and Alessandro Orso. "A classification of SQL-injection attacks and countermeasures." In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Secure Software Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 13--15. IEEE, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Harmon, T. Cyber Security Capture The Flag (CTF): What Is It? https://blogs.cisco.com/perspectives/cybersecurity-capture-the-flag-ctf-what-isit, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Line, Maria B., and Nils Brede Moe. "Understanding collaborative challenges in it security preparedness exercises." In IFIP International Information Security Conference, pp. 311--324. Springer, Cham, 201Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. Lange, A. Kott, N. Ben-Asher, W. Mees, N. Baykal, C.-M. Vidu, M. Merialdo, M. Malowidzki, B. Madahar, Recommendations for model-driven paradigms for integrated approaches to cyber defense, arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.03306.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Mattson, Jeffrey A. "Cyber defense exercise: A service provider model." In Fifth World Conference on Information Security Education, pp. 81--86. Springer, Boston, MA, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Moore, Erik, Steven Fulton, and Dan Likarish. "Evaluating a Multi Agency Cyber Security Training Program Using Prepost Event Assessment and Longitudinal Analysis." In IFIP World Conference on Information Security Education, pp. 147--156. Springer, Cham, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Park, Yong Tae, Pranesh Sthapit, and Jae-Young Pyun. "Smart digital door lock for the home automation." In TENCON 2009-2009 IEEE Region 10 Conference, pp. 1--6. IEEE, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ruef, Andrew, et al. "Build It, Break It, Fix It: Contesting Secure Development." Proceedings of the 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. S. Furnell, P. Fischer, A. Finch, Can't get the staff? the growing need for cybersecurity skills, Computer Fraud & Security 2017 (2) (2017) 5--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Schuba, Christoph L., Ivan V. Krsul, Markus G. Kuhn, Eugene H. Spafford, Aurobindo Sundaram, and Diego Zamboni. "Analysis of a denial of service attack on TCP." In Security and Privacy, 1997. Proceedings., 1997 IEEE Symposium on, pp. 208--223. IEEE, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Uckan Färnman, Baris, Mats Koraeus, and Sarah Backman. "The 2015 Report on National and International Cyber Security Exercises: Survey, Analysis and Recommendations." (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Vigna, Giovanni, Kevin Borgolte, Jacopo Corbetta, Adam Doupe, Yanick Fratantonio, Luca Invernizzi, Dhilung Kirat, and Yan Shoshitaishvili. "Ten Years of iCTF: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." In 3GSE. 2014Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Vykopal, Jan, Martin Vizváry, Radek Oslejsek, Pavel Celeda, and Daniel Tovarnak. "Lessons learned from complex hands-on defence exercises in a cyber range." In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), pp. 1--8. IEEE, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    ISCSIC '18: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Computer Science and Intelligent Control
    September 2018
    363 pages
    ISBN:9781450366281
    DOI:10.1145/3284557

    Copyright © 2018 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 21 September 2018

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    ISCSIC '18 Paper Acceptance Rate73of152submissions,48%Overall Acceptance Rate192of401submissions,48%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader