skip to main content
10.1145/2994475.2994481acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

AHEAD: A New Architecture for Active Defense

Published:24 October 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Active defense is a popular defense technique based on systems that hinder an attacker's progress by design, rather than reactively responding to an attack only after its detection. Well-known active defense systems are honeypots. Honeypots are fake systems, designed to look like real production systems, aimed at trapping an attacker, and analyzing his attack strategy and goals. These types of systems suffer from a major weakness: it is extremely hard to design them in such a way that an attacker cannot distinguish them from a real production system. In this paper, we advocate that, instead of adding additional fake systems in the corporate network, the production systems themselves should be instrumented to provide active defense capabilities. This perspective to active defense allows containing costs and complexity, while at the same time provides the attacker with a more realistic-looking target, and gives the Incident Response Team more time to identify the attacker. The proposed proof-of-concept prototype system can be used to implement active defense in any corporate production network, with little upfront work, and little maintenance.

References

  1. Artillery. https://github.com/shoreditch-ops/artillery.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Conpot. https://github.com/mushorg/conpot.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Decloak. https://github.com/cmlh/decloak.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Dionaea. https://github.com/rep/dionaea.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Docker platform. https://www.docker.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Harbinger distribution. http://www.blackhillsinfosec.com/?page_id=4419.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Honeybadger. http://github.com/honeybadger-io/honeybadger-ruby.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Kippo. https://github.com/desaster/kippo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Portspoof. https://github.com/drk1wi/portspoof.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Rubberglue. https://github.com/adhdproject/adhdproject.github.io/blob/master/Tools/Rubberglue.md.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Webbugserver. https://github.com/adhdproject/adhdproject.github.io/blob/master/Tools/WebBugServer.md.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Weblabyrinth. https://github.com/mayhemiclabs/weblabyrinth.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. K. G. Anagnostakis, S. Sidiroglou, P. Akritidis, K. Xinidis, E. Markatos, and A. D. Keromytis. Detecting targeted attacks using shadow honeypots. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on USENIX Security Symposium - Volume 14, SSYM'05, pages 9--9, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. F. Araujo, K. W. Hamlen, S. Biedermann, and S. Katzenbeisser. From patches to honey-patches: Lightweight attacker misdirection, deception, and disinformation. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS '14, pages 942--953, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. L. Bringer, C. A. Chelmecki, and H. Fujinoki. A survey: Recent advances and future trends in honeypot research. In International Journal of Computer Network and Information Security, IJCNIS, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. R. Di Pietro and L. V. Mancini. Intrusion Detection Systems, volume 38 of Advances in Information Security. Springer, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. S. Jajodia, K. A. Ghosh, V. Subrahmanian, V. Swarup, C. Wang, and S. X. Wang, editors. Moving Target Defense II: Application of Game Theory and Adversarial Modeling. Springer, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. S. Jajodia, K. A. Ghosh, V. Swarup, C. Wang, and S. X. Wang, editors. Moving Target Defense: Creating Asymmetric Uncertainty for Cyber Threats. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. S. Jajodia, P. Shakarian, V. Subrahmanian, V. Swarup, and C. Wang, editors. Cyber Warfare: Building the Scientific Foundation. Springer, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A. Kott, C. Wang, and F. R. Erbacher, editors. Cyber Defense and Situational Awareness. Springer, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. N. Provos and T. Holz. Detecting Honeypots, chapter in book: Virtual Honeypots: From Botnet Tracking to Intrusion Detection. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Spitzner. Honeypots: Tracking Hackers. Addison-Wesley Longman, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. S. Tapaswi, A. Mahboob, A. S. Shukla, I. Gupta, P. Verma, and J. Dhar. Markov chain based roaming schemes for honeypots. Wirel. Pers. Commun., pages 995--1010, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. AHEAD: A New Architecture for Active Defense

    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 Conferences
      SafeConfig '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Workshop on Automated Decision Making for Active Cyber Defense
      October 2016
      130 pages
      ISBN:9781450345668
      DOI:10.1145/2994475

      Copyright © 2016 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: 24 October 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SafeConfig '16 Paper Acceptance Rate6of13submissions,46%Overall Acceptance Rate22of61submissions,36%

      Upcoming Conference

      CCS '24
      ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
      October 14 - 18, 2024
      Salt Lake City , UT , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader