Recently security researchers have started to look into automated generation of attack trees from socio-technical system models. The obvious next step in this trend of automated risk analysis is automating the selection of security controls to treat the detected threats. However, the existing socio-technical models are too abstract to represent all security controls recommended by practitioners and standards. In this paper we propose an attack-defence model, consisting of a set of attack-defence bundles, to be generated and maintained with the socio-technical model. The attack-defence bundles can be used to synthesise attack-defence trees directly from the model to offer basic attack-defence analysis, but also they can be used to select and maintain the security controls that cannot be handled by the model itself.
The question of attack trees generation from system models has been tackled in @cite_7 . Similarly, @cite_9 and @cite_16 worked on generating attack models from a system model. While we follow the same approach for attacker's view, our main focus is on keeping both attacker's and defender's views consistent with the main socio-technical model.
@cite_9 @cite_16 @cite_7
2049973206 1848531833 1521415124 2054127354
Attack tree (AT) is one of the widely used non-state-space models for security analysis. The basic formalism of AT does not take into account defense mechanisms. Defense trees (DTs) have been developed to investigate the effect of defense mechanisms using measures such as attack cost, security investment cost, return on attack (ROA), and return on investment (ROI). DT, however, places defense mechanisms only at the leaf nodes and the corresponding ROI ROA analysis does not incorporate the probabilities of attack. In attack response tree (ART), attack and response are both captured but ART suffers from the problem of state-space explosion, since solution of ART is obtained by means of a state-space model. In this paper, we present a novel attack tree paradigm called attack countermeasure tree (ACT) which avoids the generation and solution of a state-space model and takes into account attacks as well as countermeasures (in the form of detection and mitigation events). In ACT, detection and mitigation are allowed not just at the leaf node but also at the intermediate nodes while at the same time the state-space explosion problem is avoided in its analysis. We study the consequences of incorporating countermeasures in the ACT using three case studies (ACT for BGP attack, ACT for a SCADA attack and ACT for malicious insider attacks). Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Manually identifying possible attacks on an organisation is a complex undertaking; many different factors must be considered, and the resulting attack scenarios can be complex and hard to maintain as the organisation changes. System models provide a systematic representation of organisations that helps in structuring attack identification and can integrate physical, virtual, and social components. These models form a solid basis for guiding the manual identification of attack scenarios. Their main benefit, however, is in the analytic generation of attacks. In this work we present a systematic approach to transforming graphical system models to graphical attack models in the form of attack trees. Based on an asset in the model, our transformations result in an attack tree that represents attacks by all possible actors in the model, after which the actor in question has obtained the asset. We introduce and give formal definitions of attack-defense trees. We argue that these trees are a simple, yet powerful tool to analyze complex security and privacy problems. Our formalization is generic in the sense that it supports different semantical approaches. We present several semantics for attack-defense trees along with usage scenarios, and we show how to evaluate attributes. Even well administered networks are vulnerable to attack. Recent work in network security has focused on the fact that combinations of exploits are the typical means by which an attacker breaks into a network. Researchers have proposed a variety of graph-based algorithms to generate attack trees (or graphs). Either structure represents all possible sequences of exploits, where any given exploit can take advantage of the penetration achieved by prior exploits in its chain, and the final exploit in the chain achieves the attacker's goal. The most recent approach in this line of work uses a modified version of the model checker NuSMV as a powerful inference engine for chaining together network exploits, compactly representing attack graphs, and identifying minimal sets of exploits. However, it is also well known that model checkers suffer from scalability problems, and there is good reason to doubt whether a model checker can handle directly a realistic set of exploits for even a modest-sized network. In this paper, we revisit the idea of attack graphs themselves, and argue that they represent more information explicitly than is necessary for the analyst. Instead, we propose a more compact and scalable representation. Although we show that it is possible to produce attack trees from our representation, we argue that more useful information can be produced, for larger networks, while bypassing the attack tree step. Our approach relies on an explicit assumption of monotonicity, which, in essence, states that the precondition of a given exploit is never invalidated by the successful application of another exploit. In other words, the attacker never needs to backtrack. The assumption reduces the complexity of the analysis problem from exponential to polynomial, thereby bringing even very large networks within reach of analysis