Efficient Attack Graph Analysis through Approximate Inference

被引:35
作者
Munoz-Gonzalez, Luis [1 ]
Sgandurra, Daniele [2 ]
Paudice, Andrea [1 ]
Lupu, Emil C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Imperial Coll London, Dept Comp, 180 Queens Gate, London SW7 2AZ, England
[2] Royal Holloway Univ London, Informat Secur Grp, Egham TW20 0EX, Surrey, England
基金
英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词
Bayesian networks; probabilistic graphical models; approximate inference; BELIEF PROPAGATION;
D O I
10.1145/3105760
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
Attack graphs provide compact representations of the attack paths an attacker can follow to compromise network resources from the analysis of network vulnerabilities and topology. These representations are a powerful tool for security risk assessment. Bayesian inference on attack graphs enables the estimation of the risk of compromise to the system's components given their vulnerabilities and interconnections and accounts for multi-step attacks spreading through the system. While static analysis considers the risk posture at rest, dynamic analysis also accounts for evidence of compromise, for example, from Security Information and Event Management software or forensic investigation. However, in this context, exact Bayesian inference techniques do not scale well. In this article, we show how Loopy Belief Propagation-an approximate inference technique-can be applied to attack graphs and that it scales linearly in the number of nodes for both static and dynamic analysis, making such analyses viable for larger networks. We experiment with different topologies and network clustering on synthetic Bayesian attack graphs with thousands of nodes to show that the algorithm's accuracy is acceptable and that it converges to a stable solution. We compare sequential and parallel versions of Loopy Belief Propagation with exact inference techniques for both static and dynamic analysis, showing the advantages and gains of approximate inference techniques when scaling to larger attack graphs.
引用
收藏
页数:30
相关论文
共 63 条
  • [41] Pearl J., 1982, P NAT C ART INT, P133, DOI DOI 10.1038/4580
  • [42] Phillips C, 1999, NEW SECURITY PARADIGMS WOEKSHOP, PROCEEDINGS, P71
  • [43] Dynamic Security Risk Management Using Bayesian Attack Graphs
    Poolsappasit, Nayot
    Dewri, Rinku
    Ray, Indrajit
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON DEPENDABLE AND SECURE COMPUTING, 2012, 9 (01) : 61 - 74
  • [44] Understanding Network Forensics Analysis in an Operational Environment
    Raftopoulos, Elias
    Dimitropoulos, Xenofontas
    [J]. IEEE CS SECURITY AND PRIVACY WORKSHOPS (SPW 2013), 2013, : 111 - 118
  • [45] Schneier B, 1999, DR DOBBS J, V24, P21
  • [46] Schuster-Bockler Benjamin, 2007, Curr Protoc Bioinformatics, VAppendix 3, p3A, DOI 10.1002/0471250953.bia03as18
  • [47] Shafer G., 1990, ANN MATH ARTIFICIAL, V2, P327, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF01531015
  • [48] Sharma A, 2011, I C DEPEND SYS NETWO, P506, DOI 10.1109/DSN.2011.5958263
  • [49] Sheyner O, 2003, LECT NOTES COMPUT SC, V3188, P344
  • [50] Automated generation and analysis of attack graphs
    Sheyner, O
    Haines, J
    Jha, S
    Lippmann, R
    Wing, JM
    [J]. 2002 IEEE SYMPOSIUM ON SECURITY AND PRIVACY, PROCEEDINGS, 2002, : 273 - 284