Advertisement

An Approach to Estimating of Criticality of Social Engineering Attacks Traces

  • Anastasiia KhlobystovaEmail author
  • Maxim Abramov
  • Alexander Tulupyev
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 199)

Abstract

In this article we propose to consider the trajectories of social engineering attacks, which are the most critical from the point of view of the expected damage to the organization, and not from the point of view of the probability of success of the defeat of the user and, indirectly, critical documents to which he has access. The article proposes an approach to solving the problem of identifying the most critical path of multiway socio-engineering attack. The most critical trajectory in this article is understood as the most probable trajectory of the attack, which will bring the greatest damage to the organization. As a further development of the research direction, we can consider models that describe in more detail the context and take into account the distribution of the probability of hitting the proportion of documents available to the user, offering models for building integrated damage estimates associated with the affected user, various access policies and accounting for the hierarchy of documents in terms of their criticality or value.

Keywords

Multi-pass social engineering attacks Social graph of company employees Critical trajectories in social graph Social engineering attacks Users protect Information security 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research was carried out in the framework of the project on state assignment SPIIRAN № 0073-2018-0001, with the financial support of the RFBR (project № 18-37-00323 Social engineering attacks in corporate information systems: approaches, methods and algorithms for identifying the most probable traces; project № 18-01-00626 Methods of representation, synthesis of truth estimates and machine learning in algebraic Bayesian networks and related knowledge models with uncertainty: the logic-probability approach and graph systems).

References

  1. 1.
    Phishing campaign targets developers of Chrome extensions. https://www.zdnet.com/article/phishing-campaign-targets-developers-of-chrome-extensions/. Accessed 08 Oct 2018
  2. 2.
    One coffee? Your total is some personal data. http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/08/shiru-cafs-offer-students-free-coffee-for-harvested-data.html. Accessed 27 Sept 2018
  3. 3.
    Cybersecurity threatscape: Q1 2018. https://www.ptsecurity.com/ww-en/analytics/cybersecurity-threatscape-2018-q1/. Accessed 10 Sept 2018
  4. 4.
    Cybersecurity threatscape: Q2 2018. https://www.ptsecurity.com/ww-en/analytics/cybersecurity-threatscape-2018-q2/. Accessed 20 Sept 2018
  5. 5.
    The cyber-crooks became to withdraw money from the Russians’ cards a new way. http://www.amur.info/news/2018/09/05/143017. Accessed 02 Sept 2018
  6. 6.
    Russia lost 600 billion rubles due to hacker attacks in 2017. https://ria.ru/economy/20181016/1530769673.html. Accessed 18 Oct 2018
  7. 7.
    Suleimanov, A., Abramov, M., Tulupyev, A.: Modelling of the social engineering attacks based on social graph of employees communications analysis. In: Proceedings of 2018 IEEE Industrial Cyber-Physical Systems (ICPS), St.-Petersburg, pp. 801–805 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1109/icphys.2018.8390809
  8. 8.
    Azarov, A.A., Tulupyeva, T.V., Suvorova, A.V., Tulupyev, A.L., Abramov, M.V., Usupov, R.M.: Social Engineering Attacks: The Problem of Analysis. Nauka Publishers, St. Petersburg (2016). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abramov, M.V., Tulupyev, A.L., Suleymanov, A.A.: Analysis of users’ protection from socio-engineering attacks: social graph creation based on information from social network websites. Sci. Tech. J. Inf. Technol. Mech. Opt. 18(2), 313–321 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.17586/2226-1494-2018-18-2-313-321. (in Russian)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abramov, M.V., Tulupyev, A.L., Khlobystova, A.O.: Identifying the most critical trajectory of the spread of a social engineering attack between two users. In: 2nd International Scientific-Practical Conference Fuzzy Technologies in the Industry (FTI 2018), Ulyanovsk, pp. 38–43 (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jaafor, O., Birregah, B.: Multi-layered graph-based model for social engineering vulnerability assessment. In: IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), pp. 1480–1488. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yasin, A., Liu, L., Li, T., Wang, J., Zowghi, D.: Design and preliminary evaluation of a cyber Security Requirements Education Game (SREG). Inf. Softw. Technol. 95, 179–200 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Junger, M., Montoya, L., Overink, F.J.: Priming and warnings are not effective to prevent social engineering attacks. Comput. Hum. Behav. 66, 75–87 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dang-Pham, D., Pittayachawan, S., Bruno, V.: Why employees share information security advice? Exploring the contributing factors and structural patterns of security advice sharing in the workplace. Comput. Hum. Behav. 67, 196–206 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Öğütçü, G., Testik, Ö.M., Chouseinoglou, O.: Analysis of personal information security behavior and awareness. Comput. Secur. 56, 83–93 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Algarni, A., Xu, Y., Chan, T.: An empirical study on the susceptibility to social engineering in social networking sites: the case of Facebook. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 26(6), 661–687 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-017-0057-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li, H., Luo, X.R., Zhang, J., Sarathy, R.: Self-control, organizational context, and rational choice in Internet abuses at work. Inf. Manag. 55(3), 358–367 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Albladi, S.M., Weir, G.R.S.: User characteristics that influence judgment of social engineering attacks in social networks. Hum. Centric Comput. Inf. Sci. 8(1), 5 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13673-018-0128-7
  19. 19.
    Bhakta, R., Harris, I.G.: Semantic analysis of dialogs to detect social engineering attacks. In: IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC), pp. 424–427. IEEE Xplore Digital Library, California (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1109/icosc.2015.7050843
  20. 20.
    Cai, Z., He, Z., Guan, X., Li, Y.: Collective data-sanitization for preventing sensitive information inference attacks in social networks. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput. 15(4), 577–590 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2016.2613521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Edwards, M., Larson, R., Green, B., Rashid, A., Baron, A.: Panning for gold: automatically analysing online social engineering attack surfaces. Comput. Secur. 69, 18–34 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2016.12.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee, K.C., Hsieh, C.H., Wei, L.J., Mao, C.H., Dai, J.H., Kuang, Y.T.: Sec-buzzer: cyber security emerging topic mining with open threat intelligence retrieval and timeline event annotation. Soft. Comput. 21(11), 2883–2896 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-016-2265-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cao, J., Fu, Q., Li, Q., Guo, D.: Discovering hidden suspicious accounts in online social networks. Inf. Sci. 394, 123–140 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.02.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang, M., Qin, S., Guo, F.: Satisfying link perturbation and k-out anonymous in social network privacy protection. In: IEEE 17th International Conference on Communication Technology (ICCT), pp. 1387–1391. IEEE Xplore, Chengdu (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1109/icct.2017.8359860
  25. 25.
    Kaur, R., Singh, S.: A comparative analysis of structural graph metrics to identify anomalies in online social networks. Comput. Electr. Eng. 57, 294–310 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2016.11.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yang, Z., Xue, J., Yang, X., Wang, X., Dai, Y.: VoteTrust: leveraging friend invitation graph to defend against social network sybils. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput. 13(4), 488–501 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2015.2410792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Abawajy, J.H., Ninggal, M.I.H., Herawan, T.: Privacy preserving social network data publication. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 18(3), 1974–1997 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2016.2533668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Choi, H.S., Lee, W.S., Sohn, S.Y.: Analyzing research trends in personal information privacy using topic modeling. Comput. Secur. 67, 244–253 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2017.03.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abramov, M.V., Azarov, A.A.: Identifying user’s of social networks psychological features on the basis of their musical preferences. In: Proceedings of 2017 XX IEEE International Conference on Soft Computing and Measurements (SCM 2017), pp. 90–92. Saint Petersburg Electrotechnical University “LETI”, Saint Petersburg (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1109/scm.2017.7970504

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Theoretical and Interdisciplinary Problems of InformaticsSt. Petersburg Institute for Informatics and Automation of the Russian Academy of SciencesSt. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Mathematics and Mechanics FacultySt. Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations