Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mission Resilience

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cyber Defense and Situational Awareness

Part of the book series: Advances in Information Security ((ADIS,volume 62))

Abstract

As we come to the end of the book, we look at the end-goals of achieving CSA. In this chapter we explain that the ultimate objective of CSA is to enable situation management, i.e., continuous adjustments of both the network and the mission that the network supports, in order to ensure that the mission continues to achieve its objectives. Indeed, several previous chapters stressed that CSA exists in the context of a particular mission, and serves the purposes of the mission. A mission that is able to absorb the attacks and keep returning to an acceptable level of execution is called a resilient mission. It can be said that the purpose of CSA is to maintain mission resiliency. This chapter explains that mission-centric resilient cyber defense should be based on collective and adaptive behavior of two interacting dynamic processes, cyber situation management in the cyber space, and mission situation management in the physical space. It discusses architecture and enabling technologies of such mutually adaptive processes that keep the mission persisting even if the network that supports the mission may be compromised by a cyber attack.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Within the scope of issues discussed in this paper the notions business process and mission are handled as semantically equivalent concepts, and they will be collectively referred as missions, business or military ones.

References

  • Aceituno, V. “On Information Security Paradigms,” ISSA Journal, September, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albanese, M., Jajodia, S., Jhawar, R., and Piuri, V. “Reliable Mission Deployment in Vulnerable Distributed Systems”. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Reliability and Security Data Analysis (RSDA 2013), Budapest, Hungary, June 24, 2013a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albanese, M., Jajodia, S., Jhawar, R., Piuri, V. “Secure Mission-Centric Operations in Cloud Computing,” ARO Workshop on Cloud Security George Mason University, USA, March 11–12, 2013b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, J. F. “Maintaining Knowledge About Temporal Intervals,” Communications of the ACM 26 (11), pp. 832–843, 1983.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Argauer, B., and Young, S. “VTAC: Virtual Terrain Assisted Impact Assessment for Cyber Attacks,” Proceedings of SPIE Security and Defense Symposium, Data Mining, Intrusion Detection, Information Assurance, and Data Networks Security Conference, Orlando, CA, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barford, P., Dacier, M., Dietterich, T. G., Fredrikson, M., Giffin, J., Jajodia, S., Jha, S., Li, J., Liu, P., Ning, P., Ou, X., Song, D., Strater, L., Swarup, V., Tadda, G., Wang, C., and Yen, J. “Cyber SA: Situational Awareness for Cyber Defense,” in Issues and Research, Editors: S. Jajodia, P. Liu, V. Swarup, C. Wang, Advances in Information Security, Volume 46, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beraud, P., Cruz, A., Hassell, S., and Meadows, S. “Using Cyber Maneuver to Improve Network Resilience,” Military Communications Conference, MILCOM 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buecker, A., Andreas, P., Paisley, S. Understanding IT Perimeter Security. IBM Redpaper Report REDP-4397-00, 2009, http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp4397.pdf.

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Reis, H. T., Zautra, A. J. “Social Resilience: The Value of Social Fitness with an Application to Military,” American Psychologist, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 43–51, 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, M. “A Distributed Reinforcement Learning Approach to Mission Survivability in Tactical MANETs,” ACM Conference CSIIRW 2009, Oak Ridge, TN, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, S., Lindqvist, U., and Fong, M. W. “Modeling Multi-Step Cyber Attacks for Scenario Recognition,” 3rd DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exhibition, Washington D. C., 2003a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, S., Lindqvist, U., and Fong, M. W. “Modeling Multi-Step Cyber Attacks for Scenario Recognition”, In Proceedings of the 3rd DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exhibition,Washington, D. C., 2003b.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Amico, A., Buchanan, L., Goodall, J., and Walczak, P. "Mission Impact of Cyber Events: Scenarios and Ontology to Express the Relationships Between Cyber Assets, Missions and Users." Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Warfare and Security (ICIW), Thomson Reuters ISI, 2010, 388–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T. Process Innovation: Reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debar, H., and Wespi, A. “The Intrusion Detection Console Correlation Mechanism”, In 4th International Symposium on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection (RAID), 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dechter, R. Constraint Processing, The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Artificial Intelligence, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endsley, M. R. “Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems,” Human Factors, 37(1), pp. 32-64, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feder, A., Nestler, E., and Charney, D. “Psychobiology and Molecular Genetics of Resilience,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10, June 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraga, J. S., Powell, D. “A Fault- and Intrusion-Tolerant File System,” In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Security. 203–218, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, H. “Building Secure, Resilient Architectures for Cyber Mission Assurance,” Technical Papers, The MITRE Corporation, November 2010, http://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/10_3301.pdf

  • Goldman, R. P., Heimerdinger, W., and Harp, S. A. “Information Modeling for Intrusion Report Aggregation”, In DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exhibition, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimaila, M. R., Fortson, L. W., and Sutton, J. L. “Design Considerations for a Cyber Incident Mission Impact Assessment (CIMIA) Process,” Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Security and Management (SAM09), Las Vegas, Nevada, July 13–16, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jajodia, S. (ed.) Moving Target Defense: An Asymmetric Approach to Cyber Security, Springer, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jajodia, S. A Mission-centric Framework for Cyber Situational Awareness, Keynote at ICETE 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, G. “Technology and Practice of Integrated Multi-Agent Event Correlation Systems,” International Conference on Integration of Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Agent Systems, KIMAS’03, September/October 2003, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, G. “Extending Situation Modeling with Inference of Plausible Future Cyber Situations”, 1st IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Situation Awareness and Decision Support 2011 (CogSIMA 2011), Miami, FL., 2011a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, G. “Mission Cyber Security Situation Assessment Using Impact Dependency Graphs,” Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Fusion, 5–8 July 2011, Chicago, IL., 2011b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, G. “Using Federated Adaptable Multi-Agent Systems in Achieving Cyber Attack Tolerant Missions,” 2nd IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Situation Awareness and Decision Support 2012 (CogSIMA 2012), 6–8 March, 2012, New Orleans, LO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, G. “Mission-Centricity in Cyber Security: Architecting Cyber Attack Resilient Missions,” 5th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon 2013), Tallinn, Estonia, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, G., Weissman, M., Brenner, L., Lafond, C., Matheus, C. “GRACE: Building Next Generation Event Correlation Services,” IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium NOMS 2000, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, G., Buford, J., Lewis, L. “A Framework of Cognitive Situation Modeling and Recognition,” The 2nd IEEE Workshop on Situation Management, in Proceedings of the Military Communications Conference (MILCOM 2006), Washington, D. C., September, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, G., Buford, J., and Lewis, L. “Models of Feedback and Adaptation in Multi-Agent Systems for Disaster Situation Management,” SPIE 2008 Defense and Security Conference, Orlando, FL, March, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerner, J., Shokri, E. “Cybersecurity Challenges in a Net-Centric World, “Aerospace Crosslink Magazine, Spring 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, S. Cyber Science & Technology Steering Committee Council Research Roadmap, NDIA Disruptive Technologies Conference, November 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mission-Oriented Resilient Clouds. 2011, DARPA, Information Innovation Office, http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/I2O/Programs/Mission-oriented_Resilient_Clouds_(MRC).aspx.

  • Mostashari, A. Resilient Critical Infrastructure Systems and Enterprises, Imperial College Press, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musman, S., Temin, A., Tanner, M., Fox, D., and Pridemore, B. “Evaluating the Impact of Cyber Attacks on Missions,” MITRE Technical Paper #09-4577, July 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noel, S., Robertson, E., Jajodia, S. “Correlating Intrusion Events and Building Attack Scenarios through Attack Graph Distance,” 20th Annual Computer Security Conference, Tucson, Arizona, December 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norling, E. “Folk Psychology for Human Modeling: Extending the BDI Paradigm,” In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • OSVDB. The Open Source Vulnerability Database, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peake, C., Williams, D. “An Integrative Framework for Secure and Resilient Mission Assurance,” 4th Annual Secure and Resilient Cyber Architectures Workshop, May 28–29, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qin, X., and Lee, W. “Attack Plan Recognition and prediction Using Causal Networks,” in Proceedings of the 20th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pp. 370–379, 2004a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qin, X., and Lee, W. “Discovering Novel Attack Strategies from INFOSEC Alerts”, In Proceedings of the 9th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, Sophia Antipolis, France 2004b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qin, X., and Lee, W. “Discovering Novel Attack Strategies from INFOSEC Alerts”, In Proceedings of the 9th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, Sophia Antipolis, France 2004c.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, A., and Georgeff, M. “BDI Agents: From Theory to Practice,” In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sowa, J. F. Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundation, Brooks Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove, CA, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tadda, G. P., Salerno, J. S. Overview of Cyber Situation Awareness Cyber Situational Awareness in Issues and Research, Editors: Sushil Jajodia, Peng Liu, Vipin Swarup, Cliff Wang, Advances in Information Security, Volume 46, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • US DoD. 2012, “Department of Defense Net-Centric Data Strategy”, http://dodcio.defense.gov/docs/net-centric-data-strategy-2003-05-092.pdf.

  • US GAO. Critical Infrastructure Protection. Cybersecurity Guidance Is Available, but More Can Be Done to Promote Its Use”, USA GAO Report to Conressional Requesters GAO-12-92, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdes, A., and Skinner, K. “Probabilistic alert correlation”. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Recent. Advances in Intrusion Detection (RAID 2001), 54–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westrum, R. A Typology of Resilience Situations, in (Eds. E. Hollnagel, D. Woods, D. Lelvenson) Resilience Engineering Concepts and Precepts. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, M. An Introduction to Multi-Agent Systems, John Wiley and Sons, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, G., Feder, A., Cohen, H., Kim, J., Calderon, S., Charney, D., and Mathé, A. “Understanding Resilience,” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol. 7, Article 10, 15 February, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Altusys Corporation, Princeton, NJ, USA

    Gabriel Jakobson

Authors
  1. Gabriel Jakobson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriel Jakobson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. United States Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, Maryland, USA

    Alexander Kott

  2. United States Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA

    Cliff Wang

  3. United States Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, Maryland, USA

    Robert F. Erbacher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jakobson, G. (2014). Mission Resilience. In: Kott, A., Wang, C., Erbacher, R. (eds) Cyber Defense and Situational Awareness. Advances in Information Security, vol 62. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11391-3_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11391-3_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-11390-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-11391-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation