Skip to main content

Policies, Innovative Self-Adaptive Techniques and Understanding Psychology of Cybersecurity to Counter Adversarial Attacks in Network and Cyber Environments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cyber Criminology

Abstract

Despite the increasing evolution of the cyber environment, enterprises seem to find it challenging to identify a solution to create an effective defensive posture. As the cyber phenomenon becomes a fundamental part of our society, it is essential to identify adaptive methods to increase the worldwide defensive condition in the most effective manner possible. A decade ago, it was not possible to imagine today’s cyber-threat landscape. Cybercriminals have adapted their methods to circumvent traditional defences and hide undetected on systems for months or even years. There are different reasons for such attacks, and understanding the psychology of attacks are essential. Therefore, enterprise security also needs to be adapted with an intelligence, multi-layered approach to IT security. This paper surveys the latest research on the foundation of Adaptive Enterprise Security (AEC). To this end, it discusses potential security policies and strategies that are easy to develop, are established, and have a major effect on an enterprise’s security practices. These policies and strategies can then efficiently be applied to an enterprise’s cyber policies for the purposes of enhancing security and defence. Moreover, it will take into briefly discuss the need for a thorough understanding of human factors and psychology of attacks. The study also discusses various adaptive security measures that enterprises can adopt to continue with securing their network and cyber environments. To this end, the paper continues to survey and analyse the effectiveness of some of the latest adaptation techniques deployed to secure these network and cyber environments.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
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

References

  • Aagedal, J. O., Den Braber, F., Dimitrakos, T., Gran, B. A., Raptis, D., & Stolen, K. (2002). Model-based risk assessment to improve enterprise security. In The 6th International Conference on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing (pp. 51–62).

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, B., & McGrew, D. (2017). OS fingerprinting: New techniques and a study of information gain and obfuscation. Cisco Systems, Inc. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1706.08003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apostolaki, M., Zohar, A., & Vanbever, L. (2017). Hijacking bitcoin: Routing attacks on cryptocurrencies. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (pp. 375–392).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bada, M., Creese, S., Goldsmith, M., Mitchell, C., & Phillips, E. (2014). Computer security incident response teams (CSIRTs) an overview. Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre (pp.1–23).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, B., Peng, X., Yu, Y., Nuseibeh, B., & Zhao, W. (2014). Self-adaptation through incremental generative model transformations at runtime. In The 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 676–687).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheswick, W. R., Bellovin, S. M., & Rubin, A. D. (2003). Firewalls and Internet security: Repelling the Wily Hacker (2nd ed.). London: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cybenko, G., Jajodia, S., Wellman, M. P., & Liu, P. (2014). Adversarial and uncertain reasoning for adaptive cyber defense: Building the scientific foundation. In International Conference on Information Systems Security (pp. 1–8). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBruhl, B., & Tague, P. (2014). Keeping up with the jammers: Observe-and-adapt algorithms for studying mutually adaptive opponents. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 12, 244–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Castro, L. N., & Timmis, J. (2002). Artificial immune systems: A new computational intelligence approach. London: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durumeric, Z., Ma, Z., Springall, D., Barnes, R., Sullivan, N., Bursztein, E., Bailey, M., Halderman, J. A., & Paxson, V. (2017). The security impact of HTTPS interception. In Symposium (NDSS’17) on Network and Distributed Systems (pp.1–14).

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkhodary, A., & Whittle, J. (2007). A survey of approaches to adaptive application security. In International Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (p. 16).

    Google Scholar 

  • ENISA, Symantec Inc., Landitd Ltd. (2009). Good practice guide network security information exchanges (Special Publication (ENISA) – Rev. 1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Formby, D., Srinivasan, P., Leonard, A., Rogers, J., & Beyah, R. A. (2016). Who’s in control of your control system? Device fingerprinting for cyber-physical systems (NDSS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Geer, D., Bace, R., Gutmann, P., Metzger, P., Pfleeger, C., Querterman, J., & Scheier, B. (2003). CyberInsecurity: The cost of monopoly-how the dominance of microsoft’s products poses a risk to security. Washington, DC: Computer and Communications Industry Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, A. (2017). Using COIN doctrine to improve cyber security policies. Available at: https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/policyissues/coin-doctrine-improve-cyber-security-policies-37557. Accessed August 26, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, L. G., & Thomas, T. J. (2007). Toward undetected operating system fingerprinting. In USENIX Workshop on Offensive Technologies (WOOT) (pp. 1–10)

    Google Scholar 

  • HackerWarehouse. (2017). MiniPwner penetration testing toolbox. Available at: http://hackerwarehouse.com/product/minipwner/. Accessed 28th Aug 2017.

  • Haley, C., Laney, R., Moffett, J., & Nuseibeh, B. (2008). Security requirements engineering: A framework for representation and analysis. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 34(1), 133–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosseinpournajarkolaei, A., Jahankhani, H., & Hosseinian-Far, A. (2014). Vulnerability considerations for power line communication’s supervisory control and data acquisition. International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics, Inderscience, 6(2), 104–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husák, M., Cermák, M., Jirsík, T., & Celeda, P. (2015). Network-based HTTPS client identification using SSL/TLS fingerprinting. In 2015 10th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES) (pp. 389-396).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahankhani, H., & Hosseinian-Far, A. (2017). Challenges of cloud forensics. In V. Chang et al. (Eds.), Enterprise security (pp. 1–18). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahankhani, H., & Hosseinian-Far, A. (2014). Digital forensics education, training, and awareness. In Cyber crime and cyber terrorism investigator’s handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 91–100). Waltham: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jahankhani, H., Al-Nemrat, A., & Hosseinian-Far, A. (2014). Cyber crime classification and characteristics. In Cyber crime and cyber terrorism investigator’s handbook (Vol. 1, pp.149–164). Massachusetts: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jajodia, S., Ghosh, A. K., Swarup, V., Wang, C., & Wang, X. S. (2011). Moving target defense: Creating asymmetric uncertainty for cyber threats (Vol. 54). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jajodia, S., Ghosh, A. K., Subrahmanian, V. S., Swarup, V., Wang, C., & Wang, X. S. (2012). Moving target defense II: Application of game theory and adversarial modeling (Vol. 100). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, M., & Kuk, G. (2006). A complex adaptive system perspective of enterprise architecture in electronic government. In The 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol. 4, pp. 71b–71b).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. T. (2015). Artificial intelligence: A systems approach. Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaspersky Lab. (2016). Kaspersky security solutions for enterprise: Securing the enterprise. Available at: http://media.kaspersky.com/pdf/b2b/. Accessed August 15, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, W., Prince, D., Hutchison, D., Disso, J. F. P., & Jones, K. (2015). A survey of cyber security management in industrial control systems. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 9, 52–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohno, T., Broido, A., & Claffy, K. C. (2005). Remote physical device fingerprinting. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 2(2), 93–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamsweerde, A. V. (2004). Elaborating security requirements by construction of intentional anti-models. In 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 148–157).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lei, C., Zhang, H. Q., Ma, D. H., & Yang, Y. J. (2017). Network moving target defense technique based on self-adaptive end-point hopping. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 42, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippmann, R., Fried, D., Piwowarski, K., & Streilein, W. (2003). Passive operating system identification from TCP/IP packet headers. In IEEE Workshop on Data Mining for Computer Security (pp. 40–49).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludlow, P. (2013). What is a ‘Hacktivist’? NYTimes. Available at: https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/what-is-a-hacktivist/.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, N., & Firstbrook, P. (2014). Designing an adaptive security architecture for protection from advanced attacks. Available at: https://www.gartner.com/doc/2665515/designing-adaptive-security-architecture-protection. Accessed August 14, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markmann, C., Darkow, I. L., & von der Gracht, H. (2013). A Delphi-based risk analysis? Identifying and assessing future challenges for supply chain security in a multi-stakeholder environment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(9), 1815–1833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlaney, J., Thackray, H., & Taylor, A. (2016). The social psychology of cybersecurity. The British Psychological Society, 29, 686–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2003). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(42).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moffett, J., & Nuseibeh, A. (2003). A framework for security requirements engineering. Report-University of York, Department of Computer Science YCS (pp. 1–30).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, K., Bogenreif, D., Yilek, S., & Shacham, H. (2011). Fingerprinting information in javascript implementations. In Proceedings of W2SP (pp.180–193).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagurney, A., Daniele, P., & Shukla, S. (2017). A supply chain network game theory model of cybersecurity investments with nonlinear budget constraints. Annals of Operations Research, 248(1–2), 405–427. IGI Global.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NCSC. (2017). The National Cyber Security Centre: A part of GCHQ. Available at: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/. Accessed August 28, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nhlabatsi, A., Nuseibeh, B., & Yu, Y. (2012). Security requirements engineering for evolving software systems: A survey. In K. M. Khan (Ed.), Security-aware systems applications and software development methods (pp. 108–128). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • PA Consulting Group (PACG). (2015a). Security for industrial control systems – Improve awareness and skills: A good practice guide (PACG Special Publication).

    Google Scholar 

  • PA Consulting Group (PACG). (2015b). Security for industrial control systems: Improve awareness and skills – A good practice guide (Special Publication (CPNI), Rev. 1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasquale, L., Ghezzi, C., Menghi, C., Tsigkanos, C., & Nuseibeh, B. (2014). Topology aware adaptive security. In The 9th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems (pp. 43–48).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peltier, T. (2016). Information security policies, procedures, and standards: Guidelines for effective information security management. CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salehie, M., Pasquale, L., Omoronyia, I., Ali, R., & Nuseibeh, B. (2012). Requirements-driven adaptive security: Protecting variable assets at runtime. In 20th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (pp.111–120).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shu, G., & Lee, D. (2006). Network protocol system fingerprinting – A formal approach. In 25th IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (pp. 1–12).

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitzner, I. (2008). Know your enemy: Passive fingerprinting. Available at: https://www.honeynet.org/papers/finger. Accessed August 23, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoneburner, G., Goguen, A., & Feringa, A. (2002). Risk management guide for information technology systems and underlying technical models for information technology security. Pennsylvania: Diane Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stouffer, K., Pillitteri, V., Lightman, S., Abrams, M., & Hahn, A. (2015). Guide to industrial control systems (ICS) security (Special Publication (NIST SP)-800-82 Rev 2).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, K., & Jajodia, S. (2014). Protecting enterprise networks through attack surface expansion. In ACM Workshop on Cyber Security Analytics, Intelligence and Automation, 2014 (pp. 29–32).

    Google Scholar 

  • Symantec Inc and Landitd Ltd. (2009). Good practice guide network security information exchanges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tague, P. (2017). Inference-based adaptation techniques for next generation jamming and anti-jamming capabilities. Available at: https://www.cylab.cmu.edu/research/projects/2013/inference-based-adaptation-jamming.html. Accessed August 27, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyagi, R., Paul, T., Manoj, B. S., & Thanudas, B. (2015). Packet inspection for unauthorized OS detection in enterprises. IEEE Security & Privacy, 13(4), 60–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US-CERT. (2017). Information sharing specifications for cybersecurity. Available at: https://www.us-cert.gov/Information-Sharing-Specifications-Cybersecurity?. Accessed August 24, 2017.

  • Vectra. (2016). How vectra enables the implementation of an adaptive security architecture. Available at: https://info.vectranetworks.com/hubfs/how-vectra-enables-the-implementation-of-an-adaptive-security-architecture.pdf?t=1487862985000. Accessed August 28, 2017.

  • Virvilis, N., & Gritzalis, D. (2013). The big four-what we did wrong in advanced persistent threat detection. In 8th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES) (pp. 248–254).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., & Wu, D. (2016). Moving target defense against network reconnaissance with software defined networking. In International Conference on Information Security (pp. 203–217).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, W., Suh, K., Wang, B., Gu, Y., Kurose, J., & Towsley, D. (2007). Passive online rogue access point detection using sequential hypothesis testing with TCP ACK-pairs. In 7th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement (pp. 365–378).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weise, J. (2008). Designing an adaptive security architecture (pp.1–18). Sun Global Systems Engineering Security Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilk, J. (1999). Mind, nature and emerging science of change: An introduction to metamorphology. In G. C. Cornelis (Ed.), Metadebates on science (Vol. 24, pp. 71–87). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, M. (2006). Designing an ‘adaptive’ enterprise architecture. BT Technology Journal, 24(4), 81–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, H., & Chapin, S. J. (2009). Address-space layout randomization using code islands. Journal of Computer Security, 17(3), 331–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zalewski, M. (2014). p0f – Passive OS fingerprinting tool. Available at: http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/p0f3/. Accessed August 16, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reza Montasari .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Montasari, R., Hosseinian-Far, A., Hill, R. (2018). Policies, Innovative Self-Adaptive Techniques and Understanding Psychology of Cybersecurity to Counter Adversarial Attacks in Network and Cyber Environments. In: Jahankhani, H. (eds) Cyber Criminology. Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97181-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97181-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97180-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97181-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics