Advertisement

A Virtualized Network Testbed for Zero-Day Worm Analysis and Countermeasure Testing

  • Khurram Shahzad
  • Steve Woodhead
  • Panos Bakalis
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 381)

Abstract

Computer network worms are one of the most significant malware threats and have gained wide attention due to their increased virulence, speed and sophistication in successive Internet-wide outbreaks. In order to detect and defend against network worms, a safe and convenient environment is required to closely observe their infection and propagation behaviour. The same facility can also be employed in testing candidate worm countermeasures. This paper presents the design, implementation and commissioning of a novel virtualized malware testing environment, based on virtualization technologies provided by VMware and open source software. The novelty of this environment is its scalability of running virtualised hosts, high fidelity, confinement, realistic traffic generation, and efficient log file creation. This paper also presents the results of an experiment involving the launch of a Slammer-like worm on the testbed to show its propagation behaviour.

Keywords

Worms malware Slammer testbed virtualization VMware 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Weaver, N., Paxson, V., Staniford, S., Cunningham, R.: A taxonomy of computer worms. In: Proceedings of 2003 ACM Workshop on Rapid Malcode, pp. 11–18. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moore, D., Paxson, V., Savage, S., Shannon, C., Staniford, S., Weaver, N.: Inside the Slammer worm. IEEE Security and Privacy 1(4), 33–39 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Langner, R.: Stuxnet: Dissecting a cyberwarfare weapon. IEEE Security & Privacy 9(3), 49–51 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    White, B., Lepreau, J., Stoller, L., Ricci, R., Guruprasad, S.: An integrated experimental environment for distributed systems and networks. In: Proceedings of 5th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 265–270. USENIX (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benzel, T., Braden, R., Kim, D., Neuman, C.: Design, deployment and use of the DETER testbed. In: Proceedings of DETER Community Workshop on Cyber Security Experimentation and Test 2007, Berkeley, CA, USA, pp. 1–8. USENIX (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lippmann, R.P., Fried, D.J., Graf, I., Haines, J.W., Kendall, K.R., McClung, D., Weber, D., Webster, S.E., Wyschogrod, D., Cunningham, R.K., Zissman, M.A.: Evaluating intrusion detection systems: the 1998 DARPA off-line intrusion detection evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 2000 DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition (DISCEX), vol. 2, pp. 12–26. IEEE Press, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rossey, L.M., Cunningham, R.K., Fried, D.J., Rabek, J.C., Lippmann, R.P.: LARIAT: Lincoln Adaptable Real Time Information Assurance Testbed. In: Proceedings of IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, Montana, USA, vol. 6, pp. 2671–2682. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perumalla, K.S., Sundaragopalan, S.: High fidelity modeling of computer network worms. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC), Tucson, AZ, USA, pp. 126–135. ACSA (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ediger, B.: Simulating Network Worms, http://www.stratigery.com/nws/
  10. 10.
    Tidy, L., Woodhead, S.R., Wetherall, J.C.: A Large-scale Zero-day Worm Simulator for Cyber-Epidemiological Analysis. UACEE International Journal of Advances in Computer Networks and Security 3(2), 69–73 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ns (network simulator), http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns
  12. 12.
    Vahdat, A., Yocum, K., Walsh, K., Mahadevan, P.: Scalability and accuracy in a large-scale network emulator. In: Proceedings of USENIX 5th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), Boston, MA, USA, pp. 271–284. USENIX (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peterson, L., Anderson, T., Culler, D., Roscoe, T.: A blue print for introducing disruptive technology into the internet. SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 33(1), 59–64 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Provos, N.: A virtual Honeypot framework. In: Proceeding of USENIX 13th Security Symposium, San Diego, USA, pp. 1–14. USENIX (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dunlap, G., King, S., Cinar, S., Basrai, M., Chen, P.: ReVirt: enabling intrusion analysis through virtual machine logging and replay. In: Proceeding of USENIX 5th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), Boston, MA, pp. 208–223. USENIX (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jiang, X., Wang, X.: Stealthy malware detection through VMM-Based “out-of-the-box” semantic view reconstruction. In: Proceedings of 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communication Society (CCS), Alexandria, VA, USA, pp. 128–138. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jenson, J.: A novel testbed for detection of malicious software functionality. In: Proceeding of Third International Conference on Availability, Security and Reliability, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 292–301. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jiang, X., Xu, D., Wang, H.J., Spafford, E.H.: Virtual Playgrounds for Worm Behavior Investigation. In: Valdes, A., Zamboni, D. (eds.) RAID 2005. LNCS, vol. 3858, pp. 1–21. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Årnes, A., Haas, P., Vigna, G., Kemmerer, R.A.: Digital Forensic Reconstruction and the Virtual Security Testbed ViSe. In: Büschkes, R., Laskov, P. (eds.) DIMVA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4064, pp. 144–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sun, W., Katta, V., Krishna, K., Sekar, R.: V-netlab: an approach for realizing logically isolated networks for security experiments. In: CSET 2008: Proceedings of the Conference on Cyber Security Experimentation and Test, Berkeley, CA, USA, pp. 1–6. USENIX (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fagen, W., Cangussu, J., Dantu, R.: A virtual environment for network testing. Journal of Network and Computer Applications Archive 32(1), 184–214 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nessus Vulnerability Scanner, http://www.tenable.com/products/nessus
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    The Bro Network Security Monitor, http://www.bro.org/
  27. 27.
    Jiang, X., Xu, D., Eigenmann, R.: Protection mechanisms for application service hosting platforms. In: Proceedings of 4th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid (CCGrid 2004), Chicago, Illinois, USA, pp. 633–639. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    Damn Small Linux (DSL), http://www.damnsmalllinux.org
  30. 30.
    Quagga Software Routing Suite, http://www.nongnu.org/quagga
  31. 31.
  32. 32.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Khurram Shahzad
    • 1
  • Steve Woodhead
    • 1
  • Panos Bakalis
    • 1
  1. 1.Internet Security Research LaboratoryUniversity of GreenwichKentUK

Personalised recommendations