Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3411498.3419967acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Hazard Driven Threat Modelling for Cyber Physical Systems

Published: 09 November 2020 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Adversarial actors have shown their ability to infiltrate enterprise networks deployed around Cyber Physical Systems (CPSs) through social engineering, credential stealing and file-less infections. When inside, they can gain enough privileges to maliciously call legitimate APIs and apply unsafe control actions to degrade the system performance and undermine its safety. Our work lies at the intersection of security and safety, and aims to understand dependencies among security, reliability and safety in CPS/IoT. We present a methodology to perform hazard driven threat modelling and impact assessment in the context of CPSs. The process starts from the analysis of behavioural, functional and architectural models of the CPS. We then apply System Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) on the functional model to highlight high-level abuse cases. We leverage a mapping between the architectural and the system theoretic(ST) models to enumerate those components whose impairment provides the attacker with enough privileges to tamper with or disrupt the data-flows. This enables us to find a causal connection between the attack surface (in the architectural model) and system level losses. We then link the behavioural and system theoretic representations of the CPS to quantify the impact of the attack. Using our methodology it is possible to compute a comprehensive attack graph of the known attack paths and to perform both a qualitative and quantitative impact assessment of the exploitation of vulnerabilities affecting target nodes. The framework and methodology are illustrated using a small scale example featuring a Communication Based Train Control (CBTC) system. Aspects regarding the scalability of our methodology and its application in real world scenarios are also considered. Finally, we discuss the possibility of using the results obtained to engineer both design time and real time defensive mechanisms.

    Supplementary Material

    MP4 File (3411498.3419967.mp4)
    Recording of the presentation for CPSIOTSEC'20 Submission titled "Hazard Driven Threat Modelling for Cyber Physical Systems".

    References

    [1]
    Marshall Abrams and Joe Weiss. 2008. Malicious control system cyber security attack case study--Maroochy Water Services, Australia. McLean, VA: The MITRE Corporation (2008).
    [2]
    Sofia Belikovetsky, Mark Yampolskiy, Jinghui Toh, Jacob Gatlin, and Yuval Elovici. 2017. dr0wned--Cyber-physical attack with additive manufacturing. In 11th {USENIX} Workshop on Offensive Technologies ({WOOT} 17).
    [3]
    Alvaro A Cardenas, Saurabh Amin, and Shankar Sastry. 2008. Secure control: Towards survivable cyber-physical systems. In 2008 The 28th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops. IEEE, 495--500.
    [4]
    Defense Use Case. 2016. Analysis of the cyber attack on the Ukrainian power grid. Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) (2016).
    [5]
    John H Castellanos, Mart'in Ochoa, and Jianying Zhou. 2018. Finding dependencies between cyber-physical domains for security testing of industrial control systems. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. 582--594.
    [6]
    Crowdstrike. 2020. 2020 Crowdstrike Global Threat Report. Report (2020).
    [7]
    Alessandro Di Pinto, Younes Dragoni, and Andrea Carcano. 2018. TRITON: The first ICS cyber attack on safety instrument systems. In Proc. Black Hat USA. 1--26.
    [8]
    Robert Ellison, John Hudak, Rick Kazman, Carol Woody, and Allen Householder. 2015. Extending aadl for security design assurance of cyber physical systems. Technical Report. CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIV PITTSBURGH PA PITTSBURGH United States.
    [9]
    Clifton A Ericson et almbox. 2015. Hazard analysis techniques for system safety. John Wiley & Sons.
    [10]
    Song Fang, Karl Henrik Johansson, Mikael Skoglund, Henrik Sandberg, and Hideaki Ishii. 2019. Two-way coding in control systems under injection attacks: from attack detection to attack correction. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems. ACM, 141--150.
    [11]
    Peter H Feiler, David P Gluch, and John J Hudak. 2006. The architecture analysis & design language (AADL): An introduction. Technical Report. Carnegie-Mellon Univ Pittsburgh PA Software Engineering Inst.
    [12]
    Ivo Friedberg, Kieran McLaughlin, Paul Smith, David Laverty, and Sakir Sezer. 2017. STPA-SafeSec: Safety and security analysis for cyber-physical systems. Journal of Information Security and Applications, Vol. 34 (2017), 183--196.
    [13]
    Kian Gheitasi, Mohsen Ghaderi, and Walter Lucia. 2019. A Novel Networked Control Scheme with Safety Guarantees for Detection and Mitigation of Cyber-Attacks. In 2019 18th European Control Conference (ECC). IEEE, 1449--1454.
    [14]
    Jairo Giraldo and Alvaro A Cardenas. 2019. Moving target defense for attack mitigation in multi-vehicle systems. In Proactive and Dynamic Network Defense. Springer, 163--190.
    [15]
    Adam Hahn, Roshan K Thomas, Ivan Lozano, and Alvaro Cardenas. 2015. A multi-layered and kill-chain based security analysis framework for cyber-physical systems. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Vol. 11 (2015), 39--50.
    [16]
    Zhongyuan Hau, John H Castellanos, and Jianying Zhou. 2019. Evaluating Cascading Effects of Attacks on Resilience of Industrial Control Systems: A Design-Centric Modeling Approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.03156 (2019).
    [17]
    Bing Huang, Alvaro A Cardenas, and Ross Baldick. 2019. Not everything is dark and gloomy: Power grid protections against IoT demand attacks. In 28th {USENIX} Security Symposium ($$USENIX$$ Security 19). 1115--1132.
    [18]
    Kip Johnson. 2017. Extending Systems-Theoretic Safety Analyses for Coordination. STAMP Workshop ?17 (2017).
    [19]
    Sahand Hadizadeh Kafash, Jairo Giraldo, Carlos Murguia, Alvaro A Cardenas, and Justin Ruths. 2018. Constraining attacker capabilities through actuator saturation. In 2018 Annual American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 986--991.
    [20]
    Ralph Langner. 2011. Stuxnet: Dissecting a cyberwarfare weapon. IEEE Security & Privacy, Vol. 9, 3 (2011), 49--51.
    [21]
    Nancy Leveson. 2011. Engineering a safer world: Systems thinking applied to safety. MIT press.
    [22]
    N Leveson and J Thomas. 2019. STPA Handbook (2018).
    [23]
    Stefano Longari, Andrea Cannizzo, Michele Carminati, and Stefano Zanero. 2019. A Secure-by-Design Framework for Automotive On-board Network Risk Analysis. In 2019 IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference (VNC). IEEE, 1--8.
    [24]
    Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek. 2015. Remote exploitation of an unaltered passenger vehicle. Black Hat USA, Vol. 2015 (2015), 91.
    [25]
    Yilin Mo and Bruno Sinopoli. 2015. On the performance degradation of cyber-physical systems under stealthy integrity attacks. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, Vol. 61, 9 (2015), 2618--2624.
    [26]
    Naeem Muhammad, Yves Vandewoude, Yolande Berbers, and Sjir Van Loo. 2009. Modelling composite end-to-end flows with AADL. In Proceedings of the workshop on the definition, evaluation, and exploitation of modelling and computing standards for Real-Time Embedded Systems. 1--3.
    [27]
    Luis Mu noz-González, Daniele Sgandurra, Martín Barrère, and Emil C Lupu. 2017. Exact inference techniques for the analysis of Bayesian attack graphs. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, Vol. 16, 2 (2017), 231--244.
    [28]
    Arash Nourian and Stuart Madnick. 2015. A systems theoretic approach to the security threats in cyber physical systems applied to stuxnet. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, Vol. 15, 1 (2015), 2--13.
    [29]
    Xinming Ou, Wayne F Boyer, and Miles A McQueen. 2006. A scalable approach to attack graph generation. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM conference on Computer and communications security. 336--345.
    [30]
    Xinming Ou, Sudhakar Govindavajhala, and Andrew W Appel. 2005. MulVAL: A Logic-based Network Security Analyzer. In USENIX security symposium, Vol. 8. Baltimore, MD, 113--128.
    [31]
    Antonio Roque, Kevin B Bush, and Christopher Degni. 2016. Security is about control: insights from cybernetics. In Proceedings of the Symposium and Bootcamp on the Science of Security. ACM, 17--24.
    [32]
    Alastair Ruddle, David Ward, Benjamin Weyl, Sabir Idrees, Yves Roudier, Michael Friedewald, Timo Leimbach, Andreas Fuchs, Sigrid Gürgens, Olaf Henniger, et almbox. 2009. Deliverable D2. 3: Security requirements for automotive on-board networks based on dark-side scenarios. In EVITA project.
    [33]
    Jill Slay and Michael Miller. 2007. Lessons learned from the maroochy water breach. In International Conference on Critical Infrastructure Protection. Springer, 73--82.
    [34]
    Joe Slowik. 2018. Anatomy of an Attack: Detecting and Defeating CRASHOVERRIDE. VB2018, October (2018).
    [35]
    Yonglei Tao and Chenho Kung. 1991. Formal definition and verification of data flow diagrams. Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 16, 1 (1991), 29--36.
    [36]
    André Teixeira, Henrik Sandberg, and Karl H Johansson. 2010. Networked control systems under cyber attacks with applications to power networks. In Proceedings of the 2010 American Control Conference. IEEE, 3690--3696.
    [37]
    John P Thomas IV. 2013. Extending and automating a systems-theoretic hazard analysis for requirements generation and analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    [38]
    Tony UcedaVelez. 2012. Real World Threat ModelingUsing the PASTA Methodology. https://owasp.org/www-pdf-archive/AppSecEU2012_PASTA.pdf
    [39]
    William E Young. 2014. STPA-SEC for cyber security mission assurance. Eng Syst. Div. Syst. Eng. Res. Lab (2014).

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Bridging the Gap: A Survey and Classification of Research-Informed Ethical Hacking ToolsJournal of Cybersecurity and Privacy10.3390/jcp40300214:3(410-448)Online publication date: 16-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Which Attacks Lead to Hazards? Combining Safety and Security Analysis for Cyber-Physical SystemsIEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing10.1109/TDSC.2023.330977821:4(2526-2540)Online publication date: Jul-2024
    • (2024)Application of Systems Theoretic Accident Model and Processes in Railway Systems: A ReviewIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2024.342956812(99872-99893)Online publication date: 2024
    • Show More Cited By

    Index Terms

    1. Hazard Driven Threat Modelling for Cyber Physical Systems

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CPSIOTSEC'20: Proceedings of the 2020 Joint Workshop on CPS&IoT Security and Privacy
      November 2020
      99 pages
      ISBN:9781450380874
      DOI:10.1145/3411498
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 09 November 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. attack graphs
      2. cyber physical systems security
      3. resilience
      4. system theoretic analysis
      5. threat modelling

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Conference

      CCS '20
      Sponsor:

      Upcoming Conference

      CCS '24
      ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
      October 14 - 18, 2024
      Salt Lake City , UT , USA

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)62
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8
      Reflects downloads up to 30 Jul 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2024)Bridging the Gap: A Survey and Classification of Research-Informed Ethical Hacking ToolsJournal of Cybersecurity and Privacy10.3390/jcp40300214:3(410-448)Online publication date: 16-Jul-2024
      • (2024)Which Attacks Lead to Hazards? Combining Safety and Security Analysis for Cyber-Physical SystemsIEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing10.1109/TDSC.2023.330977821:4(2526-2540)Online publication date: Jul-2024
      • (2024)Application of Systems Theoretic Accident Model and Processes in Railway Systems: A ReviewIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2024.342956812(99872-99893)Online publication date: 2024
      • (2023)HVA_CPS proposal: a process for hazardous vulnerability analysis in distributed cyber-physical systemsPeerJ Computer Science10.7717/peerj-cs.12499(e1249)Online publication date: 21-Apr-2023
      • (2023)Don’t Panic! Analysing the Impact of Attacks on the Safety of Flight Management Systems2023 IEEE/AIAA 42nd Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC)10.1109/DASC58513.2023.10311328(1-10)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2023
      • (2022)HA-Grid: Security Aware Hazard Analysis for Smart Grids2022 IEEE International Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing Technologies for Smart Grids (SmartGridComm)10.1109/SmartGridComm52983.2022.9961003(446-452)Online publication date: 25-Oct-2022
      • (2021)A Framework for Diagnosing Urban Rail Train Turn-Back Faults Based on Rules and AlgorithmsApplied Sciences10.3390/app1108334711:8(3347)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2021
      • (2021)Towards Automated Threat Modeling of Cyber-Physical Systems2021 International Conference on Software Engineering & Computer Systems and 4th International Conference on Computational Science and Information Management (ICSECS-ICOCSIM)10.1109/ICSECS52883.2021.00118(614-619)Online publication date: Aug-2021

      View Options

      Get Access

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media