SYNERGISTIC ARCHITECTURE FOR AUTOMATED DETECTION OF TARGETED INFORMATION ATTACKS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28925/2663-4023.2024.25.118128Keywords:
Ключові слова: інформаційна загроза; синергетична архітектура; автоматизоване виявлення; цілеспрямована інформаційна атака; аналітик; збір доказів.Abstract
Detecting targeted attacks in order to counteract them in a timely manner requires an operational analysis of the information space using specialized monitoring systems. Such systems should provide not only hardware analysis of information attacks, but also quantitative analysis of the dynamics of these attacks, taking into account their specifics. In the event of an attack, the intensity of incidents of the attack flow, which is a time series by the number of information incidents over a certain period of time (usually per day), may contain information both about the fact of a targeted attack and about the phase of the scenario in which it is carried out. It is noted that the current detection of information security threats is mainly a manual process in which teams of analysts monitor suspicious events using auxiliary tools. The ability of analysts to recognize suspicious activity and the authority to make decisions about threats put people at the centre of the threat detection process. It is noted that excessive reliance on human abilities can lead to a large number of undetected threats. The author substantiates the need for a new detection paradigm that would be largely automated, but in which analysts would retain situational awareness and control over the process. The article proposes a synergistic detection process that rationally uses the advantages of human cognition and machine computing, while mitigating their weaknesses. The paper presents the structure of analyst discovery in the cycle and describes the types of required interactions between the evidence collection system, inference engine, and analyst. the paper presents the structure of analyst discovery in the cycle and describes the types of required interactions between the evidence collection system, inference engine, and analyst. The use of queries and operations to improve detection is demonstrated and the basis for a more detailed operational definition of interactions is laid.
Downloads
References
Kosohov, O. (2024). Model of the dynamics of the intensity of information influence for detecting targeted information attacks. Proceedings of the ICSU Conferences, 184-189. https://doi.org/10.62731/mcnd-17.05.2024.007
Kosohov, O. M. (2023). Conceptual Bases For Evaluating The Efficiency Of Automation Of Production Processes At Aviation Enterprises. Science and technology: problems, prospects and innovations. Proceedings of the 10th International scientific and practical conference, 58–64.
Gonzalez, C., Ben-Asher, N., Oltramari, A., & Lebiere, C. (2014). Cognition and technology. Cyber Defense and Situational Awareness, 93–117.
Zhong, C., Yen, J., Liu, P., & Erbacher, R. F. (2016). Automate cybersecurity data triage by leveraging human analysts’ cognitive process. IEEE 2nd International Conference on Big Data Security on Cloud (BigDataSecurity), IEEE International Conference on High Performance and Smart Computing (HPSC), and IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Data and Security (IDS), 357–363.
Saydjari, O. S. (2004). Cyber defense: art to science. Communications of the ACM, 47(3), 52–57.
Virvilis, N., Gritzalis, D., & Apostolopoulos, T. (2013). Trusted computing vs. advanced persistent threats: Can a defender win this game? Ubiquitous Intelligence and Computing, 2013 IEEE 10th International Conference on and 10th International Conference on Autonomic and Trusted Computing (UIC/ATC), 396–403.
Ehrlich, K., Kirk, S. E., Patterson, J., Rasmussen, J. C., Ross, S. I., & Gruen, D. M. (2011). Taking advice from intelligent systems: the double-edged sword of explanations. Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, 125–134.
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(1), 50–80.
Mortier, R., Haddadi, H., Henderson, T., McAuley, D., & Crowcroft, J. (2014). Human-data interaction: the human face of the data-driven society. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2508051.
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286–297.
Arbaugh, W. A., Fithen, W. L., & McHugh, J. (2000). Windows of vulnerability: A case study analysis. Computer, 33(12), 52–59.
Bilge, L., & Dumitras, T. (2012). Before we knew it: an empirical study of zero-day attacks in the real world. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security, 833–844.
Veeramachaneni, K., Arnaldo, I., Korrapati, V., Bassias, C., & Li, K. (2016). Ai2 Training a big data machine to defend. IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Data and Security, 49–54.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Олександр Косогов
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.