Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response Engine for Deployment of Behavioural Honeypots
January 14, 2022 Β· Declared Dead Β· π International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Upendra Bartwal, Subhasis Mukhopadhyay, Rohit Negi, Sandeep Shukla
arXiv ID
2201.05326
Category
cs.CR: Cryptography & Security
Cross-listed
cs.LG
Citations
33
Venue
International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace
Last Checked
6 months ago
Abstract
Cyber Security is a critical topic for organizations with IT/OT networks as they are always susceptible to attack, whether insider or outsider. Since the cyber landscape is an ever-evolving scenario, one must keep upgrading its security systems to enhance the security of the infrastructure. Tools like Security Information and Event Management (SIEM), Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR), Threat Intelligence Platform (TIP), Information Technology Service Management (ITSM), along with other defensive techniques like Intrusion Detection System (IDS), Intrusion Protection System (IPS), and many others enhance the cyber security posture of the infrastructure. However, the proposed protection mechanisms have their limitations, they are insufficient to ensure security, and the attacker penetrates the network. Deception technology, along with Honeypots, provides a false sense of vulnerability in the target systems to the attackers. The attacker deceived reveals threat intel about their modus operandi. We have developed a Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR) Engine that dynamically deploys custom honeypots inside the internal network infrastructure based on the attacker's behavior. The architecture is robust enough to support multiple VLANs connected to the system and used for orchestration. The presence of botnet traffic and DDOS attacks on the honeypots in the network is detected, along with a malware collection system. After being exposed to live traffic for four days, our engine dynamically orchestrated the honeypots 40 times, detected 7823 attacks, 965 DDOS attack packets, and three malicious samples. While our experiments with static honeypots show an average attacker engagement time of 102 seconds per instance, our SOAR Engine-based dynamic honeypots engage attackers on average 3148 seconds.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Cryptography & Security
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
The Limitations of Deep Learning in Adversarial Settings
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Distillation as a Defense to Adversarial Perturbations against Deep Neural Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Spectre Attacks: Exploiting Speculative Execution
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
How To Backdoor Federated Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Evasion Attacks against Machine Learning at Test Time
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted