Predictive cyber security

Natarajan Meghanathan et al. (Eds) : NeTCoM, CSIT, GRAPH-HOC, SPTM - 2014
pp. 195–209, 2014. © CS & IT-CSCP 2014 DOI : 10.5121/csit.2014.41316
PREDICTIVE CYBER SECURITY
ANALYTICS FRAMEWORK: A NON-
HOMOGENOUS MARKOV MODEL FOR
SECURITY QUANTIFICATION
Subil Abraham1
and Suku Nair2
1
IBM Global Solution Center, Coppell, Texas, USA
smabraha@us.ibm.com
2
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, USA
nair@lyle.smu.edu
ABSTRACT
Numerous security metrics have been proposed in the past for protecting computer networks.
However we still lack effective techniques to accurately measure the predictive security risk of
an enterprise taking into account the dynamic attributes associated with vulnerabilities that can
change over time. In this paper we present a stochastic security framework for obtaining
quantitative measures of security using attack graphs. Our model is novel as existing research
in attack graph analysis do not consider the temporal aspects associated with the
vulnerabilities, such as the availability of exploits and patches which can affect the overall
network security based on how the vulnerabilities are interconnected and leveraged to
compromise the system. Gaining a better understanding of the relationship between
vulnerabilities and their lifecycle events can provide security practitioners a better
understanding of their state of security. In order to have a more realistic representation of how
the security state of the network would vary over time, a nonhomogeneous model is developed
which incorporates a time dependent covariate, namely the vulnerability age. The daily
transition-probability matrices are estimated using Frei's Vulnerability Lifecycle model. We
also leverage the trusted CVSS metric domain to analyze how the total exploitability and impact
measures evolve over a time period for a given network.
KEYWORDS
Attack Graph, Non-homogeneous Markov Model, Markov Reward Models, CVSS, Security
Evaluation, Cyber Situational Awareness
1. INTRODUCTION
Defending a large scale enterprise from outside threats is a fairly complicated task. At the same
time, Cybercriminals are increasingly using sophisticated social engineering techniques leading to
disruptions in business operations, damaging the reputation as well as financial stability of these
corporations. The recent cyber-attack incident at Target Corp illustrates how these security
breaches can seriously affect profits and shareholder value. According to a report by Secunia[1],
the number of reported security vulnerabilities in 2013 increased by 32% compared to 2012.
However in spite of these increasing rate of attacks on corporate and government systems,

196 Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT)
corporations have fallen behind on ramping up their defenses due to limited budgets as well as
weak security practices.
One of the main challenges currently faced in the field of security measurement is to develop a
mechanism to aggregate the security of all the systems in a network in order assess the overall
security of the network. For example INFOSEC [2] has identified security metrics as being one of
the top 8 security research priorities. Similarly Cyber Security IT Advisory Committee [3] has
also identified this area to be among the top 10 security research priorities.
In addition, traditional security efforts in corporations have focused on protecting key assets
against known threats which have been disclosed publicly. But today, advanced attackers are
developing exploits for vulnerabilities that have not yet been disclosed called “zero-day” exploits.
So it is necessary for security teams to focus on activities that are beyond expected or pre-defined.
By building appropriate stochastic models and understanding the relationship between
vulnerabilities and their lifecycle events, it is possible to predict the future when it comes to
cybercrime such as identifying vulnerability trends, anticipating security gaps in the network,
optimizing resource allocation decisions and ensuring the protection of key corporate assets in the
most efficient manner.
In this paper, we propose a stochastic model for security evaluation based on Attack Graphs,
taking into account the temporal factors associated with vulnerabilities that can change over time.
By providing a single platform and using a trusted open vulnerability scoring framework such as
CVSS[4-6], it is possible to visualize the current as well as future security state of the network
leading to actionable knowledge. Several well established approaches for Attack graph analysis
[7-15] have been proposed using probabilistic analysis as well as graph theory to measure the
security of a network. Our model is novel as existing research in attack graph analysis do not
consider the temporal factors associated with the vulnerabilities, such as the availability of
exploits and patches. In this paper, a nonhomogeneous model is developed which incorporates a
time dependent covariate, namely the vulnerability age. The proposed model can help identify
critical systems that need to be hardened based on the likelihood of being intruded by an attacker
as well as risk to the corporation of being compromised.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we discuss about previous
research proposed for security metrics and quantification. In Section 3, we explore the Cyber-
Security Analytics Framework and then realize a non-homogenous Markov Model for security
evaluation that is capable of analyzing the evolving exploitability and impact measures of a given
network. In Section 4, we present the results of our analysis with an example. Finally, we
conclude the paper in Section 5.
2. BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK
Here we briefly discuss about Attack Graphs and then provide an overview of some of the most
prominent works that have been proposed for quantifying security in a network.

Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT) 197
Figure 1. Security Metric Classification
2.1. Attack Graph
Computer attacks have been graphically modeled since the late 1980s by the US DoD as
discussed in their paper [16]. Most of the attack modeling performed by analysts was constructed
by hand and hence it was a tedious and error-prone process especially if the number of nodes
were very large. In 1994 Dacier et al [17] published one of the earliest mathematical models for a
security system based on privilege graphs. By the late 1990's a couple of other papers [18, 19]
came out which enabled automatic generation of attack graphs using computer aided tools. In [18]
the authors describes a method of modeling network risks based on an attack graph where each
node in the graph represented an attack state and the edges represented a transition or a change of
state caused by an action of the attacker. Since then researchers have proposed a variety of graph-
based algorithms to generate attack graphs for security evaluation.
2.2. Classes of Security
There are different classes under which network security metrics fall under. These classes are
depicted in Fig 1. Here are some examples of metrics that fall under each category.
2.2.1. Core Metrics
A few examples that fall under this category are Total Vulnerability Measure (TVM) [20] and
Langweg Metric (LW) [21]. TVM is the aggregation of two other metrics called the Existing
Vulnerabilities Measure (EVM) and the Aggregated Historical Vulnerability Measure (AHVM).
CVSS [4-5] is an open standard for scoring IT security vulnerabilities. It was developed to
provide organizations with a mechanism to measure vulnerabilities and prioritize their mitigation.
For example the US Federal government uses the CVSS standard as the scoring engine for its
National Vulnerability database (NVD) [6] which has a repository of over forty-five thousand
known vulnerabilities and is updated on an ongoing basis
2.2.2. Structural Metrics
These metrics use the underlying structure of the Attack graph to aggregate the security properties
of individual systems in order to quantify network security. The Shortest Path (SP) [18], [7]
metric measures the shortest path for an attacker to reach an end goal. The Number of Paths (NP)
[7] metric measures the total number of paths for an attacker to reach the final goal. The Mean of
Path Lengths (MPL) metric [8] measures the arithmetic mean of the length of all paths to the final

goal in an attack graph. The above structural metrics have shortcomings and in [9], Idika et al
have proposed a suite of attack graph based security metrics to overcome some of these inherent
weaknesses. In [22], Ghosh et al provides an analysis and comparison of all the existing structural
metrics.
2.2.3. Probability-Based Metrics
These metrics associate probabilities with individual entities to quantify the aggregated security
state of the network. A few examples that fall under this category are Attack Graph-based
Probabilistic (AGP) and Bayesian network (BN) based metrics [23-25].
2.2.4. Time-Based Metrics
These metrics quantify how fast a network can be compromised or how quickly a network can
take preemptive measures to respond to attacks. Common metric that fall in this category are
Mean Time to Breach (MTTB), Mean Time to Recovery (MTTR) [26] and Mean Time to First
Failure (MTFF) [27].
The drawback with all these classes of metrics is that they take a more static approach to security
analysis and do not leverage the granularity provided by the CVSS metric framework in order to
assess overall dynamic security situation and help locate critical nodes for optimization
2.3. Vulnerability Lifecycle Models
Presently, there is research [28-31] on analyzing the evolution of life cycle of different types of
vulnerabilities. Frei et al. [31] in particular developed a distribution model to calculate the
likelihood of an exploit or patch being available a certain number of days after its disclosure date.
To the best of our knowledge, no previous work has been done to analyze overall security of a
network, by considering the temporal relationships between all the vulnerabilities that are present
in the network, which can be exploited by an attacker.
2.4. Cyber Situation Awareness
Presently, there is research [28-31] on analyzing the evolution of life cycle of different types of
vulnerabilities. Frei et al. [31] in particular developed a distribution model to calculate the
likelihood of an exploit or patch being available a certain number of days after its disclosure date.
To the best of our knowledge, no previous work has been done to analyze overall security of a
network, by considering the temporal relationships between all the vulnerabilities that are present
in the network, which can be exploited by an attacker.
3. CYBER-SECURITY ANALYTICS FRAMEWORK
In this section, we explore the concept of modeling the Attack graph as a stochastic process. In
[40, 41], we established the cyber-security analytics framework (Figure 2) where we have
captured all the processes involved in building our security metric framework. In this paper we
will extend the model by taking into account the temporal aspects associated with the individual
vulnerabilities. By capturing their interrelationship using Attack Graphs, we can predict how the
total security of the network changes over time. The fundamental assumption we make in our
model is that the time-parameter plays an important role in capturing the progression of the attack
process. Markov model is one such modeling technique that has been widely used in a variety of
areas such as system performance analysis and dependability analysis [11, 27, 42-43]. While
formulating the stochastic model, we need to take into account the behavior of the attacker. In this

paper, we assume that the attacker will choose the vulnerability that maximizes his or her
probability of succeeding in compromising the security goal.
Figure 2. Cyber Security Analytics Framework
3.1. Architecture
Figure 3 shows a high level view of our proposed cyber security analytics architecture which
comprises of 4 layers.
Figure 3. Cyber Security Analytics Architecture
The core component of our architecture is the Attack Graph Model (Layer 1) which is generated
using a network model builder by taking as input network topology, services running on each host
and a set of attack rules based on the vulnerabilities associated with the different services. The
underlying metric domain is provided by the trusted CVSS framework (Layer 2) which quantifies
the security attributes of individual vulnerabilities associated with the attack graph. We divide our
security analysis by leveraging two CVSS metric domains. One captures the exploitability
characteristics of the network and the other analyzes the impact a successful attack can have on a
corporations key assets. We believe that both these types of analysis are necessary for a security
practitioner to gain a better understanding of the overall security of the network. In layer 3,
relevant stochastic processes are applied over the Attack Graph to describe the attacks by taking
into account the relationships between the different vulnerabilities in a system. For example, in

our approach, we utilize an Absorbing Markov chain for performing exploitability analysis and a
Markov Reward Model for Impact analysis. In [40, 41] we discussed how we can model an
attack-graph as a discrete time absorbing Markov chain where the absorbing state represents the
security goal being compromised.
So far we have been focusing on the security properties that are intrinsic to a particular
vulnerability and that doesn’t change with time. These measures are calculated from the CVSS
Base metric group which aggregates several security properties to formulate the base score for a
particular vulnerability. In order to account for the dynamic/temporal security properties of the
vulnerability, we apply a Vulnerability Lifecycle model (Layer 4) on the stochastic process to
identify trends and understand how the security state of the network will evolve with time.
Security teams can thus analyze how availability of exploits and patches can affect the overall
network security based on how the vulnerabilities are interconnected and leveraged to
compromise the system. We believe that such a framework also facilitates communication
between security engineers and business stakeholders and aids in building an effective cyber-
security analytics strategy.
3.2. Model Representation
In [40, 41] we have discussed how we can model an attack-graph as a discrete time absorbing
Markov chain due to the following two properties.
1. An attack graph has at least one absorbing state or goal state.
2. In an attack graph it is possible to go from every state to an absorbing state.
We also presented a formula for calculating the transition probabilities of the Markov chain by
normalizing the CVSS exploitability scores over all the transitions starting from the attacker’s
source state. In this paper, we will extend the model to analyze and measure two key aspects.
First, we take into account both the exploitability as well impact properties associated with a
security goal being compromised. By considering both these measures separately, we can derive a
complementary suite of metrics to aid the security engineer in optimizing their decisions. Second
we combine the temporal trends associated with the individual vulnerabilities into the model to
reason about the future security state of the network. In our model we will calculate the daily
transition-probability matrices using the well-established Frei's Vulnerability lifecycle model
[31].
The security of the network is dependent on the exploitability level of the different vulnerabilities
associated with the services running on the machines in the enterprise. In addition the security
metrics will dynamically vary based on the temporal aspects of the vulnerabilities taken into
consideration. As an example, consider CVE-2014-0416 which is an unspecified vulnerability in
Oracle Java SE related to the Java Authentication and Authorization Service (JAAS) component.
We define the base exploitability score as the measure of complexity in exploiting the
vulnerability . The CVSS standard provides a framework for computing these scores using the
access vector , access complexity and authentication as follows
The constant 20 represents the severity factor of the vulnerability. The access vector,
authentication and access complexity for this vulnerability CVE-2014-0416 is 1.0, 0.704 and 0.71
respectively. Therefore the base exploitability score of CVE-2014-0416 is 10.0 which indicate
that it has very high exploitability. As of this writing the state of exploitability for this
vulnerability is documented as “Unproven” which indicate that no exploit code is available.
Hence it has a temporal weight score of 0.85. Given the base exploitability score and the
temporal weight, the effective temporal exploitability score is as follows

The temporal exploitability score for CVE-2014-0416 is 8.5. As the vulnerability ages and exploit
code become readily availability to exploit the vulnerability, the value of the exploitability score
will move closer towards its base value. As a comparison, consider CVE-2012-0551 which is
another unspecified vulnerability in Oracle Java SE that has a base exploitability score of 8.6
which is lower than CVE-2014-0416. However the state of exploitability for this vulnerability is
documented as “High” which indicates that exploit code is widely available. Hence it has a
temporal weight score of 1. Therefore CVE-2012-0551 is considered more exploitable than CVE-
2014-0416 even though it has a lower base metric score because we have factored in the lifecycle
of the vulnerability.
The transition matrix for an absorbing Markov chain has the following Canonical form.
Here P is the transition matrix, R is the matrix of absorbing states, and Q is the matrix of transient
states. The set of states, S in the model represent the different vulnerabilities associated with
services running on the nodes that are part of the network. The transition probability matrix P of
the Markov chain was estimated using the formula
where pij is the probability that an attacker currently in state i exploits a vulnerability e(vj) in state
j and e(vj) is the exploitability score for vulnerability vj obtained from the CVSS Base Metric
group. Further, each row of P is a probability vector, which requires that
In an absorbing Markov chain the probability that the chain will be absorbed is always 1. Hence
where Q is the matrix of transient states. Therefore for an absorbing Markov chain , we can
derive a matrix which is called the fundamental matrix
for . This matrix N provides considerable insight into the behavior of an attacker who is
trying to penetrate the network. The elements of the fundamental matrix nij describe the expected
number of times the chain is in state j, given that the chain started in state i.
3.3. Non-homogenous model
The temporal weight score that we considered in the example above was a function of the time
since the vulnerability was disclosed on a publicly trusted SIP (Security Information Providers).
The temporal values recorded by CVSS are discrete and are not suitable for inclusion in a non-
homogenous model. It would be more appropriate to use a distribution that would take as input
the age of the vulnerability. Therefore we will use the result of Frei’s model [31] to calculate the
temporal weight score of the vulnerabilities that is part of the Attack graph model. The
probability that an exploit is available for a given vulnerability is obtained using a Pareto
distribution of the form:
a = 0.26, k = 0.00161
where t is the age of vulnerability and the parameter k is called the shape factor. The age t is
calculated by taking the difference between the dates the CVSS scoring is conducted and when
the vulnerability was first disclosed on an SIP. By combining this distribution in our model, we

can get a more realistic estimate of the security of the network based on the age of the different
vulnerabilities which are still unpatched in the enterprise.
In the non-homogenous Markov model presented here, we consider the following time dependent
covariate which is the age of the vulnerability. In order to have a more realistic model, we update
this covariate every day for each of the vulnerabilities present in the network and recalculate the
discrete time transition probability matrix P. Given the exploitability scores for each of the
vulnerabilities in the Attack Graph, we can estimate the transition probabilities of the Absorbing
Markov chain by normalizing the exploitability scores over all the edges starting from the
attacker’s source state. Let pij be the probability that an attacker currently in state i exploits a
vulnerability in state j. We can then formally define the transition probability below where n is
the number of outgoing edges from state i in the attack model and ej is the temporal exploitability
score for the vulnerability in state j.
The matrix represents the transition probability matrix of the Absorbing Markov chain
computed on day m where, p (i, j) ≥ 0 for all i, j ∈ S. In an absorbing Markov chain the
probability that the chain will be absorbed is always 1. Further, each row of is a probability
vector, which requires that
In equation (5), we use the result of Frei’s Vulnerability Lifecycle model [31] to calculate the
temporal weight score of the vulnerabilities that is part of the Attack graph model. Therefore by
calculating the individual temporal scores of the vulnerabilities and by analyzing their causal
relationships using an Attack Graph, we can integrate the effect of temporal score to derive the
total dynamic security of network.
3.4. Exploitability Analysis
We present quantitative analysis using our cyber security analytics model. The focus of our
analysis will on assessing the evolving security state of the network.
3.4.1 Expected Path length (EPL) metric
This metric measures the expected number of steps the attacker will have to take starting from the
initial state to compromise the security goal. Using the Fundamental matrix N of the non-
homogenous Markov model, we can compute the expected number of steps before the chain goes
to the absorbed state. For example let ti be the expected number of steps before the chain is
absorbed, given that the chain starts in state si, and let t be the column vector whose ith
entry is ti.
Then
This security metric is analyzing the expected number of steps or the resistance of the network.
3.4.2 Probabilistic Path (PP) metric
This metric measures the likelihood of an attacker to reach the absorbing states of the graph. For
this we will calculate the following matrix B where where N is the fundamental Matrix
of the Markov chain and R is obtained from the Canonical form. The element bij in the matrix
measure the probability of reaching the security goal state j given that the attacker started in state

i. The Probabilistic Path (PP) metric also aids the security engineer in making decisions on
optimizing the network and we will label this as the Probabilistic Path (PP) metric.
3.4. Exploitability Analysis
The CVSS standard provides a framework for computing the impact associated with an individual
vulnerability using confidentiality impact , integrity impact and availability impact
measures as follows
By associating the individual impact/reward scores with each state in our Markov chain, we can
extend the underlying stochastic process as a discrete-time Markov reward model (MRM). Given
our existing DTMC model, we can represent the Markov Reward process as where
is a DMTC and is a reward function for each state. Since we are considering only
constant rewards or impact scores, the reward function can be represented as a vector
]. Hence the expected impact at time t is given as
This value will be termed as the Expected Impact Metric (EI). A non-homogenous MRM can
be built by incorporating the temporal trend of individual vulnerabilities given their age. Hence
by formulating daily transition probability matrices using Frei’s model we can reason about how
the expected cost of breaching a security goal can vary over time.
4. ILLUSTRATION
To illustrate the proposed approach in detail, a network similar to [10, 24-25, 44-45] has been
considered (refer Figure 4).
Figure 4. Network Topology
The network is comprised of 4 machines that are interconnected together and operating internally
behind a firewall. The machine hosting the web-server M1 is running Apache Webserver. The
aim of the attacker is to infiltrate the network and gain root access on M4. In order to accomplish
this, the attacker needs to first start with exploiting the apache web-service since that is the only
port (80) accessible from the firewall. Once this is exploited, the attacker will then need to slowly
work his way through the network to achieve his goal.

4.1. Environment Information
Table 1 contains a list of all the vulnerabilities in the network that can be exploited by an attacker
if certain conditions are met.
Table 1. Vulnerability Data.
Service Name CVE-ID
Exploitability
Subscore Host Disclosure Date
apache CVE-2014-0098 10.0 M1 03/18/2014
postgresql CVE-2014-0063 7.9 M2 02/17/2014
linux CVE-2014-0038 3.4 M3 02/06/2014
ms-office CVE-2013-1324 8.6 M3 11/13/2013
bmc CVE-2013-4782 10 M4 07/08/2013
radius CVE-2014-1878 10 M4 02/28/2014
Each of the six vulnerabilities is unique and publicly known and is denoted by a CVE (Common
Vulnerability and Exposure) identifier. For example Apache web-server was found to have
vulnerability CVE-2014-0098 on 03/18/2014 which allows remote attackers to cause
segmentation faults. Similarly the postgresql service hosted by M2 had a vulnerability denoted by
CVE-2014-0063 which allowed remote attackers to execute arbitrary code.
4.2. Attack Graph Generation
By combining the vulnerabilities present in the network configuration (Figure 4), we can build
several scenarios whereby an attacker can reach a goal state. In this particular case, the attacker's
goal state would be to obtain root access on Machine M4. Figure 5 depicts the different paths an
attacker can take to reach the goal state. By combining these different paths we are able to obtain
an Attack Graph. A couple of practical approaches have been proposed [44- 46] to automate
generation of attack graphs without the intervention of a red team. In [47] the authors have
compared and analyzed several open source AG tools like MulVal, TVA, Attack Graph Toolkit,
NetSPA as well as commercial tools from aspects of scalability and degree of attack graph
visualization. Table 2 provides an overview of the different available AG toolkits.
In our analysis we have used the MulVAL tool discussed in [45] to generate logical attack graph
in polynomial time.
Table 2. Attack Graph Toolkits
Toolkit Name Complexity
Open
Source Developer
MulVAL O(n2
) ~ O(n3
) yes Kansas State University
TVA O(n2
) no George Mason University
Cauldron O(n2
) no Commercial
NetSPA O(nlogn) no MIT
Firemon O(nlogn) no Commercial

4.3. Security Analysis
In the analysis, we first investigate how the distribution of our proposed attack graph metrics vary
over a given time period. In the attack graph model, each node corresponds to a software related
vulnerability that exists on a particular machine in the network. The transition probability for a
particular edge in the attack graph is calculated by normalizing the CVSS Exploitability scores
over all the edges from the attacker’s source node. By formulating an Absorbing Markov chain
over the Attack graph and applying the Vulnerability lifecycle model to the exploitability scores,
we are able to project how these metrics will change in the immediate future.
Figure 6 (a, b, c) depicts the distribution of our proposed attack graph metrics (EPL, Probabilistic
Path & Expected Impact) over a period of 150 days. The general trend for the Expected Path
Length (EPL) metric (Fig 4.3a) is upward over the next 150 days which signifies that it will take
fewer steps (less effort) for an attacker to compromise the security goal as the vulnerabilities in
the network age. This visualization graph is very useful for security practitioners for optimizing
patch management processes in the organization. By establishing thresholds for these metrics, the
security teams can plan in advance as to when to patch a system versus working on an ad-hoc
basis. For example, the organization may have a threshold score of 4.86 for the EPL metric. From

the graph (Fig 4.3 a), the team can reasonably conclude that the systems in their network are safe
from exploits breaching the security goal for the next 50 days as the EPL score is above the
threshold value. The thresholds values are typically set by the security team based on how fast
they can respond to a breach once it is detected.
The Probability Path (PP) distribution (Fig 4.3b) which signifies the likelihood of an attacker
compromising the security goal follows a different trend where it is seen reducing during the first
few days and then picks up gradually with time. As vulnerabilities age, exploits become readily
available for vulnerabilities which leads to an increase in their CVSS exploitability scores. As a
result the transitions probabilities in the model will change likely causing other attack paths in the
tree to become more favorable to the attacker. In the figure, we see that the probability of
reaching the security goal tapers offafter 50 days. The Expected Impact metric (Fig 4.3c) or cost
of an attack to the business reduces with time and this is an indication that the attacker will likely
choose a different path due to more exploits being available for other vulnerabilities that have a
lower impact score. It is important to note that every organization has a network configuration
that is very unique to their operations and therefore the distribution for our proposed attack graph
metrics will be different for each of these configurations.
4.4. Simulation
Based on the Attack Graph generated for the network, a simulation of the Absorbing Markov
chain is conducted. In our experiment we model an attacker and simulate over 2000 different
instances of attacks over the Attack Graph based on the probability distribution of the nodes. We
used the R statistic package [48] to generate the model and run the simulations.
The transition probabilities are formulated from the CVSS scoring framework as described in
section 3. Each simulation run uses the transition probability row vector of the Absorbing Markov
Chain to move from one state to another until it reaches the final absorbing state. Figure 4.3d
depicts a multi-bar graph of the distribution of attack path lengths X1, X2 ….. X2000 from 2000
simulated attack paths where the security goal was compromised. Each of the colors indicates the

trend forecast over different periods of time. For example, in this distribution model, the length of
the attack paths with the most frequency is 3, given the current age of all the vulnerabilities
(shown in green). However as the vulnerabilities in the network age over a period of 300 days, the
length of the paths with most frequency gets updated to 4 (shown in red). We also notice that the
frequency of paths of length 3 and 5 decreases gradually over 300 days.
Similarly Figure 4.3e depicts a multi-bar graph of the distribution of the state visits for the Attack
Graph for all the 2000 instances of attack paths that were simulated using the non-homogenous
Markov chain model. This graph represents the number of times the attacker is likely to visit a
particular state/node in the attack graph over those 2000 simulated runs. Based on the simulation
results depicted in Fig 4.3e, if we were to exclude the start state (1) and the absorbing state (10),
we can find that an attacker is most likely to visit state 2 and least likely to visit state 6. Hence
from Table 1, we can conclude that the attacker is most likely to exploit the vulnerability of the
bmc service running on M4 (State 2) and least likely to exploit the linux service on M3 (State 6).
This information is valuable for a security engineer to prioritize which exploit needs to be patched
and how it will affect the strength of the network against attacks. This insight is further enriched
when we also consider the trends over a period of 300 days. For example, in Fig 4.3e there is an
upward trend in the expected number of times the attacker visits state 4, while there is a
downward trend for state 5 during the same time. Hence if the security engineer had to decide
whether to patch node 4 or node 5 during this time period, it would make more sense to patch
node 4 since it is most susceptible to an outside attack in the future.
One the major challenges when performing patch management is timing when to install patches
and which patches have priority. By analyzing the trends over time of how the security state of a
network changes, a security engineer can make a more informed and intelligent decision on
optimizing the application of patches, thereby strengthening the current as well as the future
security state of the enterprise.
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we presented a non-homogenous Markov model for quantitative assessment of
security attributes using Attack graphs. Since existing metrics have potential short-comings for
accurately quantifying the security of a system with respect to the age of the vulnerabilities, our
framework aids the security engineer to make a more realistic and objective security evaluation of
the network. What sets our model apart from the rest is the use of the trusted CVSS framework
and the incorporation of a well-established Vulnerability lifecycle framework, to comprehend and
analyze both the evolving exploitability and impact trends of a given network using Attack
Graphs. We used a realistic network to analyze the merits of our model to capture security
properties and optimize the application of patches.
REFERENCES
[1] Secunia Vulnerability Review 2014: Key figures and facts from a global IT-Security perspective,
February 2014
[2] INFOSEC Research Council Hard problem List, 2005.
[3] A Crisis of Prioritization, President’s IT Advisory Committee, 2005.
[4] M. Schiffman, “Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS),” http://www.first.org/cvss/
[5] Assad Ali, Pavol Zavarsky, Dale Lindskog, and Ron Ruhl, " A Software Application to Analyze
Affects of Temporal and Environmental Metrics on Overall CVSS v2 Score", Concordia University
College of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, October 2010.
[6] National Vulnerability Database 2014.
[7] R. Ortalo, Y. Deswarte, and M. Kaaniche, “Experimenting with quantitative evaluation tools for
monitoring operational security,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 25, pp. 633–650,
September 1999.
[8] W. Li and R. Vaughn, “Cluster security research involving the modeling of network exploitations
using exploitation graphs,” in Sixth IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and Grid
Workshops, May 2006.

[9] N. Idika and B. Bhargava, “Extending attack graph-based security metrics and aggregating their
application,” Dependable and Secure Computing, IEEE Transactions on, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2010.
[10] L. Wang, A. Singhal, and S. Jajodia, "Toward measuring network security using attack graphs," in
Proceedings of the 2007 ACM workshop on Quality Protection, pp. 49-54, 2007.
[11] Trivedi KS, Kim DS, Roy A,Medhi D. Dependability and security models. Proc. DRCN, IEEE, 2009;
11–20.
[12] A Roy, D S Kim, and K S. Trivedi. Attack countermeasure trees (ACT): towards unifying the
constructs of attack and defense trees.J. of Security and Communication Networks, SI: Insider
Threats, 2011.
[13] O. Sheyner, J. W. Haines, S. Jha, R. Lippmann, and J. M. Wing, “Automated generation and analysis
of attack graphs,” in IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2002, pp. 273–284.
[14] Xinming Ou, Sudhakar Govindavajhala, and Andrew W. Appel. MulVAL: A logic-based network
security analyzer. In
[15] 14th USENIX Security Symposium, 2005.S. Jajodia and S. Noel, "Advanced Cyber Attack Modeling,
Analysis, and Visualization," George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, Technical Report 2010.
[16] S DoD, MIL-STD-1785, “System security engineering program management requirements,” 1988.
[17] M. Dacier, Y. Deswarte, “Privilege Graph: an Extension to the Typed Access Matrix Model,”Proc.
ESORICS, 1994.
[18] C. Phillips, L.P. Swiler, “A graph-based system for network-vulnerability analysis,”Proc. WNSP’98,
pp.71-79.
[19] L. Swiler, C. Phillips, D. Ellis, S. Chakerian, “Computer-attack graph generation tool,” Proc.
DISCEX01, pp.307-321.
[20] M. Abedin, S. Nessa, E. Al-Shaer, and L. Khan, “Vulnerability analysis for evaluating quality of
protection of security policies," in Proceedings of Quality of Protection 2006 (QoP '06), October
2006.
[21] H. Langweg, "Framework for malware resistance metrics," in Proceedings of the Quality of
Protection 2006 (QoP '06), October 2006.
[22] A. Kundu, N. Ghosh, I. Chokshi and SK. Ghosh, "Analysis of attack graph-based metrics for
quantification of network security", India Conference (INDICON), IEEE, pages 530 – 535, 2012.
[23] M.Frigault and L. Wang, "Measuring Network Security Using Bayesian Network-Based Attack
Graphs," in Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Workshop on Security, Trist and Privacy for
Software Applications (STPSA’08), 2008.
[24] L. Wang, T. Islam, T. Long, A. Singhal, and S. Jajodia, "An attack graph-based probabilistic security
metric," DAS 2008, LNCS 5094, pp. 283-296, 2008.
[25] L. Wang, A. Singhal, and S. Jajodia, "Measuring overall security of network configurations using
attack graphs," Data and Applications Security XXI, vol. 4602, pp. 98-112, August 2007.
[26] A. Jaquith, Security Metrics: Replacing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Addison-Wesley, Pearson
Education, 2007.
[27] K. Sallhammar, B. Helvik, and S. Knapskog, "On stochastic modeling for integrated security and
dependability evaluation," Journal of Networks, vol. 1, 2006.
[28] W. Arbaugh, W. Fithen, and J. McHugh, “Windows of vulnerability: a case study analysis,”
Computer, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 52–59, Dec 2000
[29] N. Fischbach, “Le cycle de vie d’une vulnrabilit,” http://www.securite.org, 2003.
[30] J. Jones, “Estimating software vulnerabilities,” Security & Privacy,IEEE, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 28–32,
July-Aug. 2007.
[31] S. Frei, “Security econometrics - the dynamics of (in)security,” ETHZurich, Dissertation 18197, ETH
Zurich, 2009.
[32] Tim Bass. “Intrusion Detection System and Multi-sensor Data Fusion”. Communications of the ACM,
43, 4 (2000), pp.99-105.
[33] Huiqiang Wang,etc. “Survey of Network Situation Awareness System”. Computer
Science,vol.33,2006,pp.5-10.
[34] Bat sell S G,etc. “Distributed Intrusion Detection and Attack Containment for Organizational Cyber
Security”. [Online] http://www.ioc.ornl.gov/projects/documents/containment.pdf, 2005.
[35] Shifflet J. “A Technique Independent Fusion Model For Network Intrusion Detection”. Proceedings
of the Midstates Conference on Undergraduate Research in Computer Science and Mat hematics ,
vol.3,2005,pp.13-19.

[36] Robert Ball, Glenn A. Fink. “Home-centric visualization of network traffic for security
administration”. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM workshop on Visualization and data mining for
computer security. Washington DC, October 2004, 55-64.
[37] Soon Tee Teoh, Kwan-Liu Ma, S.Felix Wu, et al. “Case Study: Interactive Visualization for Internet
Security”. Proceedings of IEEE VIS. Boson, October 2002, 505-508.
[38] C. Xiuzhen, Z. Qinghua,, G. Xiaohong, L. Chenguang; Quantitative Hierarchical Threat Evaluation
Model for Network Security[J]; Journal of Software, Vol.17, No.4, April 2006, pp.885−897
[39] S. Shaoyi and Z. Yongzheng "A Novel Extended Algorithm for Network Security Situation
Awareness", International Conference on Computer and Management (CAMAN), pages 1-3 2011
[40] S.Abraham and S.Nair, "Cyber Security Analytics: A stochastic model for Security Quantification
using Absorbing Markov Chains" 5th International Conference on Networking and Information
Technology, ICNIT 2014
[41] S.Abraham and S.Nair, "A Stochastic Model for Cyber Security Analytics" Tech Report 13-CSE-02 ,
CSE Dept, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, 2013.
[42] K. S. Trivedi, Probability and Statistics with Reliability, Queuing, and Computer Science
[43] R.A. Sahner, K. S. Trivedi, and A. Puliafito, Performance and Reliability Analysis of Computer
Systems: An Example-Based Approach Using the SHARPE Software Package. Kluwer Academic
Publishers,1996.
[44] O. Sheyner, J. W. Haines, S. Jha, R. Lippmann, and J. M. Wing, “Automated generation and analysis
of attack graphs,” in IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2002, pp. 273–284.
[45] Xinming Ou, Sudhakar Govindavajhala, and Andrew W. Appel. MulVAL: A logic-based network
security analyzer. In
[46] S. Jajodia and S. Noel, "Advanced Cyber Attack Modeling, Analysis, and Visualization," George
Mason University, Fairfax, VA, Technical Report 2010.
[47] Shengwei Yi, Yong Peng, Qi Xiong, Ting Wang, Zhonghua Dai, Haihui Gao, Junfeng Xu, Jiteng
Wang and Lijuan Xu "Overview on attack graph generation and visualization technology", Anti-
Counterfeiting, Security and Identification (ASID), 2013 IEEE International Conference on, Issue
Date: Oct. 2013
[48] R statistics tool. http://www.r-project.org/
AUTHORS
Subil Abraham received his B.S. degree in computer engineering from the University of
Kerala, India. He obtained his M.S. in Computer Science in 2002 from Southern
Methodist University, Dallas, TX. His research interests include vulnerability assessment,
network security, and security metrics.
Suku Nair received his B.S. degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering from
the University of Kerala. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer
Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana in 1988 and 1990, respectively.
Currently, he is the Chair and Professor in the Computer Science and Engineering
Department at the Southern Methodist University at Dallas where he held a J. Lindsay
Embrey Trustee Professorship in Engineering. His research interests include Network
Security, Software Defined Networks, and Fault-Tolerant Computing. He is the founding director of
HACNet (High Assurance Computing and Networking) Labs. He is a member of the IEEE and Upsilon Pi
Epsilon..

Predictive cyber security

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to Predictive cyber security (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Predictive cyber security