Total views : 118

A Pragmatic Way of Logic Bomb Attack Detection Methodology

Affiliations

  • School of Technology, Assam Don Bosco University, Guwahati – 781017, Assam, India

Abstract


Objective: This study proposed and developed a frame work to detect the insider and outsider logic bomb attack in a system. Method/Analysis: On fulfillment of certain conditions, ongoing system may suffer from various irregularities including system integrity failure, auto file deletion, auto updating, buffer overflow, memory synchronization failure etc. It is difficult to realize the existence of Logic Bomb attack. Malicious codes are hidden inside the main file or embedded in hardware. Even such codes can be injected remotely. Evidence generated from the studies show that detection and diffusion of Logic Bomb attack in advance is difficult. Even testing of Logic Bomb attack that is embedded in hardware need well equipped testing devices. However, systematic approach of observation and analysis help to detect logic bomb attack. In the proposed methodology, a framework has been generated in which it incorporates various factors of irregularities from system based observations and data extracted from firewall. Findings: As Logic Bomb attack does not have any stereotype approach. Thus it creates more complexity. It needs minute observations. Proposed method has been implemented for both inside and outside logic bomb attack and results are compared. Novelty/Improvement: Depending on types of consequence as well as observations, proposed methodology can be extended further.

Keywords

Auto File Deletion, Buffer Overflow, Firewall, Logic Bomb, Remotely Injected, System Integrity Failure, Stereotype, System Based.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 104)

References


  • Kabay M. Logic Bombs. Dangerous Cargo. 2017. Available from: Crossref
  • Chakraborty R, Narasimhan S, Bhunia S. Hardware Trojan: Threats and emerging solutions. IEEE High Level Design Validation and Test Workshop (HLDVT); 2009. p.1-6.
  • Chalurkar S, Khochare N, Meshram B. A tool to detect and prevent malware attacks: A survey. International Journal of Computer Networks and Wireless Communications. 2012; 2(1):1-7.
  • Rane V, Rane C, Shelar M, Pinjarkar V. Website security tool. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET). 2016; 3(3):1-6.
  • Robillard N. Diffusing a Logic Bomb. GIAC Security Essentials Certification (GSEC). 2004; 1.4b(1):1-100.
  • William TY, Memory A, Henry GG, Senator TE. Detecting unknown insider threat scenarios. IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops; 2014. p. 1-7.
  • Bist AS. Classification and identification of Malicious codes. IJCSE. 2012; 3(2):1-6.
  • Mukkamala S, Sung A, Abraham A. Cyber-security challenges. Designing Efficient Intrusion Detection Systems and Anti-Virus Tools. Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.; 2006.
  • Bist A. Classification and identification of Malicious codes. IJCSE. 2012; 3(2):202-211.
  • Nguyen T, Gondree M, Khosalim J, Shifflett D, Levin T, Irvine C. An approach for cross-domain intrusion detection. 7th International Conference on Information Warfare and Security; 2012. p. 1-11.
  • Wu TF, Ganesan K, Hu YA. TPAD. Hardware Trojan Prevention and Detection for Trusted Integrated Circuits. IEEE Transactions on CAD (TCAD-2015-0006). 2015; 35(4):521-34. Crossref
  • Fratantonio Y, Bianchi A. Robertson W, Kirda E, Kruegel C, Vigna G. Trigger scope: Towards detecting logic bombs in android applications. IEEE Security and Privacy (SP); 2016. p. 1-20.
  • Stallings W. Cryptography and Network Security. 5th ed. Prentice; 2011.
  • Singh AP, Handa SS. Malware detection using data mining techniques. Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering. 2015; 4(5):1-6.
  • Fortinet, Inc. Advanced Threats, Advanced Solutions: Integrating a Sandbox into Your Infrastructure. 2016. Available from: Crossref
  • Khari M, Bajaj C. Detecting computer viruses. IJARCET. 2014; 3(7):2357-64.
  • Pradeep K, Kumar M. Intrusion detection system for malicious traffic by using PSO-GA algorithm. International Journal of Computer Science Engineering and Technology. 2013; 3(6):1-3.
  • Cappelli DM, Caron T, Trzeciak RF, Moore AP. Spotlight On. Programming techniques used as an insider attack tool. Available from: www.cylab.cmu.edu
  • Maiorca D, Corona I, Giacinto G. Looking at the bag is not enough to find the bomb: An evasion of structural methods for malicious PDF files detection. Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGSAC Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security (ASIA CCS’13); 2013. p. 119-30.
  • Zeidanloo HR, Tabatabaei SF, Amoli PV, Tajpour A. All about Malwares (Malicious Codes). Proceedings of the International Conference on Security and Management (SAM); 2010. p. 1-8.
  • Ruffle, Bowman G, Caccioli F, Coburn AW, Kelly S, Leslie B, Ralph D. Stress test scenario: Sybil Logic Bomb Cyber Catastrophe. Cambridge Risk Framework series, Centre for Risk Studies, University of Cambridge. Cambridge Centre for Risk Studies, University of Cambridge Judge Business School. 2014. p. 1-45.
  • Keeney M, Kowalski E, Cappelli D, Moore A, Shimeall T, Rogers S. Insider Threat Study: Computer System Sabotage in Critical Infrastructure Sectors. U.S. Secret Service and CERT Coordination Center/SEI insider Threat Study. Computer System Sabotage in Critical Infrastructure Sectors. 2005. p. 1-45.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.