skip to main content
10.1145/2994487.2994490acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Automatic Construction of Statechart-Based Anomaly Detection Models for Multi-Threaded SCADA via Spectral Analysis

Published:28 October 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Traffic of Industrial Control System (ICS) between the Human Machine Interface (HMI) and the Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) is highly periodic. However, it is sometimes multiplexed, due to multi-threaded scheduling.

In previous work we introduced a Statechart model which includes multiple Deterministic Finite Automata (DFA), one per cyclic pattern. We demonstrated that Statechart-based anomaly detection is highly effective on multiplexed cyclic traffic when the individual cyclic patterns are known. The challenge is to construct the Statechart, by unsupervised learning, from a captured trace of the multiplexed traffic, especially when the same symbols (ICS messages) can appear in multiple cycles, or multiple times in a cycle. Previously we suggested a combinatorial approach for the Statechart construction, based on Euler cycles in the Discrete Time Markov Chain (DTMC) graph of the trace. This combinatorial approach worked well in simple scenarios, but produced a false-alarm rate that was excessive on more complex multiplexed traffic.

In this paper we suggest a new Statechart construction method, based on spectral analysis. We use the Fourier transform to identify the dominant periods in the trace. Our algorithm then associates a set of symbols with each dominant period, identifies the order of the symbols within each period, and creates the cyclic DFAs and the Statechart.

We evaluated our solution on long traces from two production ICS: one using the Siemens S7-0x72 protocol and the other using Modbus. We also stress-tested our algorithms on a collection of synthetically-generated traces that simulate multiplexed ICS traces with varying levels of symbol uniqueness and time overlap. The resulting Statecharts model the traces with an overall median false-alarm rate as low as 0.16% on the synthetic datasets, and with zero false-alarms on production S7-0x72 traffic. Moreover, the spectral analysis Statecharts consistently out-performed the previous combinatorial Statecharts, exhibiting significantly lower false alarm rates and more compact model sizes.

References

  1. Afcon Technologies. Pulse HMI software, 2015. {Online; accessed 24-Nov-2015}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. C. Alcaraz, L. Cazorla, and G. Fernandez. Context-awareness using anomaly-based detectors for smart grid domains. In 9th International Conference on Risks and Security of Internet and Systems, volume 8924, pages 17--34, Trento, 04/2015 2015. Springer International Publishing, Springer International Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. A. Atassi, I. H. Elhajj, A. Chehab, and A. Kayssi. The State of the Art in Intrusion Prevention and Detection, Auerbach Publications, chapter 9: Intrusion Detection for SCADA Systems, pages 211--230. Auerbach Publications, January 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. R. Barbosa, R. Sadre, and A. Pras. A first look into SCADA network traffic. In IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS), pages 518--521, April 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. R. Barbosa, R. Sadre, and A. Pras. Towards periodicity based anomaly detection in scada networks. In 17th IEEE Emerging Technologies Factory Automation (ETFA), pages 1--4, Sept 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. L. Briesemeister, S. Cheung, U. Lindqvist, and A. Valdes. Detection, correlation, and visualization of attacks against critical infrastructure systems. In 8th International Conference on Privacy Security and Trust (PST), pages 17--19, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. E. J. Byres, M. Franz, and D. Miller. The use of attack trees in assessing vulnerabilities in SCADA systems. In Proceedings of the International Infrastructure Survivability Workshop, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. M. Caselli, E. Zambon, and F. Kargl. Sequence-aware intrusion detection in industrial control systems. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on Cyber-Physical System Security, pages 13--24, New York, NY, USA, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. C.-M. Chen, H.-W. Hsiao, P.-Y. Yang, and Y.-H. Ou. Defending malicious attacks in cyber physical systems. In IEEE 1st International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems, Networks, and Applications (CPSNA), 2013, pages 13--18, Aug 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. S. Cheung, B. Dutertre, M. Fong, U. Lindqvist, K. Skinner, and A. Valdes. Using model-based intrusion detection for SCADA networks. In Proceedings of the SCADA Security Scientific Symposium, pages 127--134, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. D. Dolev and A. C. Yao. On the security of public key protocols. Technical report, Stanford, CA, USA, 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. N. Erez and A. Wool. Control variable classification, modeling and anomaly detection in modbus/tcp scada systems. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 10(C):59--70, Sept. 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. N. Falliere, L. Murchu, and E. Chien. W32. stuxnet dossier. White paper, Symantec Corp., Security Response, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. I. Fovino, A. Carcano, T. De Lacheze Murel, A. Trombetta, and M. Masera. Modbus/DNP3 state-based intrusion detection system. In 24th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), pages 729--736. Ieee, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. N. Goldenberg and A. Wool. Accurate modeling of Modbus/TCP for intrusion detection in SCADA systems. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 6(2):63--75, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. D. Hadziosmanovic, D. Bolzoni, P. H. Hartel, and S. Etalle. MELISSA: Towards automated detection of undesirable user actions in critical infrastructures. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Network Defense, EC2ND 2011, Gothenburg, Sweden, pages 41--48, USA, September 2011. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. D. Harel. Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Sci. Comput. Program., 8(3):231--274, June 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. A. Kleinmann and A. Wool. Accurate modeling of the siemens S7 SCADA protocol for intrusion detection and digital forensic. JDFSL, 9(2):37--50, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. A. Kleinmann and A. Wool. A statechart-based anomaly detection model for multi-threaded SCADA systems. In 10th Critical Information Infrastructures Security (CRITIS), pages 132--144, Berlin, Germany, Oct. 2015. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. A. Kleinmann and A. Wool. Automatic construction of statechart-based anomaly detection models for multi-threaded industrial control systems. arXiv preprint cs.CR/1607.07489, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. J. Klick, S. Lau, D. Marzin, J.-O. Malchow, and V. Roth. Internet-facing PLCs-a new back orifice. In Blackhat USA 2015, Las Vegas, USA, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. R. Langner. Stuxnet: Dissecting a cyberwarfare weapon. Security & Privacy, IEEE, 9(3):49--51, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. T. D. Maiziere. Die lage der it-sicherheit in deutschland 2014. Technical report, Bundesamt fur Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. R. T. Marsh. Critical foundations: Protecting america's infrastructures - the report of the president's commission on critical infrastructure protection. Technical report, October 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. B. Mukherjee, L. T. Heberlein, and K. N. Levitt. Network intrusion detection. Network, IEEE, 8(3):26--41, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. P. A. Porras and P. G. Neumann. EMERALD: event monitoring enabling responses to anomalous live disturbances. In 1997 National Information Systems Security Conference, Oct. 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. M. Roesch. Snort - lightweight intrusion detection for networks. In Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Conference on System Administration, LISA '99, pages 229--238, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1999. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. R. Sommer and V. Paxson. Outside the closed world: On using machine learning for network intrusion detection. In IEEE Security and Privacy (SP), pages 305--316, May 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. R. Spenneberg, M. Brüggemann, and H. Schwartke. PLC-blaster: A worm living solely in the PLC. In Black Hat Asia, Marina Bay Sands, Singapore, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. K. A. Stouffer, J. A. Falco, and K. A. Scarfone. Guide to industrial control systems (ICS) security. Technical Report 800-82, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, MD, May 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. A. Valdes and S. Cheung. Communication pattern anomaly detection in process control systems. In IEEE Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security (HST), pages 22--29. IEEE, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. M. Vlachos, C. Meek, Z. Vagena, and D. Gunopulos. Identifying similarities, periodicities and bursts for online search queries. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, pages 131--142. ACM, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. T. Wiens. S7comm wireshark dissector plugin, January 2014. Available at: http://sourceforge.net/projects/s7commwireshark.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. D. Yang, A. Usynin, and J. Hines. Anomaly-based intrusion detection for SCADA systems. In 5th Intl. Topical Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumentation, Control and Human Machine Interface Technologies, pages 12--16, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. N. Ye, Y. Zhang, and C. Borror. Robustness of the markov-chain model for cyber-attack detection. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 53(1):116--123, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Automatic Construction of Statechart-Based Anomaly Detection Models for Multi-Threaded SCADA via Spectral Analysis

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              CPS-SPC '16: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Cyber-Physical Systems Security and Privacy
              October 2016
              144 pages
              ISBN:9781450345682
              DOI:10.1145/2994487

              Copyright © 2016 ACM

              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]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 28 October 2016

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              CPS-SPC '16 Paper Acceptance Rate12of26submissions,46%Overall Acceptance Rate53of66submissions,80%

              Upcoming Conference

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

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader