skip to main content
research-article

Characterizing and Modeling Patching Practices of Industrial Control Systems

Published:13 June 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Industrial Control Systems (ICS) are widely deployed in mission critical infrastructures such as manufacturing, energy, and transportation. The mission critical nature of ICS devices poses important security challenges for ICS vendors and asset owners. In particular, the patching of ICS devices is usually deferred to scheduled production outages so as to prevent potential operational disruption of critical systems. Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence suggests that ICS devices are riddled with security vulnerabilities that are not patched in a timely manner, which leaves them vulnerable to exploitation by hackers, nation states, and hacktivist organizations.

In this paper, we present the results from our longitudinal measurement and characterization study of ICS patching behavior. Our study is based on IP scan data collected from Shodan over the duration of three years for more than 500 known industrial ICS protocols and products. Our longitudinal measurements reveal the impact of vulnerability disclosures on ICS patching. Our analysis of more than 100 thousand Internet-exposed ICS devices reveals that about 50% upgrade to newer patched versions within 60 days of a vulnerability disclosure. Based on our measurement and analysis, we further propose a variation of the Bass model to forecast the patching behavior of ICS devices. The evaluation shows that our proposed models have comparable prediction accuracy when contrasted against traditional ARIMA timeseries forecasting models, while requiring less parameters and being amenable to direct physical interpretation.

References

  1. R. Anderson and T. Moore. The economics of information security. Science, 314(5799):610--613, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. ANSI/ISA-99.02.01--2009 standard. Security for Industrial Automation and Control Systems Part 2: Establishing an Industrial Automation and Control Systems Security Program. 2009. http://www.isa.org/MSTemplate.cfm?MicrositeID=988&CommitteeID=6821.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. A. Arora, R. Krishnan, R. Telang, and Y. Yang. An empirical analysis of software vendors' patching behavior: Impact of vulnerability disclosure. ICIS 2006 Proceedings, page 22, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. F. M. Bass. A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management science, 15(5):215--227, 1969. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. G. Box, G. Jenkins, and G. Reinsel. Time series analysis: Forecasting and control. Prentice Hall, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. H. Chen, S. Hariri, R. Breiger, and T. Holt. Identifying SCADA Devices and their Vulnerabilities on the IoT, 2017. SaTC PI Meeting: http://cps-vo.org/node/30557.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. T. F. Coleman and Y. Li. An interior trust region approach for nonlinear minimization subject to bounds. SIAM Journal on optimization, 6(2):418--445, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. D. Dey, A. Lahiri, and G. Zhang. Optimal policies for security patch management. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 27(3):462--477, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. T. Duebendorfer and S. Frei. Web browser security update effectiveness. In International Conference on Critical Information Infrastructures Security, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Z. Durumeric, J. Kasten, D. Adrian, J. A. Halderman, M. Bailey, F. Li, N. Weaver, J. Amann, J. Beekman, M. Payer, et al. The matter of heartbleed. In ACM IMC, pages 475--488. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. C. J. Easingwood, V. Mahajan, and E. Muller. A nonuniform influence innovation diffusion model of new product acceptance. Marketing Science, 2(3):273--295, 1983. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. X. Feng, Q. Li, H. Wang, and L. Sun. Characterizing industrial control system devices on the internet. In ICNP, pages 1--10. IEEE, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. J. C. Fisher and R. H. Pry. A simple substitution model of technological change. Technological forecasting and social change, 3:75--88, 1971.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. S. Frei, T. Duebendorfer, and B. Plattner. Firefox (In)Security Update Dynamics Exposed. ACM SIGCOMM CCR, 39:16--22, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. S. Frei, M. May, U. Fiedler, and B. Plattner. Large-Scale Vulnerability Analysis. In ACM SIGCOMM LSAD Workshop, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. P. A. Geroski. Models of technology diffusion. Research policy, 29(4):603--625, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. H. R. Ghaeini and N. O. Tippenhauer. Hamids: Hierarchical monitoring intrusion detection system for industrial control systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Cyber-Physical Systems Security and Privacy, pages 103--111. ACM, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. C. Ioannidis, D. Pym, and J. Williams. Information security trade-offs and optimal patching policies. European Journal of Operational Research, 216(2):434--444, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. J. R. Jones. Estimating Software Vulnerabilities. IEEE Security and Privacy, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. W. Kandek. The laws of vulnerabilities 2.0. BlackHat, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. F. Khorrami, P. Krishnamurthy, and R. Karri. Cybersecurity for control systems: A process-aware perspective. IEEE Design & Test, 33(5):75--83, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. C. Konstantinou, M. Sazos, and M. Maniatakos. Attacking the smart grid using public information. In Test Symposium (LATS), 2016 17th Latin-American, pages 105--110. IEEE, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. V. Krishnan and K. T. Ulrich. Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management science, 47(1):1--21, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. M. Lelarge and J. Bolot. Network externalities and the deployment of security features and protocols in the internet. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 36(1):37--48, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. V. Mahajan, E. Muller, and F. M. Bass. New product diffusion models in marketing: A review and directions for research. In Diffusion of technologies and social behavior, pages 125--177. Springer, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. V. Mahajan, E. Muller, and F. M. Bass. Diffusion of new products: Empirical generalizations and managerial uses. Marketing Science, 14(3), 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. P. Maillé, P. Reichl, and B. Tuffin. Interplay between security providers, consumers, and attackers: a weighted congestion game approach. In International Conference on Decision and Game Theory for Security, pages 67--86. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. J. Matherly. Shodan. https://www.shodan.io.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. J. Matherly. Simple Security Metric: Internet Connected ICS, 2017. KIACS2017 keynote speak video: https://livestream.com/hdmediakw/events/7107294/videos/151813225.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. P. McDaniel and S. McLaughlin. Security and privacy challenges in the smart grid. IEEE Security and Privacy, 7(3):75--77, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. S. McLaughlin, C. Konstantinou, X. Wang, L. Davi, A.-R. Sadeghi, M. Maniatakos, and R. Karri. The cybersecurity landscape in industrial control systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 104(5):1039--1057, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. P. Mell, T. Bergeron, and D. Henning. Creating a patch and vulnerability management program. NIST Special Publication, 800:40, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. P. Mell, K. Scarfone, and S. Romanosky. A complete guide to the CVSS 2.0, 2016. https://www.first.org/cvss/v2/guide.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. A. Mirian, Z. Ma, D. Adrian, M. Tischer, T. Chuenchujit, T. Yardley, R. Berthier, J. Mason, Z. Durumeric, J. A. Halderman, et al. An internet-wide view of ICS devices. In IEEE PST, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. J. A. Norton and F. M. Bass. A diffusion theory model of adoption and substitution for successive generations of high-technology products. Management science, 33(9):1069--1086, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. J. A. Norton and F. M. Bass. Evolution of technological generations: the law of capture. Sloan Management Review, 33(2):66, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. National Vulnerability Database (NVD). https://nvd.nist.gov.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Open Source Vulnerability Database. http://osvdb.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Y. M. P. Pa, S. Suzuki, K. Yoshioka, T. Matsumoto, T. Kasama, and C. Rossow. IoTPOT: Analysing the Rise of IoT Compromises . In USENIX WOOT, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. B. Radvanovsky and J. Brodsky. Project SHINE (SHodan INtelligence Extraction). In Tech. rep., 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. R. Radvanovsky and J. Brodsky. Handbook of SCADA/control systems security. CRC Press, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. S. Ransbotham and S. Mitra. Choice and chance: A conceptual model of paths to information security compromise. Information Systems Research, 20(1):121--139, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. C. Scott and R. Carbone. Designing and Implementing a Honeypot for a SCADA Network. SANS Institute Reading Room, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. M. Shahzad, M. Z. Shafiq, and A. X. Liu. A Large Scale Exploratory Analysis of Software Vulnerability Life Cycles. In International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. M. Souppaya and K. Scarfone. Guide to enterprise patch management technologies. NIST, 800:40, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. T. Uemura and T. Dohi. Optimal security patch management policies maximizing system availability. Journal of Communications, 5(1):71--80, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Verizon. Verizon 2016 data breach investigations report. www.verizonenterprise.com/verizon-insights-lab/dbir/2016/, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. S. Zhang, X. Zhang, and X. Ou. After we knew it: empirical study and modeling of cost-effectiveness of exploiting prevalent known vulnerabilities across IaaS cloud. In ASIA CCS, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Characterizing and Modeling Patching Practices of Industrial Control Systems

    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

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems
      Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems  Volume 1, Issue 1
      June 2017
      712 pages
      EISSN:2476-1249
      DOI:10.1145/3107080
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2017 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: 13 June 2017
      Published in pomacs Volume 1, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader