skip to main content
10.1145/2382416.2382427acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageseurosysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A preliminary analysis of vulnerability scores for attacks in wild: the ekits and sym datasets

Published:15 October 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

NVD and Exploit-DB are the de facto standard databases used for research on vulnerabilities, and the CVSS score is the standard measure for risk. On open question is whether such databases and scores are actually representative of attacks found in the wild. To address this question we have constructed a database (EKITS) based on the vulnerabilities currently used in exploit kits from the black market and extracted another database of vulnerabilities from Symantec's Threat Database (SYM). Our final conclusion is that the NVD and EDB databases are not a reliable source of information for exploits in the wild, even after controlling for the CVSS and exploitability subscore. An high or medium CVSS score shows only a significant sensitivity (i.e. prediction of attacks in the wild) for vulnerabilities present in exploit kits (EKITS) in the black market. All datasets exhibit a low specificity.

References

  1. G. A. Akerlof. The market for "lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Jour. of Econ., 84:pp. 488--500, 1970.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. O. Alhazmi and Y. Malaiya. Application of vulnerability discovery models to major operating systems. IEEE Trans., 57(1):14--22, march 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. M. Bozorgi, L. K. Saul, S. Savage, and G. M. Voelker. Beyond heuristics: learning to classify vulnerabilities and predict exploits. In Proc. of SIGKDD'10, pages 105--114. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. J. Franklin, V. Paxson, A. Perrig, and S. Savage. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of internet miscreants. In Proc. of CCS'07, pages 375--388, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. Frei, M. May, U. Fiedler, and B. Plattner. Large-scale vulnerability analysis. In Proc. of LSAD'06, pages 131--138. ACM, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. L. Gallon. Vulnerability discrimination using cvss framework. In Proc. of NTMS'11, pages 1--6, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. C. Herley and D. Florencio. Nobody sells gold for the price of silver: Dishonesty, uncertainty and the underground economy. Springer Econ. of Inf. Sec. and Priv., 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. M. Howard, J. Pincus, and J. Wing. Measuring relative attack surfaces. Comp. Sec. in the 21st Century, pages 109--137, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. F. Massacci and V. Nguyen. An independent validation of vulnerability discovery models. In Proc. of ASIACCS'12, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. P. Mell and K. Scarfone. A Complete Guide to the Common Vulnerability Scoring System Version 2.0. Carnegie Mellon University, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. C. Miller. The legitimate vulnerability market: Inside the secretive world of 0-day exploit sales. In Proc. of WEIS'07, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. Motoyama, D. McCoy, S. Savage, and G. M. Voelker. An analysis of underground forums. In Proc. of IMC'11, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. D. E. Perry, A. A. Porter, and L. G. Votta. Empirical studies of software engineering: a roadmap. In Proc. of ICSE'00, pages 345--355. ACM, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. S. D. Quinn, K. A. Scarfone, M. Barrett, and C. S. Johnson. Sp 800-117. guide to adopting and using the security content automation protocol (scap) version 1.0. Technical report, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2012. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. K. Scarfone and P. Mell. An analysis of cvss version 2 vulnerability scoring. In Proc. of ESEM'09, pages 516--525, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. Shahzad, M. Z. Shafiq, and A. X. Liu. A large scale exploratory analysis of software vulnerability life cycles. In Proc. of ICSE'12, pages 771--781. IEEE Press, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Symantec. Analysis of Malicious Web Activity by Attack Toolkits. Symantec, Available on the web at http://www.symantec.com/threatreport/topic.jsp?id=threat_activity_trends&aid=analysis_of_malicious_web_activity, online edition, 2011. Accessed on June 1012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. L. Wang, T. Islam, T. Long, A. Singhal, and S. Jajodia. An attack graph-based probabilistic security metric. In Proc. of DAS'08, volume 5094 of LNCS, pages 283--296. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A preliminary analysis of vulnerability scores for attacks in wild: the ekits and sym datasets

        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
          BADGERS '12: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Workshop on Building analysis datasets and gathering experience returns for security
          October 2012
          40 pages
          ISBN:9781450316613
          DOI:10.1145/2382416

          Copyright © 2012 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: 15 October 2012

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          BADGERS '12 Paper Acceptance Rate4of7submissions,57%Overall Acceptance Rate4of7submissions,57%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader