skip to main content
10.1145/2382196.2382284acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Before we knew it: an empirical study of zero-day attacks in the real world

Published:16 October 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Little is known about the duration and prevalence of zero-day attacks, which exploit vulnerabilities that have not been disclosed publicly. Knowledge of new vulnerabilities gives cyber criminals a free pass to attack any target of their choosing, while remaining undetected. Unfortunately, these serious threats are difficult to analyze, because, in general, data is not available until after an attack is discovered. Moreover, zero-day attacks are rare events that are unlikely to be observed in honeypots or in lab experiments.

In this paper, we describe a method for automatically identifying zero-day attacks from field-gathered data that records when benign and malicious binaries are downloaded on 11 million real hosts around the world. Searching this data set for malicious files that exploit known vulnerabilities indicates which files appeared on the Internet before the corresponding vulnerabilities were disclosed. We identify 18 vulnerabilities exploited before disclosure, of which 11 were not previously known to have been employed in zero-day attacks. We also find that a typical zero-day attack lasts 312 days on average and that, after vulnerabilities are disclosed publicly, the volume of attacks exploiting them increases by up to 5 orders of magnitude.

References

  1. Adobe Systems Incorporated. Security bulletins and advisories. http://www.adobe.com/support/security/, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. R. Anderson and T. Moore. The economics of information security. In Science, vol. 314, no. 5799, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. W. A. Arbaugh, W. L. Fithen, and J. McHugh. Windows of vulnerability: A case study analysis. IEEE Computer, 33(12), December 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. Arora, R. Krishnan, A. Nandkumar, R. Telang, and Y. Yang. Impact of vulnerability disclosure and patch availability - an empirical analysis. In Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2004), 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. S. Beattie, S. Arnold, C. Cowan, P. Wagle, and C. Wright. Timing the application of security patches for optimal uptime. In Large Installation System Administration Conference, pages 233--242, Philadelphia, PA, Nov 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. J. Bollinger. Economies of disclosure. In SIGCAS Comput. Soc., 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D. Brumley, P. Poosankam, D. X. Song, and J. Zheng. Automatic patch-based exploit generation is possible: Techniques and implications. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 143--157, Oakland, CA, May 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. H. C. H. Cavusoglu and S. Raghunathan. Emerging issues in responsible vulnerability disclosure. In Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. D. H. P. Chau, C. Nachenberg, J. Wilhelm, A. Wright, and C. Faloutsos. Polonium : Tera-scale graph mining for malware detection. In SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM), Mesa, AZ, April 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. CVE. A dictionary of publicly known information security vulnerabilities and exposures. http://cve.mitre.org/, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. N. Falliere, L. O'Murchu, and E. Chien. W32.stuxnet dossier. http://www.symantec.com/content/en/us/enterprise/media/security_response/whitepapers/w32_stuxnet_dossier.pdf, February 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. S. Frei. Security Econometrics: The Dynamics of (In)Security. PhD thesis, ETH Zurich, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. S. Frei. End-Point Security Failures, Insight gained from Secunia PSI scans. Predict Workshop, February 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Google Inc. Pwnium: rewards for exploits, February 2012. http://blog.chromium.org/2012/02/pwnium-rewards-for-exploits.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. A. Greenberg. Shopping for zero-days: A price list for hackers' secret software exploits. Forbes, 23 March 2012. http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/03/23/shopping-for-zero-days-an-price-list-for-hackers-secret-software-exploits/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. A. Lelli. The Trojan.Hydraq incident: Analysis of the Aurora 0-day exploit. http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/trojanhydraq-incident-analysis-aurora-0-day-exploit, 25 January 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. R. McMillan. RSA spearphish attack may have hit US defense organizations. PC World, 8 September 2011. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/239728/rsa_spearphish_attack_may_have_hit_us_defense_organizations.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. M. A. McQueen, T. A. McQueen, W. F. Boyer, and M. R. Chaffin. Empirical estimates and observations of 0day vulnerabilities. In Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Microsoft. Microsoft security bulletins. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletin, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. C. Miller. The legitimate vulnerability market: Inside the secretive world of 0-day exploit sales. In Workshop on the Economics of Information Security, Pittsburgh, PA, June 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. OSVDB. The open source vulnerability database. http://www.osvdb.org/, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. A. Ozment and S. E. Schechter. Milk or wine: does software security improve with age? In 15th conference on USENIX Security Symposium, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. P. Porras, H. Saidi, and V. Yegneswaran. An anlysis of conficker's logic and rendezvous points. http://mtc.sri.com/Conficker/, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Qualys, Inc. The laws of vulnerabilities 2.0. http://www.qualys.com/docs/Laws_2.0.pdf, July 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. T. Dumitra' and D. Shou. Toward a standard benchmark for computer security research: The Worldwide Intelligence Network Environment (WINE). In EuroSys BADGERS Workshop, Salzburg, Austria, Apr 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. E. Rescorla. Is finding security holes a good idea? In IEEE Security and Privacy, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. U. Rivner. Anatomy of an attack, 1 April 2011. http://blogs.rsa.com/rivner/anatomy-of-an-attack/ Retrieved on 19 April 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. SANS Institute. Top cyber security risks - zero-day vulnerability trends. http://www.sans.org/top-cyber-security-risks/zero-day.php, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. B. Schneier. Cryptogram september 2000 - full disclosure and the window of exposure. http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0009.html, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. B. Schneier. Locks and full disclosure. In IEEE Security and Privacy, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. B. Schneier. The nonsecurity of secrecy. In Commun. ACM, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. M. Shahzad, M. Z. Shafiq, and A. X. Liu. A large scale exploratory analysis of software vulnerability life cycles. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Software Engineering, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Symantec Corporation. Symantec global Internet security threat report, volume 13. http://eval.symantec.com/mktginfo/enterprise/white_papers/b-whitepaper_internet_security_threat_report_xiii_04-2008.en-us.pdf, April 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Symantec Corporation. Symantec global Internet security threat report, volume 14. http://eval.symantec.com/mktginfo/enterprise/white_papers/b-whitepaper_internet_security_threat_report_xv_04-2010.en-us.pdf, April 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Symantec Corporation. Symantec global Internet security threat report, volume 15. http://msisac.cisecurity.org/resources/reports/documents/SymantecInternetSecurityThreatReport2010.pdf, April 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Symantec Corporation. Symantec Internet security threat report, volume 16, April 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Symantec Corporation. Symantec Internet security threat report, volume 17. http://www.symantec.com/threatreport/, April 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Symantec Corporation. Symantec threat explorer. http://www.symantec.com/security_response/threatexplorer/azlisting.jsp, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Symantec.cloud. February 2011 intelligence report. http://www.messagelabs.com/mlireport/MLI_2011_02_February_FINAL-en.PDF, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. N. Weaver and D. Ellis. Reflections on Witty: Analyzing the attacker. ;login: The USENIX Magazine, 29(3):34--37, June 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Before we knew it: an empirical study of zero-day attacks in the real world

        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
          CCS '12: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security
          October 2012
          1088 pages
          ISBN:9781450316514
          DOI:10.1145/2382196

          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: 16 October 2012

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate1,261of6,999submissions,18%

          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