skip to main content
10.1145/2667190.2667192acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Targeted Attacks against Industrial Control Systems: Is the Power Industry Prepared?

Published:07 November 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Targeted cyber attacks are on the rise, and the power industry is an attractive target. Espionage and causing physical damage are likely goals of these targeted attacks. In the case of the power industry, the worst possible consequences are severe: large areas, including critical societal infrastructures, can suffer from power outages. In this paper, we try to measure the preparedness of the power industry against targeted attacks. To this end, we have studied well-known targeted attacks and created a taxonomy for them. Furthermore, we conduct a study, in which we interview six power distribution system operators (DSOs), to assess the level of cyber situation awareness among DSOs and to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of their currently deployed systems and practices for detecting and responding to targeted attacks. Our findings indicate that the power industry is very well prepared for traditional threats, such as physical attacks. However, cyber attacks, and especially sophisticated targeted attacks, where social engineering is one of the strategies used, have not been addressed appropriately so far. Finally, by understanding previous attacks and learning from them, we try to provide the industry with guidelines for improving their situation awareness and defense (both detection and response) capabilities.

References

  1. Operation Aurora. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Global Energy Cyberattacks: "Night Dragon". Technical report, McAfee, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. ICS-CERT Monitor, Oct/Nov/Dec 2013. https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/Monitors/ICS-CERT_Monitor_Oct-Dec2013.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Unveiling "Careto" - The Masked APT. Kaspersky Lab, February 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. D. Albright, P. Brannan, and C. Walrond. Did Stuxnet take out 1000 centrifuges at the Natanz enrichment plant? Technical report, Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. D. Albright, P. Brannan, and C. Walrond. Stuxnet Malware and Natanz: Update of ISIS December 22, 2010 Report. Technical report, Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. R. Anderson, C. Barton, R. Böhme, R. Clayton, M. Eeten, M. Levi, T. Moore, and S. Savage. Measuring the Cost of Cybercrime. In 11th Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS'12), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. P. Barford, M. Dacier, T. Dietterich, M. Fredrikson, J. Giffin, S. Jajodia, S. Jha, J. Li, P. Liu, P. Ning, X. Ou, D. Song, L. Strater, V. Swarup, G. Tadda, C. Wang, and J. Yen. Cyber SA: Situational Awareness for Cyber Defense. In S. Jajodia, P. Liu, V. Swarup, and C. Wang, editors, Cyber Situational Awareness, volume 46 of Advances in Information Security, pages 3--13. Springer US, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. D. Batchelder, J. Blackbird, D. Felstead, P. Henry, J. Jones, and A. Kulkarni. Microsoft Security Intelligence Report. Microsoft, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. P. Ben-Nun. Respondent Fatigue, pages 743--744. Sage Publications, Inc., 1st edition, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J. Dai, X. Sun, P. Liu, and N. Giacobe. Gaining Big Picture Awareness through an Interconnected Cross-Layer Situation Knowledge Reference Model. In International Conference on Cyber Security (CyberSecurity) 2012, pages 83--92, Dec 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. T. Diefenbach. Are case studies more than sophisticated storytelling?: Methodological problems of qualitative empirical research mainly based on semi-structured interviews. Quality & Quantity, 43(6):875--894, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. A. Doupé, M. Egele, B. Caillat, G. Stringhini, G. Yakin, A. Zand, L. Cavedon, and G. Vigna. Hit 'em Where it Hurts: A Live Security Exercise on Cyber Situational Awareness. In Proceedings of the Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC), Orlando, FL, December 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. N. Falliere, L. Murchu, and E. Chien. W32. stuxnet dossier. White paper, Symantec Corp., Security Response, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. R. Goodall, A. D'Amico, and J. K. Kopylec. Camus: Automatically mapping Cyber Assets to Missions and Users. MILCOM 2009 - 2009 IEEE Military Communications Conference, pages 1--7, Oct. 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. M. Grimaila, R. Mills, and L. Fortson. Improving the Cyber Incident Mission Impact Assessment Processes. In 4th Annual Workshop on Cyber Security and Information Intelligence Research, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. R. Langner. Stuxnet: Dissecting a cyberwarfare weapon. IEEE Security & Privacy, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. M. B. Line. Why securing smart grids is not just a straightforward consultancy exercise. Security and Communication Networks, 7(1):160--174, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. B. Line, I. A. Tøndel, and M. G. Jaatun. Information security incident management: Planning for failure. In 8th International Conference on IT Security Incident Management and IT Forensics (IMF), pages 47--61, May 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. C. Paul and K. Whitley. A Taxonomy of Cyber Awareness Questions for the User-Centered Design of Cyber Situation Awareness. In L. Marinos and I. Askoxylakis, editors, Human Aspects of Information Security, Privacy, and Trust, volume 8030 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 145--154. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. N. Provos, P. Mavrommatis, M. Rajab, and F. Monrose. All Your Iframes Point to Us. In USENIX Security Symposium, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. C. Robson. Real world research. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 3rd edition, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. G. P. Tadda. Measuring performance of Cyber situation awareness systems. In 11th International Conference on Information Fusion, pages 1--8, June 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. C. Tankard. Advanced persistent threats and how to monitor and deter them. Network security, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. O. Thonnard, L. Bilge, G. O'Gorman, S. Kiernan, and M. Lee. Industrial Espionage and Targeted Attacks: Understanding the Characteristics of an Escalating Threat. In D. Balzarotti, S. Stolfo, and M. Cova, editors, Research in Attacks, Intrusions, and Defenses, volume 7462 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 64--85. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. C. Witchall and J. Chambers. Cyber incident response: Are business leaders ready? The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Targeted Attacks against Industrial Control Systems: Is the Power Industry Prepared?
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        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
          SEGS '14: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Smart Energy Grid Security
          November 2014
          60 pages
          ISBN:9781450331548
          DOI:10.1145/2667190

          Copyright © 2014 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: 7 November 2014

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          SEGS '14 Paper Acceptance Rate7of11submissions,64%Overall Acceptance Rate19of38submissions,50%

          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