skip to main content
10.1145/3229565.3229566acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

Clear as MUD: Generating, Validating and Applying IoT Behavioral Profiles

Published:07 August 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

IoT devices are increasingly being implicated in cyber-attacks, raising community concern about the risks they pose to critical infrastructure, corporations, and citizens. In order to reduce this risk, the IETF is pushing IoT vendors to develop formal specifications of the intended purpose of their IoT devices, in the form of a Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD), so that their network behavior in any operating environment can be locked down and verified rigorously.

This paper aims to assist IoT manufacturers in developing and verifying MUD profiles, while also helping adopters of these devices to ensure they are compatible with their organizational policies. Our first contribution is to develop a tool that takes the traffic trace of an arbitrary IoT device as input and automatically generates the MUD profile for it. We contribute our tool as open source, apply it to 28 consumer IoT devices, and highlight insights and challenges encountered in the process. Our second contribution is to apply a formal semantic framework that not only validates a given MUD profile for consistency, but also checks its compatibility with a given organizational policy. Finally, we apply our framework to representative organizations and selected devices, to demonstrate how MUD can reduce the effort needed for IoT acceptance testing.

References

  1. 2018. MUD maker. http://www.insecam.org/en/bycountry/US/. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Amit Basu and Robert Blanning. 2007. Metagraphs and their applications. Vol. 15. Springer Science & Business Media. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Sara Boddy and Justin Shattuck. 2017. The Hunt for IoT: The Rise of Thingbots. Technical Report. F5 Labs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Eric Byres, John Karsch, and Joel Carter. 2005. NISCC good practice guide on firewall deployment for SCADA and process control networks. NISCC (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cisco Systems. 2013. Cisco ASA Series CLI Configuration Guide, 9.0. Cisco Systems, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. FCC. 2016. Federal Communications Comssion Response 12--05--2016. https://goo.gl/JdLofa. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayyoob Hamza. 2018. MUDgee. https://github.com/ayyoob/mudgee. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Hamza, D. Ranathunga, H. Habibi Gharakheili, M. Roughan, and V. Sivaraman. 2018. Clear as MUD: Generating, Validating and Applying IoT Behaviorial Profiles (Technical Report). ArXiv e-prints (April 2018). arXiv:cs.CR/1804.04358Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Scott Hilton. 2016. Dyn Analysis Summary Of Friday October 21 Attack. https://goo.gl/mCdQUF. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Juniper Networks, Inc. 2016. Getting Started Guide for the Branch SRX Series. 1133 Innovation Way, Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Eliot Lear, Ralph Droms, and Dan Romascanu. 2018. Manufacturer Usage Description Specification (work in progress). Internet-Draft draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-18. IETF Secretariat. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-18.txtGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Franco Loi, Arunan Sivanathan, Hassan Habibi Gharakheili, Adam Radford, and Vijay Sivaraman. 2017. Systematically Evaluating Security and Privacy for Consumer IoT Devices. In Proc. ACM IoT S&P. Dallas, Texas, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. John Matherly. 2018. Shodan. {Online}. Available: https://www.shodan.io/. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Diego M Mendez, Ioannis Papapanagiotou, and Baijian Yang. 2017. Internet of Things: Survey on Security and Privacy. CoRR abs/1707.01879 (2017). arXiv:1707.01879Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. European Union Agency For Network and Information Security. 2017. Communication network dependencies for ICS/SCADA Systems. https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/ics-scada-dependencies. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. NIST. 2016. Systems Security Engineering. https://goo.gl/Qo9GfD. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2016. Strategic Principles For Securing the Internet of Things (IoT). https://goo.gl/PaXbc4. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. 2017. PAN-OS Administrator's Guide, 8.0. 4401 Great America Parkway, Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Dave Plonka. 2013. Flawed Routers Flood University of Wisconsin Internet Time Server. www.pages.cs.wisc.edu/~plonka/netgear-sntp/. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Dinesha Ranathunga, Hung Nguyen, and Matthew Roughan. 2017. MGtoolkit: A python package for implementing metagraphs. SoftwareX 6 (2017), 91--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Dinesha Ranathunga, Matthew Roughan, Phil Kernick, and Nick Falkner. 2016. Malachite: Firewall policy comparison. In IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communication (ISCC). 310--317.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Dinesha Ranathunga, Matthew Roughan, Phil Kernick, Nick Falkner, Hung Nguyen, Marian Mihailescu, and Michelle McClintock. 2016. Verifiable Policy-defined Networking for Security Management.. In SECRYPT. 344--351. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Dinesha Ranathunga, Matthew Roughan, Hung Nguyen, Phil Kernick, and Nickolas Falkner. 2016. Case studies of scada firewall configurations and the implications for best practices. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management 13 (2016), 871--884. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Arunan Sivanathan, Daniel Sherratt, Hassan Habibi Gharakheili, Adam Radford, Chamith Wijenayake, Arun Vishwanath, and Vijay Sivaraman. 2017. Characterizing and classifying IoT traffic in smart cities and campuses. In Proc. IEEE INFOCOM workshop on SmartCity. Atlanta, Georgia, USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Vijay Sivaraman, Dominic Chan, Dylan Earl, and Roksana Boreli. 2016. Smartphones attacking smart-homes. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Security & Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks. ACM, 195--200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Keith Stouffer, Joe Falco, and Karen Scarfone. 2008. Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) security. NIST Special Publication 800, 82 (2008), 16--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Cisco Systems. 2018. Cisco 2018 Annual Cybersecurity Report. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Avishai Wool. 2010. Trends in firewall configuration errors: Measuring the holes in Swiss cheese. IEEE Internet Computing 14, 4 (2010), 58--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. PC World. 2018. Backdoor accounts found in 80 Sony IP security camera models. https://goo.gl/UUvc2x. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Clear as MUD: Generating, Validating and Applying IoT Behavioral Profiles

    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
      IoT S&P '18: Proceedings of the 2018 Workshop on IoT Security and Privacy
      August 2018
      61 pages
      ISBN:9781450359054
      DOI:10.1145/3229565

      Copyright © 2018 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 August 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate12of30submissions,40%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader