Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
167 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Reconfigurable and Scalable Honeynet for Cyber-Physical Systems (2404.04385v1)

Published 5 Apr 2024 in cs.CR

Abstract: Industrial Control Systems (ICS) constitute the backbone of contemporary industrial operations, ranging from modest heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems to expansive national power grids. Given their pivotal role in critical infrastructure, there has been a concerted effort to enhance security measures and deepen our comprehension of potential cyber threats within this domain. To address these challenges, numerous implementations of Honeypots and Honeynets intended to detect and understand attacks have been employed for ICS. This approach diverges from conventional methods by focusing on making a scalable and reconfigurable honeynet for cyber-physical systems. It will also automatically generate attacks on the honeynet to test and validate it. With the development of a scalable and reconfigurable Honeynet and automatic attack generation tools, it is also expected that the system will serve as a basis for producing datasets for training algorithms for detecting and classifying attacks in cyber-physical honeynets.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (17)
  1. J. Franco, A. Aris, B. Canberk, and A. S. Uluagac, “A survey of honeypots and honeynets for internet of things, industrial internet of things, and cyber-physical systems,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2351–2383, 2021.
  2. R. Langner, “Stuxnet: Dissecting a cyberwarfare weapon,” IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 49–51, 2011.
  3. G. Liang, S. R. Weller, J. Zhao, F. Luo, and Z. Y. Dong, “The 2015 ukraine blackout: Implications for false data injection attacks,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 3317–3318, 2017.
  4. J. K. Canfil, “The illogic of plausible deniability: why proxy conflict in cyberspace may no longer pay,” Journal of Cybersecurity, vol. 8, p. tyac007, 09 2022.
  5. S. Hilt, F. Maggi, C. Perine, L. Remorin, M. Rösler, and R. Vosseler, “Caught in the act: Running a realistic factory honeypot to capture real threats,” tech. rep., Trend Micro, Inc.
  6. J. You, S. Lv, Y. Sun, H. Wen, and L. Sun, “Honeyvp: A cost-effective hybrid honeypot architecture for industrial control systems,” in ICC 2021 - IEEE International Conference on Communications, pp. 1–6, 2021.
  7. E. López-Morales, C. Rubio-Medrano, A. Doupé, Y. Shoshitaishvili, R. Wang, T. Bao, and G.-J. Ahn, “Honeyplc: A next-generation honeypot for industrial control systems,” in Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS ’20, (New York, NY, USA), p. 279–291, Association for Computing Machinery, 2020.
  8. D. Pliatsios, P. Sarigiannidis, T. Liatifis, K. Rompolos, and I. Siniosoglou, “A novel and interactive industrial control system honeypot for critical smart grid infrastructure,” in 2019 IEEE 24th International Workshop on Computer Aided Modeling and Design of Communication Links and Networks (CAMAD), pp. 1–6, 2019.
  9. M. Conti, F. Trolese, and F. Turrin, “Icspot: A high-interaction honeypot for industrial control systems,” in 2022 International Symposium on Networks, Computers and Communications (ISNCC), pp. 1–4, 2022.
  10. D. Antonioli and N. O. Tippenhauer, “Minicps: A toolkit for security research on cps networks,” in Proceedings of the First ACM Workshop on Cyber-Physical Systems-Security and/or PrivaCy, CPS-SPC ’15, (New York, NY, USA), p. 91–100, Association for Computing Machinery, 2015.
  11. S. Y. Chowdhury, B. Dudley, and R. Sun, “The case for virtual plc-enabled honeypot design,” in 2023 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW), pp. 351–357, 2023.
  12. G. Bernieri, M. Conti, and F. Pascucci, “Mimepot: a model-based honeypot for industrial control networks,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC), pp. 433–438, 2019.
  13. D. Michie, ““memo” functions and machine learning,” Nature, vol. 218, pp. 19–22, Apr. 1968.
  14. L. Rist, “Conpot.” http://conpot.org/. Accessed: 2024-01-5.
  15. “Openplc.” https://autonomylogic.com/. Accessed: 2023-12-9.
  16. “Docker.” https://www.docker.com/get-started/. Accessed: 2023-12-8.
  17. A. Humayed, J. Lin, F. Li, and B. Luo, “Cyber-physical systems security—a survey,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 1802–1831, 2017.
Citations (2)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.