ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
A behavioral approach to worm detection
Full text PdfPdf (240 KB)
Source Workshop on Rapid Malcode archive
Proceedings of the 2004 ACM workshop on Rapid malcode table of contents
Washington DC, USA
SESSION: Session 2 table of contents
Pages: 43 - 53  
Year of Publication: 2004
ISBN:1-58113-970-5
Authors
Daniel R. Ellis  The MITRE Corporation
John G. Aiken  The MITRE Corporation
Kira S. Attwood  The MITRE Corporation
Scott D. Tenaglia  The MITRE Corporation
Sponsors
SIGSAC: ACM Special Interest Group on Security, Audit, and Control
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 7,   Downloads (12 Months): 96,   Citation Count: 15
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   review   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1029618.1029625
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a new approach to the automatic detection of worms using behavioral signatures. A behavioral signature describes aspects of any particular worm's behavior that are common across the manifestations of a given worm and that span its nodes in temporal order. Characteristic patterns of worm behaviors in network traffic include 1) sending similar data from one machine to the next, 2) tree-like propagation and reconnaissance, and 3) changing a server into a client. These behavioral signatures are presented within the context of a general worm propagation model. Taken together, they have the potential to detect entire classes of worms including those which have yet to be observed.

This paper introduces the concept of an network application architecture (NAA) as a way to distribute network applications. An analysis shows that the choice of NAA impacts the sensitivity of behavioral signatures. An NAA that satisfies certain constraints significantly improves worm detection sensitivity. Mathematical models of traffic flow, NAAs, worm propagation, and worm detection provide a context for the entire discussion.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Joan M. Aldous and Robin J. Wilson, Graphs and Applications: An Introductory Approach, Springer-Verlag, 2000.
 
2
3
 
4
 
5
Hyang-Ah Kim, Brad Karp, Autograph: Toward Automated, DistributedWorm Signature Detection, USENIX Security Symposium, to appear, 2004.
 
6
Internet Engineering Task Force RFC 1700. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1700.txt.
 
7
 
8
Sumeet Singh, Cristian Estan, George Varghese, Stefan Savage, The EarlyBird System for Real-time Detection of Unknown Worms, to be presented at the Sixth Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation (OSDI), 2004. http://www.snort.org/.
 
9
Stuart Staniford et al., The Design of GrIDS: A Graph-Based Intrusion Detection System. UCD Technical Report CSE-99-2, January, 1999.
 
10
 
11
Stuart Staniford. Containment of Scanning Worms in Enterprise Networks. Journal of Computer Security, to appear, 2004.
 
12
Richard W. Stevens, TCP/IP Illustrated, vol. 1, Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 1994.
 
13
Nicholas Weaver, Vern Paxson, Stuart Staniford, Robert Cunningham.
14
 
15
Nicholas Weaver, Dan Ellis, Vern Paxson, Stuart Staniford, Worms vs. Perimeters: The Case for HardLANs, To appear, Hot Interconnects 2004, Stanford University, August, 2004.
 
16
Nicholas Weaver, Stuart Staniford, Vern Paxson, Very Fast Containment of Scanning Worms, USENIX Security Symposium, 2004.
 
17

CITED BY  15


REVIEW

"Wei Yen : Reviewer"

The detecting function is an integral part of a defense mechanism against viruses, worms, and denial of service attacks. A new paradigm for worm detection is described in this paper. Instead of looking for known patterns in packet contents, this p  more...

Collaborative Colleagues:
Daniel R. Ellis: colleagues
John G. Aiken: colleagues
Kira S. Attwood: colleagues
Scott D. Tenaglia: colleagues