Toward hybrid attack dependency graphs

ACM International Conference Proceeding Series

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages

  Louthan, George ^a   Hardwicke, Phoebe ^a   Hawrylak, Peter ^a   Hale, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TULSA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTACK GRAPH; CONTINUOUS STATE; CONTINUOUS-DOMAIN; DEPENDENCY GRAPHS; EXTENDED ABSTRACTS; MODELING FRAMEWORKS;

PROGRAM PROCESSORS;

SECURITY OF DATA;

EID: 84862860564     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2179298.2179368     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. R. Alur, C. Courcoubetis, T. Henzinger, and P. Ho. Hybrid automata: An algorithmic approach to the specification and verification of hybrid systems. Hybrid systems, pages 209-229, 1993.
2. M. Brownfield, Y. Gupta, and N. Davis. Wireless sensor network denial of sleep attack. In Information Assurance Workshop, 2005. IAW'05. Proceedings from the Sixth Annual IEEE SMC, pages 356-364. IEEE, 2005.
3. T. Buennemeyer, G. Jacoby, W. Chiang, R. Marchany, and J. Tront. Battery-sensing intrusion protection system. In Information Assurance Workshop, 2006 IEEE, pages 176-183. IEEE, 2006.
4. A. Buttner and N. Ziring. Common platform enumeration (cpe) - specification, March 2009.
5. C. Campbell, J. Dawkins, B. Pollet, K. Fitch, J. Hale, and M. Papa. On Modeling Computer Networks for Vulnerability Analysis. DBSec, pages 233-244, 2002.
6. K. Chen, H. Tsai, Y. Liu, and J. Shuler. A Radiofrequency Identification (RFID) Temperature-Monitoring System for Extended Maintenance of Nuclear Materials Packaging. In Proceedings of 2009 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, 2009.
7. S. Jajodia, S. Noel, and B. O'Berry. Topological analysis of network attack vulnerability. Managing Cyber Threats, pages 247-266, 2005.
8. E. Lee. Cyber-physical systems-are computing foundations adequate. In Position Paper for NSF Workshop On Cyber-Physical Systems: Research Motivation, Techniques and Roadmap, 2006.
9. R. Lippmann and K. Ingols. An annotated review of past papers on attack graphs. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lincoln Laboratory, 2005.
10. Report: Cyber-physical systems summit. Technical report, National Science Foundation, 2008.
11. S. Noel and S. Jajodia. Managing attack graph complexity through visual hierarchical aggregation. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM workshop on Visualization and data mining for computer security, pages 109-118. ACM, 2004.
12. C. Phillips and L. Swiler. A graph-based system for network-vulnerability analysis. In Proceedings of the 1998 workshop on New security paradigms, pages 71-79. ACM, 1998.
13. D. Raymond, R. Marchany, M. Brownfield, and S. Midkiff. Effects of denial-of-sleep attacks on wireless sensor network MAC protocols. Vehicular Technology, IEEE Transactions on, 58(1):367-380, 2009.
14. O. Sheyner, J. Haines, S. Jha, R. Lippmann, and J. Wing. Automated generation and analysis of attack graphs. In Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE Computer Society, 2002.
15. S. Templeton and K. Levitt. A requires/provides model for computer attacks. In Proceedings of the 2000 workshop on New security paradigms, pages 31-38. ACM, 2001.