1 / 22

Advancements in Network Asset Discovery and Tracking at UC Berkeley

This presentation by Vern Paxson focuses on the empirical asset discovery and tracking at the University of California, Berkeley. It highlights extensive data acquired from operational environments to enhance asset visibility through the VAST (Visibility Across Time and Space) framework. The talk discusses innovative capture and archive technologies, explores various asset discovery algorithms, and emphasizes the importance of analyzing historical enterprise data, such as DNS and netflow logs, to identify unique signatures and improve cybersecurity operations within organizations.

gertrude-lehmann
Télécharger la présentation

Advancements in Network Asset Discovery and Tracking at UC Berkeley

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Network AssetDiscovery & Tracking Vern Paxson University of California Berkeley, California USA vern@eecs.berkeley.edu August 23, 2010

  2. Overview • Grounding asset discovery in reality: empirical enterprise data • Acquired extensive data from operational environments • Supporting asset discovery and tracking with capture/archive technology • VAST = Visibility Across Time and Space • Enhancing “time machine” technology towards operational use • Exploration of asset discovery algorithms • Mining for unique signatures & clusters

  3. Access To Empirical Enterprise Data • Leveraging ties with operational cybersecurity at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBL), we obtained access to extensive raw internal logs • ~4,000 users, ~12,000 internal hosts, Gbps/10Gbps • Archive resides beyond OTP portal • Exportable to team members we work with using negotiated anonymization • Can also mediate access via running analyses via portal • Ground truth (or at least partial) available • Topology, historical DNS also available

  4. Scope of the Data • Netflow: 74B records across 15 months • Recorded at 3 internal core routers • 5-minute dumps • ~1K flows/sec • LDAP: 4.5 years, 5.6B records • DNS: 5 years, 47B records • Email: 5 years, 17B records • Received, sent, read via {POP,IMAP,HTTP} • DHCP: 2 months, 144M records • Individual systems: 2 months, 1.6B records Logs are a pain to deal with. Written in many distinct formats, meant for human-not-machine consumption

  5. VAST: Motivating Premise • Modern serious attacks often manifest • Over a range of time scales • Involving numerous system components • Serious = • E.g. stolen credentials • E.g. insiders, spear-phishers • Detecting these requires broad visibility • Across time (into the past; looking to the future) • Across space (different forms of sensing; inter-site)

  6. A General Network Time Machine VAST Repository • For assets: • Extensive uniform logging of activity for mining/discovery • Unified asset tracking using general data model • Policy-neutral data • Uniform data model

  7. Operator Event Data Archive Live Analysis Index Stream Query Engine Aggr. Query Engine VAST DB System Architecture Dispatcher Event Streams

  8. Exploring Longitudinal Patterns of Enterprise Activity • Visualization of internal DNS lookups of internal LBL hosts • Based on longitudinal DNS logs • X axis: position in LBL address space • Y axis: scaled to number of lookups (Demo)

  9. Preliminary Exploration ofNetflow Data • Single day from LBL • 9,702 source hosts, 11,362 destinations • Removed internal scanners • Very simple clustering: Jaccard index on each host’s destinations • Note: doesn’t mean host was client • Initial crunch took ~24 CPU hours • Coded in Scala, 15 minutes on 17-node cluster • For exact matches, 91% of hosts unique • Remainder exhibit ~ power-law structure

  10. Preliminary Exploration ofConnection Patterns • To what degree does a host’s past activity suffice to distinguish its future activity? • Use #1: find hosts that significantly alter their behavior • E.g., due to failure/failover • Use #2: track assets / disambiguate NAT/DHCP aliasing • Use #3: understand what makes a host unique (~ “role discovery”) / find similar hosts • Outbound traffic data set: 402 non-NATed source hosts • 1,528,619 distinct <address, port> destinations • 168 days • Outbound HTTP data set: 160 non-NATed source hosts • 62,031 distinct HTTP host header destinations • 137 days

  11. Fingerprinting End Systems, con’t • So far, two assessments: • A: train first 10 days, evaluate on next 10 days • B: train first 30 days, evaluate on next 30 days • Classification approach #1: Naïve Bayes • Use destinations as symbols for bag-of-words • P[Correct system in scenario A]: 53% • P[Correct system in scenario B]: 53% • However: in failure instances, often the correct system is near the top …

  12. Fingerprinting End Systems, con’t • Classification approach #2: Jaccard index • Destinations weighted by their relative rarity • P[Correct for A]: 77% • P[Correct for B]: 70% • Benefit in considering constellations of destinations rather than just individual destinations in isolation

  13. Next Steps • Begin navigating huge LBL logs to determine • Extent of information available • Efficient & sound ways to sample/slice data • Low-hanging fruit for asset identification • Work towards operational VAST deployment to gather future such data in a unified/coherent fashion • Refine clustering techniques towards identifying sets of servers, including backups • Develop/refine fingerprinting techniques for asset tracking

More Related