| Literature DB >> 35161493 |
Yunmin Wang1, Abla Smahi1, Huayu Zhang2, Hui Li1,3.
Abstract
Recently, more and more mobile devices have been connected to the Internet. The Internet environment is complicated, and network security incidents emerge endlessly. Traditional blocking and killing passive defense measures cannot fundamentally meet the network security requirements. Inspired by the heuristic establishment of multiple lines of defense in immunology, we designed and prototyped a Double Defense strategy with Endogenous Safety and Security (DDESS) based on multi-identifier network (MIN) architecture. DDESS adopts the idea of a zero-trust network, with identity authentication as the core for access control, which solves security problems of traditional IP networks. In addition, DDESS achieves individual static security defense through encryption and decryption, consortium blockchain, trusted computing whitelist, and remote attestation strategies. At the same time, with the dynamic collection of data traffic and access logs, as well as the understanding and prediction of the situation, DDESS can realize the situation awareness of network security and the cultivation of immune vaccines against unknown network attacks, thus achieving the active herd defense of network security.Entities:
Keywords: double defense; immunology; network security; situation awareness; zero trust
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161493 PMCID: PMC8838307 DOI: 10.3390/s22030747
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Network attack procedures.
Figure 2Double defense strategy with endogenous safety and security (DDESS).
Figure 3Multi-identifier network architecture.
Figure 4Separation of multi-identifier network management plane and data plane.
Figure 5PoV consensus and block generation procedure.
Figure 6Trusted computing remote attestation and whitelisting.
Figure 7DDESS performance evaluation topology.
Attack results of experiments.
| Attack Phase | Description | IP-IP | IP-MIN | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target detection | Host discovery | ✓ | ✗ | |
| ping scan | ✓ | ✗ | ||
| OS recognition | System fingerprints obtained | Host non-survival | ||
| Port scan | All ports probed | The host is alive, | ||
| Attack injection | Trojan | TCP trojan | ✓ | ✗ |
| UDP trojan | ✓ | ✗ | ||
| ICMP trojan | ✓ | ✗ | ||
| One-sentence shell | ✓ | ✗ | ||
| Action | ARP Attack | Information sniffing | Target cannot be sniffed | |
| Network disconnection attack | Target not affected |
Figure 8Performance comparison of intrusion detection.
Figure 9Prediction performance comparison on situation awareness.