World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Intrusion Detection

Article Id: WHEBN0005548427
Reproduction Date:

Title: Intrusion Detection  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Norton Internet Security, Intruder detection, Content processor, Operational Security Systems
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Intrusion Detection

An intrusion detection system (IDS) is a device or software application that monitors network or system activities for malicious activities or policy violations and produces reports to a management station. Some systems may attempt to stop an intrusion attempt but this is neither required nor expected of a monitoring system. Intrusion detection and prevention systems (IDPS) are primarily focused on identifying possible incidents, logging information about them, and reporting attempts. In addition, organizations use IDPSes for other purposes, such as identifying problems with security policies, documenting existing threats and deterring individuals from violating security policies. IDPSes have become a necessary addition to the security infrastructure of nearly every organization.[1]

IDPSes typically record information related to observed events, notify security administrators of important observed events and produce reports. Many IDPSes can also respond to a detected threat by attempting to prevent it from succeeding. They use several response techniques, which involve the IDPS stopping the attack itself, changing the security environment (e.g. reconfiguring a firewall) or changing the attack's content.[1]

Terminology

  • burglar Alert/Alarm: A signal suggesting that a system has been or is being attacked.[2]
  • Detection Rate: The detection rate is defined as the number of intrusion instances detected by the system(True Positive) divided by the total number of intrusion instances present in the test set.[3]
  • False Alarm Rate: defined as the number of 'normal' patterns classified as attacks(False Positive) divided by the total number of 'normal' patterns.[3]
  • True Positive: A legitimate attack which triggers an IDS to produce an alarm.[2]
  • False Positive: An event signaling an IDS to produce an alarm when no attack has taken place.[2]
  • False Negative: A failure of an IDS to detect an actual attack.[2]
  • True Negative: When no attack has taken place and no alarm is raised.
  • Noise: Data or interference that can trigger a false positive or obscure a true positive.[2]
  • Site policy: Guidelines within an organization that control the rules and configurations of an IDS.[2]
  • Site policy awareness: An IDS's ability to dynamically change its rules and configurations in response to changing environmental activity.[2]
  • Confidence value: A value an organization places on an IDS based on past performance and analysis to help determine its ability to effectively identify an attack.[2]
  • Alarm filtering: The process of categorizing attack alerts produced from an IDS in order to distinguish false positives from actual attacks.[2]
  • Attacker or Intruder: An entity who tries to find a way to gain unauthorized access to information, inflict harm or engage in other malicious activities.
  • Masquerader: A user who does not have the authority to a system, but tries to access the information as an authorized user. They are generally outside users.
  • Misfeasor: They are commonly internal users and can be of two types:
    1. An authorized user with limited permissions.
    2. A user with full permissions and who misuses their powers.
  • Clandestine user: A user who acts as a supervisor and tries to use his privileges so as to avoid being captured.


Intrusion detection systems can also be system-specific using custom tools and honeypots.

Passive and/or reactive systems

In a passive system, the intrusion detection system (IDS) sensor detects a potential security breach, logs the information and signals an alert on the console and/or owner.[4] In a reactive system, also known as an intrusion prevention system (IPS), the IPS auto-responds to the suspicious activity by resetting the connection or by reprogramming the firewall to block network traffic from the suspected malicious source. The term IDPS is commonly used where this can happen automatically or at the command of an operator; systems that both "detect (alert)" and "prevent".

Comparison with firewalls

Though they both relate to network security, an intrusion detection system (IDS) differs from a firewall in that a firewall looks outwardly for intrusions in order to stop them from happening. Firewalls limit access between networks to prevent intrusion and do not signal an attack from inside the network. An IDS evaluates a suspected intrusion once it has taken place and signals an alarm. An IDS also watches for attacks that originate from within a system. This is traditionally achieved by examining network communications, identifying heuristics and patterns (often known as signatures) of common computer attacks, and taking action to alert operators. A system that terminates connections is called an intrusion prevention system, and is another form of an application layer firewall.

Statistical anomaly and signature-based IDSes

All Intrusion Detection Systems use one of two detection techniques:

Statistical anomaly-based IDS

A statistical anomaly-based IDS determines what is normal network activity - like what sort of bandwidth is generally used, what protocols are used, what ports and devices generally connect to each other - and alerts the administrator or user, when anomalous traffic is detected.[2]

Signature-based IDS

Signature-based IDS monitors packets in the network, and compares them with pre-configured and pre-determined attack patterns, known as signatures.

Limitations

  • Noise can severely limit an intrusion detection system's effectiveness. Bad packets generated from software bugs, corrupt DNS data, and local packets that escaped can create a significantly high false-alarm rate.[5]
  • It is not uncommon for the number of real attacks to be far below the false-alarm rate. Real attacks are often so far below the false-alarm rate that they are often missed and ignored.[5]
  • Many attacks are geared for specific versions of software that are usually outdated. A constantly changing library of signatures is needed to mitigate threats. Outdated signature databases can leave the IDS vulnerable to newer strategies.[5]
  • For signature-based IDSes there will be lag between a new threat discovery and its signature being applied to the IDS. During this lag time the IDS will be unable to identify the threat.[2]

Evasion techniques

Intrusion detection system evasion techniques bypass detection by creating different states on the IDS and on the targeted computer. The adversary accomplishes this by manipulating either the attack itself or the network traffic that contains the attack.

Development

One preliminary IDS concept consisted of a set of tools intended to help administrators review audit trails.[6] User access logs, file access logs, and system event logs are examples of audit trails.

Fred Cohen noted in 1984 that it is impossible to detect an intrusion in every case, and that the resources needed to detect intrusions grow with the amount of usage.

Dorothy E. Denning, assisted by Peter G. Neumann, published a model of an IDS in 1986 that formed the basis for many systems today.[7] Her model used statistics for anomaly detection, and resulted in an early IDS at SRI International named the Intrusion Detection Expert System (IDES), which ran on Sun workstations and could consider both user and network level data.[8] IDES had a dual approach with a rule-based Expert System to detect known types of intrusions plus a statistical anomaly detection component based on profiles of users, host systems, and target systems. Lunt proposed adding an Artificial neural network as a third component. She said all three components could then report to a resolver. SRI followed IDES in 1993 with the Next-generation Intrusion Detection Expert System (NIDES).[9]

The Multics intrusion detection and alerting system (MIDAS), an expert system using P-BEST and Lisp, was developed in 1988 based on the work of Denning and Neumann.[10] Haystack was also developed this year using statistics to reduce audit trails.[11]

Wisdom & Sense (W&S) was a statistics-based anomaly detector developed in 1989 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.[12] W&S created rules based on statistical analysis, and then used those rules for anomaly detection.

In 1990, the Time-based Inductive Machine (TIM) did anomaly detection using inductive learning of sequential user patterns in Common Lisp on a VAX 3500 computer.[13] The Network Security Monitor (NSM) performed masking on access matrices for anomaly detection on a Sun-3/50 workstation.[14] The Information Security Officer's Assistant (ISOA) was a 1990 prototype that considered a variety of strategies including statistics, a profile checker, and an expert system.[15] ComputerWatch at AT&T Bell Labs used statistics and rules for audit data reduction and intrusion detection.[16]

Then, in 1991, researchers at the University of California, Davis created a prototype Distributed Intrusion Detection System (DIDS), which was also an expert system.[17] The Network Anomaly Detection and Intrusion Reporter (NADIR), also in 1991, was a prototype IDS developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory's Integrated Computing Network (ICN), and was heavily influenced by the work of Denning and Lunt.[18] NADIR used a statistics-based anomaly detector and an expert system.

The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory announced Bro in 1998, which used its own rule language for packet analysis from libpcap data.[19] Network Flight Recorder (NFR) in 1999 also used libpcap.[20] APE was developed as a packet sniffer, also using libpcap, in November, 1998, and was renamed Snort one month later. APE has since become the world's largest used IDS/IPS system with over 300,000 active users.[21]

The Audit Data Analysis and Mining (ADAM) IDS in 2001 used tcpdump to build profiles of rules for classifications.[22]

In 2003, Dr. Yongguang Zhang and Dr. Wenke Lee argue for the importance of IDS in networks with mobile nodes.[23]

See also

Free Intrusion Detection Systems

References

 This article incorporates "Guide to Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems, SP800-94" by Karen Scarfone, Peter Mell (retrieved on 1 January 2010).

Further reading

External links

  • DMOZ
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.