Penetration Testing

Penetration testing is a testing approach that mimic real-world attacks in an attempt to identify ways to circumvent security features of an application, system, or network[DMD5]. The simulated attack helps to check for exploitable vulnerabilities.
Analysis of sensor data and server-PLC communication to evaluate the system robustness in the case of sensor data manipulation and to evaluate effects of data manipulation in communication between server and PLC, and analysis of data transmission with several attack types such as man in the middle (MiTM), Denial of Service (DoS) and Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) Poisoning.

There are plenty of different techniques in data manipulation where MiTM, DoS and ARP poisoning are emerging and commonly exploited. MiTM or called with other name person-in-the-middle (PITM) is a cyber-attack technique. Basically, in this technique, the attacker positioning himself between two sides of communication for listening and resolving any information in communication [DMD1]. DoS (a Denial-of-Service) attack is a cyber-attack in which the perpetrator aims to make a machine or network resource unavailable to its intended users by temporarily or permanently disrupting services of a host connected to the Internet [DMD2, DMD3]. ARP is a communication protocol for link layer in ISO reference model at RFC 826 [DMD1]. ARP Poisoning is called with different names like, ARP spoofing, ARP cache poisoning, or ARP poison routing. It is a technique by which an attacker sends (spoofed) ARP messages onto a local area network. Generally, the aim is to associate the attacker's MAC address with the IP address of another host, such as the default gateway, causing any traffic meant for that IP address to be sent to the attacker instead [DMD1, DMD4]. Industrial systems can be tested to detect these issues.

  • Ability to apply real world attacks
  • Relatively shorter test duration compared to model‑based and simulation‑based approaches
  • Test can be carried out after full commissioning.
  • Possible side effects on other IT systems.
  • Not include zero‑day vulnerabilities.
  • [DMD1] Yang, Y., McLaughlin, K., Littler, T., Sezer, S., Im, E. G., Yao, Z. Q., & Wang, H. F. (2012).: Man-in-the-middle attack test-bed investigating cyber-security vulnerabilities in smart grid SCADA systems.
  • [DMD2] Bechtsoudis, A., & Sklavos, N. (2012). Aiming at higher network security through extensive penetration tests. IEEE latin america transactions, 10(3), 1752-1756.
  • [DMD3] Denial-of-service attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack.
  • [DMD4] Denis, M., Zena, C., & Hayajneh, T. (2016, April). Penetration testing: Concepts, attack methods, and defense strategies. In 2016: IEEE Long Island Systems, Applications and Technology Conference (LISAT) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
  • [DMD5] Nist. (2008, September). NIST Special Publication 800-115 Technical Guide to Information Security Testing and Assessment. Available at: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/legacy/sp/nistspecialpublication800-115.pdf
Method Dimensions
Open evaluation environment
Experimental - Testing
Hardware, Software
Other
Thinking, Acting, Sensing
Non-Functional - Security
V&V process criteria, SCP criteria
Relations
Contents

There are currently no items in this folder.