In cybersecurity, attackers range from brash, unsophisticated script kiddies and cybercriminals to stealthy, patient advanced persistent threats. When modeling these attackers, we can observe that they demonstrate different risk-seeking and risk-averse behaviors. This work explores how an attacker's risk seeking or risk averse behavior affects their operations against detection-optimizing defenders in an Internet of Things ecosystem. Using an evaluation framework which uses real, parametrizable malware, we develop a game that is played by a defender against attackers with a suite of malware that is parameterized to be more aggressive and more stealthy. These results are evaluated under a framework of exponential utility according to their willingness to accept risk. We find that against a defender who must choose a single strategy up front, risk-seeking attackers gain more actual utility than risk-averse attackers, particularly in cases where the defender is better equipped than the two attackers anticipate. Additionally, we empirically confirm that high-risk, high-reward scenarios are more beneficial to risk-seeking attackers like cybercriminals, while low-risk, low-reward scenarios are more beneficial to risk-averse attackers like advanced persistent threats.
翻译:在网络安全中,攻击者从鲁莽、不精致的脚本和网络罪犯到隐性、病人更先进的持续威胁。在模拟这些攻击者时,我们可以看到他们表现出不同的冒险和规避风险的行为。这项工作探索攻击者的风险寻求或冒险反常行为如何影响他们针对在“物”生态系统互联网上检测到最佳的维权者的行动。我们利用一个使用真实的、可实现的恶意软件的评价框架,我们开发了一个游戏,由拥有一套恶意软件的捍卫者针对攻击者进行,这套恶意软件被设定为更具攻击性、更隐性、更隐性。这些结果根据他们接受风险的意愿在一个指数实用的框架内进行评估。我们发现,对必须选择单一战略的辩护者而言,寻求风险攻击者得到的实际效用大于风险反向攻击者,特别是当维权者比两个攻击者预期的更有能力的情况下。此外,我们从经验上证实,高风险、高回报情景对像网络犯罪者那样的风险寻求风险攻击者更有利,而低风险、低反向风险攻击者则对风险攻击者更有利。