WEIS 20051 Economic Analysis of Incentives to Disclose Software Vulnerabilities Dmitri Nizovtsev Washburn University Marie Thursby Georgia Institute of.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Quality of Law: Judicial Incentives, Legal Human Capital and the Evolution of Law Gillian Hadfield USC and Columbia University The Dynamics of Institutions.
Advertisements

Network Security: an Economic Perspective Marc Lelarge (INRIA-ENS) currently visiting STANFORD TRUST seminar, Berkeley 2011.
ORGANISATION PATTERN IN MARKETING CHANNELS
A Comparative Theory of Legislation, Discretion, and Policy making Process (Huber&Shipan) Two crucial elements in the politicians- bureaucrats interaction.
Risk Assessment What is RISK?  requires vulnerability  likelihood of successful attack  amount of potential damage Two approaches:  threat modeling.
Evolution and Repeated Games D. Fudenberg (Harvard) E. Maskin (IAS, Princeton)
Beyond the Solow Growth Model. Three Reasons to Go Beyond the Solow Growth Model (SGM) The SGM doesn’t fit facts too well Saving and Investment Don’t.
Lecture 3 Outline: Thurs, Sept 11 Chapters Probability model for 2-group randomized experiment Randomization test p-value Probability model for.
MIT and James Orlin © Game Theory 2-person 0-sum (or constant sum) game theory 2-person game theory (e.g., prisoner’s dilemma)
STRATEGIES FOR GROWTH Session 2 The entrepreneurial process Opportunity Entrepreneur Organisation Resources Leadership and direction Attraction and Management.
Short introduction to game theory 1. 2  Decision Theory = Probability theory + Utility Theory (deals with chance) (deals with outcomes)  Fundamental.
Software Diversity for Information Security Gaurav Kataria Carnegie Mellon University.
Network Security An Economics Perspective IS250 Spring 2010 John Chuang.
Adverse Selection Asymmetric information is feature of many markets
A camper awakens to the growl of a hungry bear and sees his friend putting on a pair of running shoes, “You can’t outrun a bear,” scoffs the camper. His.
Managerial Economics and Organizational Architecture, 5e Chapter 9: Economics of Strategy: Game Theory McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2009 by The McGraw-Hill.
Job Market Signaling (Spence model)
Query Incentive Networks Jon Kleinberg and Prabhakar Raghavan - Presented by: Nishith Pathak.
Dynamic Network Security Deployment under Partial Information George Theodorakopoulos (EPFL) John S. Baras (UMD) Jean-Yves Le Boudec (EPFL) September 24,
1 chapter: >> First Principles Krugman/Wells Economics
1 IS371 WEEK 8 Last and Final Assignment Application Development Alternatives to Application Development Instructor Online Evaluations.
Minorities and Democratization David Epstein & Sharyn O’Halloran Columbia University Bahar Leventoglu SUNY – Stonybrook.
QR 38, 2/15/07 Extensive form games I.Writing down a game II.Finding the equilibrium III.Adding complexity.
Chapter 21. Stabilization policy with rational expectations
Two-Stage Games APEC 8205: Applied Game Theory Fall 2007.
The Theory of Aggregate Supply Chapter 4. 2 The Theory of Production Representative Agent Economy: all output is produced from labor and capital and in.
Economics of Malware: Epidemic Risk Model, Network Externalities and Incentives. Marc Lelarge (INRIA-ENS) WEIS, University College London, June 2009.
How To Disclose Software Vulnerabilities Responsibly?* Huseyin Cavusoglu Ph.D., Tulane University Hasan Cavusoglu Ph.D., U. of British Columbia Srinivasan.
1 An Empirical Analysis of Vendor Response to Vulnerability Disclosure Ashish Arora, Ramayya Krishnan, Rahul Telang, Yubao Yang Carnegie Mellon University.
Marketing CH. 4 Notes.
Bottom-Up Coordination in the El Farol Game: an agent-based model Shu-Heng Chen, Umberto Gostoli.
Asaf Cohen (joint work with Rami Atar) Department of Mathematics University of Michigan Financial Mathematics Seminar University of Michigan March 11,
Modelling the labour market Labour supply decisions The effect of a minimum wage.
Secure Software Development SW Penetration Testing Chapter 6 Rasool Jalili & M.S. Dousti Dept. of Computer Engineering Fall 2010.
A Politics of Vulnerability Reporting Black Hat Briefings, Europe 2001 Scott Blake Director of Security Strategy BindView Corporation/RAZOR Research.
Who Should be Responsible for Software Security? A Comparative Analysis of Liability Policies in Network Environments Terrence August Rady School of Management,
Introduction to Economics Chapter 17
Chapter 5.  Are “initial conditions” important in determining final outcomes for countries?  Does it matter where a country starts its development process.
1 Learning by Duopoly Agents Steve Kimbrough Fred Murphy INFORMS, November 7, 2006, 8:00-9:30 File: kimbrough-murphy-informs-2006fm-1.ppt.
The Calculus of Consent Ch 6: A Generalized Economic Theory of Constitutions Alexander Tabarrok January 06.
Economic Growth I CHAPTER 7.
Economics of Extreme Climatic Events By Adil Rasheed (EPFL-ENAC-ICARE-LESO-PB)
Computer Security and Penetration Testing
Starter In your groups, think of as many political parties as you can. How many can we name as a class.
Cyber vulnerabilities and the threat of attack: Making things better:
Experimental Economics and Neuroeconomics. An Illustration: Rules.
Dynamic Games & The Extensive Form
MIS An Economic Analysis of Software Market with Risk-Sharing Contract Byung Cho Kim Pei-Yu Chen Tridas Mukhopadhyay Tepper School of Business Carnegie.
1 ITGD 2202 Supervision:- Assistant Professor Dr. Sana’a Wafa Al-Sayegh Dr. Sana’a Wafa Al-SayeghStudent: Anwaar Ahmed Abu-AlQumboz.
CHAPTER 15 Reporting Security Problems. INTRODUCTION There are two choices that can be made when you find a security problem in some software, hardware.
Extensive Games with Imperfect Information
Legitimate Vulnerability Markets By: Jeff Wheeler.
1 The Dynamics of Pricing Rivalry Besanko, Dranove, Shanley, and Schaefer Chapters 8.
Is finding security holes a good idea? Presented By: Jeff Wheeler CSC 682.
Unit 4 Dr. Marie Mele. Topics to Discuss Ability of people to make rational choices How people weigh the risks and rewards of engaging in crime How the.
By: Donté Howell Game Theory in Sports. What is Game Theory? It is a tool used to analyze strategic behavior and trying to maximize his/her payoff of.
Full Disclosure: Is It Beneficial? Project Based Information Systems Tim Schultz 12/02/02.
Dynamic Game Theory and the Stackelberg Model. Dynamic Game Theory So far we have focused on static games. However, for many important economic applications.
Modeling Changes in Exploitative vs. Protective Behavior Joseph Blass Motivation and Questions Humans exploit others for selfish reasons Humans also protect.
Security in Opened versus Closed Systems – The Dance of Boltzmann, Coase and Moore Presented By Chad Frommeyer.
On the (Mis-)Use of Information for Public Debate Andrea Patacconi University of Oxford Fourth PhD Presentation Meeting, 17 th -18 th January 2008.
Mixed Strategies Keep ‘em guessing.
The Effect of Entry Regulation on Risk Management
Advanced Political Economics
Eco 3311 Lecture 12 One Period Closed Economy Model - Equilibrium
Advanced Political Economics
A useful reduction (SAT -> game)
Beyond the Solow Growth Model
Security Risk Assessment
EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING IENG314 OPERATIONS RESEARCH II SAMIR SAMEER ABUYOUSSEF
Presentation transcript:

WEIS Economic Analysis of Incentives to Disclose Software Vulnerabilities Dmitri Nizovtsev Washburn University Marie Thursby Georgia Institute of Technology

WEIS Full Public Disclosure:

WEIS Full Public Disclosure: Why the controversy?

WEIS Full Public Disclosure: Why the controversy? Why do benign discoverers disclose?

WEIS What is socially optimal? Full Public Disclosure: Why the controversy? Why do benign discoverers disclose?

WEIS What is socially optimal? Full Public Disclosure: How to get there? Why the controversy? Why do benign discoverers disclose?

WEIS The existing body of economic research on information security focuses on

WEIS The existing body of economic research on information security focuses on - decisions made by vendors

WEIS The existing body of economic research on information security focuses on - decisions made by vendors - the “coordinator” (the opt. disclosure policy issue)

WEIS The existing body of economic research on information security focuses on - decisions made by vendors - the “coordinator” (the opt. disclosure policy issue) - information sharing (ISACs)

WEIS The existing body of economic research on information security focuses on - decisions made by vendors - the “coordinator” (the opt. disclosure policy issue) - information sharing (ISACs) - users’ decision to patch

WEIS The existing body of economic research on information security focuses on - decisions made by vendors - the “coordinator” (the opt. disclosure policy issue) - information sharing (ISACs) - users’ decision to patch - viability of a market for vulnerabilities…

WEIS The existing body of economic research on information security focuses on - decisions made by vendors - the “coordinator” (the opt. disclosure policy issue) - information sharing (ISACs) - users’ decision to patch - viability of a market for vulnerabilities… …but not on individual decisions to disclose. Our research is an attempt to close this gap.

WEIS Commonly believed motives for full public disclosure:

WEIS Commonly believed motives for full public disclosure: Signaling one’s abilities; Commonly believed motives for full public disclosure: Signaling one’s abilities;

WEIS Commonly believed motives for full public disclosure: Signaling one’s abilities; Warning other users; Commonly believed motives for full public disclosure: Signaling one’s abilities; Warning other users;

WEIS Commonly believed motives for full public disclosure: Signaling one’s abilities; Warning other users; Putting pressure on the vendor. Commonly believed motives for full public disclosure: Signaling one’s abilities; Warning other users; Putting pressure on the vendor.

WEIS Benign users are minimizing their expected loss Benign users are minimizing their expected loss Commonly believed motives for full public disclosure: Signaling one’s abilities; Warning other users; Putting pressure on the vendor. Commonly believed motives for full public disclosure: Signaling one’s abilities; Warning other users; Putting pressure on the vendor. Our alternative explanation:

WEIS The Model

WEIS The Model Three types of “agents”:

WEIS Black Hats attack other users when they can The Model Three types of “agents”:

WEIS Black Hats attack other users when they can White Hats inform the vendor, decide whether and how to disclose The Model Three types of “agents”:

WEIS Black Hats attack other users when they can White Hats inform the vendor, decide whether and how to disclose Vendors issue a fix once attacks reach a certain intensity level The Model Three types of “agents”:

WEIS Black Hats attack other users when they can White Hats inform the vendor, decide whether and how to disclose Vendors issue a fix once attacks reach a certain intensity level The Model Three types of “agents”: Independent discoveries of the same bug are possible.

WEIS Disclose? Bug discovered by a benign user Massive attack No attack Next discoverer? Game ends NY Fix provided by vendor Game continues… BH WH Disclose? Single attack Y N

WEIS Loss Structure

WEIS Expected loss LN N1 N2 Proportion of white hats disclosing LN – expected loss of white hats who don’t disclose N1 – expected loss from a massive attack (result of FPD) N2 – exp. loss from ‘covert’ attacks (result of independent discoveries)

WEIS The ease of exploiting the published vulnerability, ε Exogenous parameters Users’ knowledge of software, κ (affects the probability of a fix developed by the user, ) Users’ knowledge of software, κ (affects the probability of a fix developed by the user, ) Population (B black hats + W white hats) Population (B black hats + W white hats) Potential damage from each attack, C Transparency of the bug, r (affects the chances of independent discoveries) The discoverer’s “impatience factor”, ρ

WEIS Expected Loss. Disclosing agent: Non-Disclosing agent: where is the probability that a white hat plays “disclose” and is the discounting factor.

The equilibrium proportion of white hats who choose full public disclosure (FPD):

WEIS Possible equilibria: 1. Pure no-disclosure (ND) equilibrium, α*<0 None of benign discoverers discloses Expected loss Proportion of white hats choosing FPD E(L N ) E(L D ) 01

WEIS Possible equilibria: 2. Pure full disclosure (FD) equilibrium, α*>1 All benign discoverers disclose Expected loss Proportion of white hats choosing FPD E(L N ) E(L D ) 01

WEIS Possible equilibria: Expected loss Proportion of white hats choosing FPD E(L N ) E(L D ) 3. Mixed strategy equilibrium, 0<α*<1 Some benign discoverers disclose, others don’t 01

WEIS FPD tends to occur more often as…

WEIS FPD tends to occur more often as… Bugs become easier to discover FPD tends to occur more often as… Bugs become easier to discover

WEIS FPD tends to occur more often as… Bugs become easier to discover Users get more patient (less myopic) FPD tends to occur more often as… Bugs become easier to discover Users get more patient (less myopic)

WEIS FPD tends to occur more often as… Bugs become easier to discover Users get more patient (less myopic) The number of black hats increases FPD tends to occur more often as… Bugs become easier to discover Users get more patient (less myopic) The number of black hats increases

WEIS FPD tends to occur more often as… Bugs become easier to discover Users get more patient (less myopic) The number of black hats increases It gets more difficult to develop an exploit based on the disclosed information FPD tends to occur more often as… Bugs become easier to discover Users get more patient (less myopic) The number of black hats increases It gets more difficult to develop an exploit based on the disclosed information

WEIS FPD tends to occur more often as… Bugs become easier to discover Users get more patient (less myopic) The number of black hats increases It gets more difficult to develop an exploit based on the disclosed information The effect of the population size is ambiguous FPD tends to occur more often as… Bugs become easier to discover Users get more patient (less myopic) The number of black hats increases It gets more difficult to develop an exploit based on the disclosed information The effect of the population size is ambiguous

WEIS FPD tends to occur more often as… Bugs become easier to discover Users get more patient (less myopic) The number of black hats increases It gets more difficult to develop an exploit based on the disclosed information The effect of the population size is ambiguous FPD tends to occur more often as… Bugs become easier to discover Users get more patient (less myopic) The number of black hats increases It gets more difficult to develop an exploit based on the disclosed information The effect of the population size is ambiguous If the social loss function equals the aggregate damage from attacks…

WEIS FPD tends to occur more often as… Bugs become easier to discover Users get more patient (less myopic) The number of black hats increases It gets more difficult to develop an exploit based on the disclosed information The effect of the population size is ambiguous FPD tends to occur more often as… Bugs become easier to discover Users get more patient (less myopic) The number of black hats increases It gets more difficult to develop an exploit based on the disclosed information The effect of the population size is ambiguous If the social loss function equals the aggregate damage from attacks, then full public disclosure can be socially optimal

WEIS FPD tends to occur more often as… Bugs become easier to discover Users get more patient (less myopic) The number of black hats increases It gets more difficult to develop an exploit based on the disclosed information The effect of the population size is ambiguous FPD tends to occur more often as… Bugs become easier to discover Users get more patient (less myopic) The number of black hats increases It gets more difficult to develop an exploit based on the disclosed information The effect of the population size is ambiguous If the social loss function equals the aggregate damage from attacks, then full public disclosure can be socially optimal Whenever that is the case, it is the equilibrium strategy of individual benign discoverers

WEIS Disclose? Bug discovered by a benign user Massive attack No attack Next discoverer? Game ends NY Fix provided by vendor Game continues… BH WH Disclose? Single attack Y N

WEIS Choice of effort, X N Choice of effort, X Y Disclose? Patch installed? Patch installed? Bug discovered by a benign user Massive attack No attack Next discoverer? Game ends Game ends (no loss) YY N N NY Fix provided by vendor Game continues… BH WH Disclose? Single attack Y N

WEIS More transparent code leads to more effort put into finding a fix and less FPD. Κ=0 Κ>0 So does a greater potential damage from an attack E(L WN )/E(L WD ) α

WEIS What happens to the aggregate damage from attacks? Does it change the incentive structure? Suppose we have a coalition of agents anyone can disclose information to. The composition of the coalition population is assumed the same as for the rest of the world.

WEIS Choice of effort Disclose? Patch installed? Patch installed? Patch installed? Bug discovered Moderate size attack Massive attack No attack Next discoverer? Game ends Game ends (no loss) XCXC XWXW XNXN YYY N N N NW C

WEIS Software is not too complex Such a coalition improves social welfare only if Coalition members are willing to work on a patch Otherwise, a coalition has no effect! AND

Punishing those who choose full public disclosure… …is not a good idea Old New Loss % FD Policy alternatives

Punishing those who choose full public disclosure… …is not a good idea Old New Loss % FD Policy alternatives Let them disclose!

Better security of existing systems (a decrease in C, the loss from an attack) Aggregate loss decreases More frequent disclosure along the way Old New Exp. Loss % FD Policy alternatives

Punishing black hats Aggregate loss decreases More FPD along the way Old New Exp. Loss % FD Policy alternatives Costly but not hopeless

Software quality improvement Fewer bugs discovered Old New Loss % FD Policy alternatives

Software quality improvement Fewer bugs discovered Weaker incentives to disclose Old New Loss % FD + Policy alternatives Both effects have to be taken into account when discussing the effects of software quality improvement!!!

Making vendors issue patches faster Less disclosure Smaller aggregate loss Old New Loss % FD Policy alternatives

Making vendors issue patches faster (One of the roles for the coordinator?) Less disclosure Smaller aggregate loss Old New Loss % FD Policy alternatives

Making the source code transparent Bugs are patched faster (not necessarily by vendors) Less disclosure Smaller aggregate loss Old New Loss % FD Policy alternatives

Making the source code transparent Bugs are patched faster (not necessarily by vendors) Less disclosure Smaller aggregate loss Old New Loss % FD Policy alternatives Would this be a threat to intellectual property rights?

WEIS Endogenizing vendors’ decisions and users’ decision to patch Role of the coordinator Testing the results empirically Endogenizing vendors’ decisions and users’ decision to patch Role of the coordinator Testing the results empirically Future modifications and extensions