1 INTRUSION TOLERANT SYSTEMS WORKSHOP Phoenix, AZ 4 August 1999 Jaynarayan H. Lala ITS Program Manager

2 TOPICS A Dependability Framework for ITS Sharing of Documents & Results Program Review Meetings Reporting Experimentation Coordination with other IA&S Programs Other issues

3 A DEPENDABILITY FRAMEWORK FOR ITS Goal: Establish a multi-dimensional, hierarchical framework for Intrusion Tolerant Systems program Approach:  Put forward a strawman  Solicit your inputs

4 WHY DO WE NEED A FRAMEWORK? To provide a system view of intrusion tolerance. To show inter-relationships between various techniques and tools. To provide a context for evaluating applicability& effectiveness of each technique and tool. To partition ITS into its various components and assign roles & responsibilities to those components. To design & implement ITS components.

5 PITAC RECOMMENDATIONS President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) recommended recently (Aug. ‘98) that Federal govt. should  “… foster projects of broader scope and longer duration.”  “Increase the emphasis on projects involving multiple investigators over several years.” Each PI must look beyond his/her own research to see how it fits in the big picture, relates to other PIs’ work, and advances the strategic vision.

6 ITS DEPENDABILITY FRAMEWORK Dependability Background A Strawman ITS Framework

7 DEPENDABILITY*: AN OVERARCHING CONCEPT Dependability is defined as the trustworthiness of a computer system such that reliance can justifiably be placed on the service it delivers. *J.C. Laprie (ed.), Dependability: Basic Concepts and Terminology, Springer-Verlag, 1992.

8 DEPENDABILITY PROPERTIES Availability is the readiness for usage. Reliability is the continuity of service. Maintainability is the ease of performing maintenance actions. Safety is the avoidance of catastrophic consequences on the environment. Security is the prevention of unauthorized access (Confidentiality) and/or handling of information (Integrity).

9 IMPAIRMENTS TO DEPENDABILITY Faults, errors and failures may affect dependability properties. Faults can be categorized by  Nature Accidental or Intentional  Origin Physical or Human made Internal or External Design or Operational  Persistence Temporary or Permanent

FAULT CLASSIFICATION

11 FAILURE CLASSIFICATION Consequence Viewpoint  Benign vs. Catastrophic  Fail-Safe vs. Critical Domain Viewpoint  Timing  Value  Both Perception Viewpoint  Consistent  Byzantine

12 MEANS FOR DEPENDABILITY Methods and techniques that provide the ability to deliver a service on which reliance can be placed. Fault/Attack Prevention Fault Removal  Verification, Diagnosis, Correction Fault/Attack Tolerance  Error Processing, Fault Treatment Fault/Attack Forecasting  System Evaluation wrt Fault/Attack Occurrence

13 A STRAWMAN ITS FRAMEWORK

14 POTENTIAL DIMENSIONS OF ITS FRAMEWORK (1 of 4) Dependability Property  Confidentiality  Integrity  Availability  Other dependability properties Attack Classification  Malicious Logic  Intrusions Fault/Attack Persistence  Temporary  Permanent

15 POTENTIAL DIMENSIONS OF ITS FRAMEWORK(2 of 4) Means for Dependability  Avoidance (Prevention, Removal)  Detection  Isolation/Identification  Response (Recovery, Reconfiguration, Graceful Degradation)  System Evaluation/ Validation Attack Severity  Ankle Biters, Single Target, Benign  Terrorist, Multiple Targets, Destructive  Rate of Attack

16 POTENTIAL DIMENSIONS OF ITS FRAMEWORK(3 of 4) Avoidance & Detection Techniques  Formal Methods  Execution Monitors  Others Tolerance Techniques  Data Redundancy  Programs Redundancy  Hardware Redundancy  Communication Codes Redundancy  Information (Analytic)/Design Redundancy  Temporal Redundancy

17 POTENTIAL DIMENSIONS OF ITS FRAMEWORK(4 of 4) Maturity for Fielding  Concept Exploration  Design/Implementation  Demonstration  Validation