Deep Learning Models for Privacy Risk Assessment in Dynamic Cyber Threat Environments

Abstract

Information security management systems and frameworks have embraced traditional risk assessment (RA) methodologies and standards as a cornerstone for secure environments. However, in today's world, where threats are constantly evolving and new vulnerabilities are constantly being found, these approaches encounter numerous challenges. To get around this issue, some have suggested DRA models, which continually and dynamically evaluate risks to an organization's activities in (almost) real time. Connected smart devices, known as the Internet of Things (IoT), have changed the face of modern technology. These advances present new security challenges, but they also bring new opportunities. For intrusion detection systems (IDS), cybersecurity is of the utmost importance. When it comes to protecting Internet of Things (IoT) devices from cyberattacks, Deep Learning has demonstrated encouraging results. Despite intrusion detection systems' (IDS) critical role in protecting sensitive data by detecting and preventing malicious actions, traditional IDS solutions have difficulties when used to the Internet of Things (IoT). This article explores state-of-the-art, Deep Learning-based intrusion detection approaches for Internet of Things security. Recent developments in intrusion detection systems (IDS) for the internet of things (IoT) are reviewed here, with an emphasis on the relevant deep learning algorithms, datasets, attack types, and assessment metrics. This work offers a fresh perspective on managing hazards in system-to-system communication through API calls and helps to tackle this difficulty. Effective threat identification from huge API call datasets is achieved through the introduction of an integrated architecture that integrates deep-learning models, specifically ANN and MLP. In order to improve overall resilience, the detected threats are analyzed to find appropriate mitigations. To ensure that AI models are accessible to all user groups, this work also introduces transparency obligation practices for the whole AI life cycle, beginning with dataset preprocessing and ending with model performance evaluation. These practices include data and methodological transparency as well as SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis. Experiment results showing an average detection accuracy of 88% utilizing the Windows PE Malware API dataset justify the proposed methodology.

Country : USA

1 Suneel Kumar Mogali

  1. Perficient, Inc, USA

IRJIET, Volume 5, Issue 2, February 2021 pp. 109-115

doi.org/10.47001/IRJIET/2021.502016

References

  1. Jones, C.L.; Bridges, R.A.; Huffer, K.M.T.; Goodall, J.R. Towards a Relation Extraction Framework for Cyber-Security Concepts. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
  2. Jeimy, J.; Cano, M. FLEXI—A Conceptual Model for Enterprise Cyber Resilience. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2023, 219, 11–19.
  3. Wallis, T.; Dorey, P. Implementing Partnerships in Energy Supply Chain Cybersecurity Resilience. Energies 2023, 16, 1868.
  4. Lubis, M.; Lubis, A.R. Designing Secured Cafe Network with Security Awareness Domain and Resource (SADAR) by Simulation using Cisco Packet Tracer. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 233–238.
  5. Bemthuis, R.; Iacob, M.-E.; Havinga, P. A Design of the Resilient Enterprise: A Reference Architecture for Emergent Behaviors Control. Sensors 2020, 20, 66-72.
  6. Lubis, M.; Rahman, N.A.; Alam, P.F. Marketing Strategies Design for Crowd sourcing Application in Indonesia. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 25–31.
  7. Pieters, W.; Hadžiosmanović, D.; Dechesne, F. Cyber Security as Social Experiment. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 15–24.
  8. Lubis, M.; Fathoni, M.; Lubis, A.R. New Product Development Architectural Framework for Sustainability and Innovation within Telecommunication Industry. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 145–150.
  9. Grigaliūnas, Š.; Brūzgienė, R.; Venčkauskas, A. The Method for Identifying the Scope of Cyberattack Stages in Relation to Their Impact on Cyber-Sustainability Control over a System. Electronics 2023, 12, 591.
  10. Carías, J.F.; Labaka, L.; Sarriegi, J.M.; Hernantes, J. Defining a Cyber Resilience Investment Strategy in an Industrial Internet of Things Context. Sensors 2019, 19, 138.
  11. Kupsch, J.A.; Miller, B.P.; Heymann, E.; César, E. First principles vulnerability assessment. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Workshop on Cloud Computing Security Workshop, Chicago, IL, USA, 8 October 2010; pp. 87–92.
  12. Garcia-Perez, A.; Cegarra-Navarro, J.G.; Sallos, M.P.; Martinez-Caro, E.; Chinnaswamy, A. Resilience in healthcare systems: Cyber security and digital transformation. Technovation 2023, 121, 102583.
  13. Ademujimi, T.; Prabhu, V. Digital Twin for Training Bayesian Networks for Fault Diagnostics of Manufacturing Systems. Sensors 2022, 22, 1430.
  14. AlMajali, A.; Viswanathan, A.; Neuman, C. Resilience Evaluation of Demand Response as Spinning Reserve under Cyber-Physical Threats. Electronics 2017, 6, 2.
  15. Linkov, I.; Ligo, A.; Stoddard, K.; Perez, B.; Strelzoffx, A.; Bellini, E.; Kott, A. Cyber Efficiency and Cyber Resilience. Commun. ACM 2023, 66, 33–37.
  16. Hausken, K. Cyber resilience in firms, organizations and societies. Internet Things 2020, 11, 100204.
  17. Van Haastrecht, M.; Golpur, G.; Tzismadia, G.; Kab, R.; Priboi, C.; David, D.; Răcătăian, A.; Baumgartner, L.; Fricker, S.; Ruiz, J.F.; et al. A Shared Cyber Threat Intelligence Solution for SMEs. Electronics 2021, 10, 2913.
  18. Rizwan, K.; Ahmad, M.; Habib, M.A. Cyber Automated Network Resilience Defensive Approach against Malware Images. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 237–242.
  19. Kotenko, I.; Izrailov, K.; Buinevich, M.; Saenko, I.; Shorey, R. Modeling the Development of Energy Network Software, Taking into Account the Detection and Elimination of Vulnerabilities. Energies 2023, 16, 5111.
  20. Estay, D.A.S.; Sahay, R.; Barfod, M.B.; Jensen, C.D. A systematic review of cyber-resilience assessment frameworks. Comput. Secur. 2020, 97, 101996.
  21. Blay, K.B.; Yeomans, S.; Demian, P.; Murguia, D. The Information Resilience Framework. J. Data Inf. Qual. 2020, 12, 1–25.
  22. Jones, S.L.; Collins, E.I.M.; Levordashka, A.; Muir, K.; Joinson, A. What is ‘cyber security’?: Differential language of cyber security across the lifespan. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK, 4–9 May 2019; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019; p. LBW0269.