Joe Ingram

Michael R Smith, Joe Ingram

The rise of AI has transformed the software and hardware landscape, enabling powerful capabilities through specialized infrastructures, large-scale data storage, and advanced hardware. However, these innovations introduce unique attack surfaces and objectives which traditional cybersecurity assessments often overlook. Cyber attackers are shifting their objectives from conventional goals like privilege escalation and network pivoting to manipulating AI outputs to achieve desired system effects, such as slowing system performance, flooding outputs with false positives, or degrading model accuracy. This paper serves to raise awareness of the novel cyber threats that are introduced when incorporating AI into a software system. We explore the operational cybersecurity and supply chain risks across the AI lifecycle, emphasizing the need for tailored security frameworks to address evolving threats in the AI-driven landscape. We highlight previous exploitations and provide insights from working in this area. By understanding these risks, organizations can better protect AI systems and ensure their reliability and resilience.

Justin E. Doak, Joe B. Ingram, Sam A. Mulder et al.

A forensics investigation after a breach often uncovers network and host indicators of compromise (IOCs) that can be deployed to sensors to allow early detection of the adversary in the future. Over time, the adversary will change tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), which will also change the data generated. If the IOCs are not kept up-to-date with the adversary's new TTPs, the adversary will no longer be detected once all of the IOCs become invalid. Tracking the Known (TTK) is the problem of keeping IOCs, in this case regular expressions (regexes), up-to-date with a dynamic adversary. Our framework solves the TTK problem in an automated, cyclic fashion to bracket a previously discovered adversary. This tracking is accomplished through a data-driven approach of self-adapting a given model based on its own detection capabilities. In our initial experiments, we found that the true positive rate (TPR) of the adaptive solution degrades much less significantly over time than the naive solution, suggesting that self-updating the model allows the continued detection of positives (i.e., adversaries). The cost for this performance is in the false positive rate (FPR), which increases over time for the adaptive solution, but remains constant for the naive solution. However, the difference in overall detection performance, as measured by the area under the curve (AUC), between the two methods is negligible. This result suggests that self-updating the model over time should be done in practice to continue to detect known, evolving adversaries.

Michael R. Smith, Joe B. Ingram, Christopher C. Lamb et al.

It is needed to ensure the integrity of systems that process sensitive information and control many aspects of everyday life. We examine the use of machine learning algorithms to detect malware using the system calls generated by executables-alleviating attempts at obfuscation as the behavior is monitored rather than the bytes of an executable. We examine several machine learning techniques for detecting malware including random forests, deep learning techniques, and liquid state machines. The experiments examine the effects of concept drift on each algorithm to understand how well the algorithms generalize to novel malware samples by testing them on data that was collected after the training data. The results suggest that each of the examined machine learning algorithms is a viable solution to detect malware-achieving between 90% and 95% class-averaged accuracy (CAA). In real-world scenarios, the performance evaluation on an operational network may not match the performance achieved in training. Namely, the CAA may be about the same, but the values for precision and recall over the malware can change significantly. We structure experiments to highlight these caveats and offer insights into expected performance in operational environments. In addition, we use the induced models to gain a better understanding about what differentiates the malware samples from the goodware, which can further be used as a forensics tool to understand what the malware (or goodware) was doing to provide directions for investigation and remediation.