journal article·2024-09-18Open access

Legacy ICS Cybersecurity Assessment Using Hybrid Threat Modeling—An Oil and Gas Sector Case Study

Mohamed Badawy, Nada H. Sherief, Ayman A. Abdel-Hamid

Applied Sciences· Volume 14· Issue 18

Abstract

As security breaches are increasingly widely reported in today’s culture, cybersecurity is gaining attention on a global scale. Threat modeling methods (TMM) are a proactive security practice that is essential for pinpointing risks and limiting their impact. This paper proposes a hybrid threat modeling framework based on system-centric, attacker-centric, and risk-centric approaches to identify threats in Operational Technology (OT) applications. OT is made up of software and hardware used to manage, secure, and control industrial control systems (ICS), and its environments include factories, power plants, oil and gas refineries, and pipelines. To visualize the “big picture” of its infrastructure risk profile and improve understanding of the full attack surface, the proposed framework builds on several threat modeling methodologies: PASTA modeling, STRIDE, and attack tree components. Nevertheless, the continuity and stability of vital infrastructure will continue to depend heavily on legacy equipment. Thus, protecting the availability, security, and safety of industrial environments and vital infrastructure from cyberattacks requires operational technology (OT) cybersecurity. The feasibility of the proposed approach is illustrated with a case study from a real oil and gas production plant control system where numerous significant cyberattacks in recent years have targeted OT networks more frequently as hackers realized the possibility of disruption due to insufficient OT security, particularly for outdated systems. The proposed framework achieved better results in detecting threats and severity in the design of the case study system, helping to increase security and support cybersecurity assessment of legacy control systems.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Information and Cyber Security · Smart Grid Security and Resilience · Network Security and Intrusion Detection

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

College of Computing and Information Technology, Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria P.O. Box 1029, Egypt

References (43)

Show source-provided references
1. Analysis of vulnerability trends and attacks in ot systems
2. The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (2024, July 01). ENISA Threat Landscape 2023. Available online: https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/enisa-threat-landscape-2023.
3. (2024, July 01). 2022 State of Operational Technology and Cybersecurity Report. Available online: https://www.fortinet.com/content/dam/fortinet/assets/analyst-reports/report-2022-ot-cybersecurity.pdf.
4. (2024, July 01). Threat Landscape for Industrial Automation Systems, Statistics for H2 2022-© 2023 AO KASPERSKY LAB. Available online: https://ics-cert.kaspersky.com/publications/reports/2023/03/06/threat-landscape-for-industrial-automation-systems-statistics-for-h2-2022/.
5. Zero-trust principles for legacy components: 12 rules for legacy devices: An antidote to chaos10.1007/s11277-021-09055-1 ↗
6. Bristow, M. (2024, July 01). A Sans 2021 Survey: OT/ICS Cybersecurity. Available online: https://sitic.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/A-SANS-2021-Survey-OT-ICS-Cybersecurity.pdf.
7. An extensible pattern-based library and taxonomy of security threats for distributed systems10.1016/j.csi.2013.12.008 ↗
8. Merging safety and cybersecurity analysis in product design10.1049/iet-its.2018.5323 ↗
9. Graham, J., Hieb, J., and Naber, J. (2016, January 8–10). Improving cybersecurity for industrial control systems. Proceedings of the IEEE 25th International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE), Santa Clara, CA, USA.10.1109/ISIE.2016.7744960 ↗
10. Shevchenko, N., Frye, B.R., and Woody, C. (2018). Threat Modeling for Cyber-Physical System-of-Systems: Methods Evaluation, Software Engineering Institute.
11. Alexander, O., Belisle, M., and Steele, J. (2020). MITRE ATT & CK for Industrial Control Systems: Design and Philosophy, The MITRE Corporation.
12. (2024, July 01). The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). Available online: https://www.enisa.europa.eu/about-enisa.
13. Stouffer, K., Stouffer, K., Pease, M., Tang, C., Zimmerman, T., Pillitteri, V., Lightman, S., Hahn, A., Saravia, S., and Sherule, A. (2023). Guide to Operational Technology (OT) Security.10.6028/NIST.SP.800-82r3 ↗
14. Security development lifecycle: Security considerations for client and cloud Applications10.1007/s11623-010-0021-7 ↗
15. FEATURES-ATTACK TREES-Attack trees provide a formal, methodical way of describing the security of systems, based on varying attacks. Bruce shows how you can use them to improve security by
16. Uceda Velez, T., and Morana, M.M. (2015). Risk Centric Threat Modeling: Process for Attack Simulation and Threat Analysis, John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781118988374 ↗
17. Mell, P., Scarfone, K., and Romanosky, S. (2007). A Complete Guide to the Common Vulnerability Scoring System Version 2.0, FIRST-Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams.
18. (2024, July 01). Common Vulnerability Scoring System Version 3.0 Calculator. Available online: https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/3.0.
19. A safety/security risk analysis approach of Industrial Control Systems: A cyber bowtie–combining new version of attack tree with bowtie analysis10.1016/j.cose.2017.09.004 ↗
20. Candell, R., Anand, D.M., and Stouffer, K. (2014, January 6–9). A cybersecurity testbed for industrial control systems. Proceedings of the 2014 Process Control and Safety Symposium, Houston, TX, USA.
21. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2024, September 05). NIST, Available online: https://www.nist.gov/.
22. (2024, September 05). ASTM International—Standards Worldwide. Available online: https://www.astm.org/.
23. ISO—International Organization for Standardization (2024, September 05). ISO. Available online: https://www.iso.org/home.html.
24. (2024, September 05). API. Available online: https://www.api.org/.
25. (2024, July 01). Available online: https://owasp.org/www-community/Threat_Modeling.
26. Model-based risk assessment for cyber physical systems security10.1016/j.cose.2020.101864 ↗
27. Shevchenko, N. (2024, July 01). Evaluating Threat Modeling Methods for Cyber-Physical Systems. Available online: https://insights.sei.cmu.edu/blog/evaluating-threat-modeling-methods-for-cyber-physical-systems/.
28. Microsoft (2024, July 01). Threat Modeling Tool. Available online: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/securityengineering/sdl/threatmodeling.
29. Salter, C., Saydjari, O.S., Schneier, B., and Wallner, J. (1998, January 22–26). Toward a secure system engineering methodolgy. Proceedings of the 1998 Workshop on New Security Paradigms, Charlottesville, VA, USA.10.1145/310889.310900 ↗
30. Threat modeling of cyber-physical systems—A case study of a microgrid system10.1016/j.cose.2022.102950 ↗
31. Threat modeling of industrial control systems: A systematic literature review10.1016/j.cose.2023.103543 ↗
32. Cybersecurity challenges in the offshore oil and gas industry: An industrial cyber-physical systems (ICPS) perspective10.1145/3548691 ↗
33. Taxonomy-Driven Graph-Theoretic Framework for Manufacturing Cybersecurity Risk Modeling and Assessment10.1115/1.4063729 ↗
34. Mead, N.R., Shull, F., Vemuru, K., and Villadsen, O. (2018). A Hybrid Threat Modeling Method, Carnegie Mellon University-Software Engineering. Institute-Technical Report-CMU/SEI-2018-TN-002.
35. Eng, D. (2017). Integrated Threat Modelling. [Master’s Thesis, Department of Informatics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Oslo].
36. Krishnan, S. (2018, July 10). A Hybrid Approach to Threat Modelling. Available online: https://blogs.sans.org/appsecstreetfighter/files/2017/03/A-Hybrid-Approach-to-Threat-Modelling.Pdf.
37. Potteiger, B., Martins, G., and Koutsoukos, X. (2016, January 19–21). Software and attack centric integrated threat modeling for quantitative risk assessment. Proceedings of the Symposium and Bootcamp on the Science of Security, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.10.1145/2898375.2898390 ↗
38. Honkaranta, A., Leppänen, T., and Costin, A. (2021, January 12–14). Towards practical cybersecurity mapping of stride and cwe—A multi-perspective approach. Proceedings of the 2021 29th Conference of Open Innovations Association (FRUCT), Tampere, Finland.10.23919/FRUCT52173.2021.9435453 ↗
39. (2024, July 01). MITRE ATT&CK for Industrial Control Systems. Available online: https://attack.mitre.org/matrices/ics/.
40. The Purdue enterprise reference architecture10.1016/0166-3615(94)90017-5 ↗
41. A survey of cyber attacks on cyber physical systems: Recent advances and challenges10.1109/JAS.2022.105548 ↗
42. Schneier, B. (2015). Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World, John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781119183631 ↗
43. A cyber incident response and recovery framework to support operators of industrial control systems10.1016/j.ijcip.2021.100505 ↗