4.7 Article

A Game-theoretic Taxonomy and Survey of Defensive Deception for Cybersecurity and Privacy

Journal

ACM COMPUTING SURVEYS
Volume 52, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/3337772

Keywords

Cybersecurity; privacy; game theory; deception; taxonomy; survey; moving target defense; perturbation; mix network; obfuscation; honeypot; attacker engagement

Funding

  1. NSF IGERT grant through the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Security and Privacy (CRISSP) at New York University
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF) [CNS-1544782, EFRI-1441140, SES-1541164]
  3. Department of Energy [DE-NE0008571]
  4. Army Research Laboratory
  5. [W911NF-17-2-0104]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cyberattacks on both databases and critical infrastructure have threatened public and private sectors. Ubiquitous tracking and wearable computing have infringed upon privacy. Advocates and engineers have recently proposed using defensive deception as a means to leverage the information asymmetry typically enjoyed by attackers as a tool for defenders. The term deception, however, has been employed broadly and with a variety of meanings. In this article, we survey 24 articles from 2008 to 2018 that use game theory to model defensive deception for cybersecurity and privacy. Then, we propose a taxonomy that defines six types of deception: perturbation, moving target defense, obfuscation, mixing, honey-x, and attacker engagement. These types are delineated by their information structures, agents, actions, and duration: precisely concepts captured by game theory. Our aims are to rigorously define types of defensive deception, to capture a snapshot of the state of the literature, to provide a menu of models that can be used for applied research, and to identify promising areas for future work. Our taxonomy provides a systematic foundation for understanding different types of defensive deception commonly encountered in cybersecurity and privacy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available