loading...
 This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
The Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, First International Conference on (QEST'04)
Comparing Passive and Active Worm Defenses
Enschede, the Netherlands
September 27-September 30
ISBN: 0-7695-2185-1
Michael Liljenstam, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
David M. Nicol, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Recent large-scale and rapidly evolving worm epidemics have led to interest in automated defensive measures against self-propagating network worms. We present models of network worm propagation and defenses that permit us to compare the effectiveness of "passive" measures, attempting to block or slow down a worm, with "active" measures, that attempt to proactively patch hosts or remove infections. We extend relatively simple deterministic epidemic models to include connectivity of the underlying infrastructure, thus permitting us to model quarantining defenses deployed either in customer networks or towards the core of the Internet. We compare defensive strategies in terms of their effectiveness in preventing worm infections and find that with sufficient deployment, content based quarantining defenses are more effective than the counter-worms we consider. For less ideal deployment or blocking based on addresses, a counter-worm can be more effective if released quickly and aggressively enough. However, active measures (such as counter-worms) also have other technical issues, including causing additional network traffic and increases risk of failures, that need to be considered.
Citation:
Michael Liljenstam, David M. Nicol, "Comparing Passive and Active Worm Defenses," qest, pp.18-27, The Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, First International Conference on (QEST'04), 2004
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.