Harmless Attack Verification Using Knowledge Graph Attack Paths
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Traditional network security systems face challenges in detecting and responding to complex and frequent network attacks with high concealment and variable paths, leading to delayed detection and inadequate protection.
Innovation Solution
A method and system for harmless attack verification and analysis that involves constructing an attack knowledge graph, scenario-based flow charts, decomposing tasks into sub-tasks based on path and node counts, determining path complexities and priorities, and simulating attacks on a protection boundary to evaluate security and vulnerabilities.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Productivity
If traditional passive defense systems are used, then system simplicity is maintained, but detection speed and response capability deteriorate when facing complex attack chains
Solution Approach 1:
The system segments the attack verification process into multiple independent modules: attack knowledge graph construction module, attack flow chart construction module, task decomposition module, complexity evaluation module, and simulated attack verification module. Each module handles a specific aspect of attack analysis independently, enabling parallel processing and improving detection speed while maintaining manageable system complexity through modular architecture.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces a knowledge graph dimension to represent attack relationships, transforming traditional linear attack detection into a multi-dimensional graph traversal approach. This allows the system to analyze attack chains from multiple perspectives simultaneously (direct attacks, indirect attacks, dependency relationships), significantly improving detection capability for complex attack patterns without proportionally increasing system complexity.
2Reliability
If attack verification is performed in production environment, then real security testing is achieved, but system safety and stability deteriorate due to potential damage
Solution Approach 1:
The system creates a virtual copy of the production environment called a 'protection boundary' or 'isolation environment'. This copy includes replicated network structures, systems, and data without actual harm, allowing attack verification to be performed safely. The protection boundary acts as a sandbox where attack simulations occur, ensuring that no real damage can affect the production system while maintaining verification accuracy through realistic attack scenario replication.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces a protection boundary as an intermediary layer between the attack verification system and the production environment. This intermediary isolates potential harmful effects within the boundary while allowing controlled interaction for verification purposes. The protection boundary includes isolation mechanisms that prevent attack simulations from affecting external systems, enabling reliable security testing without compromising system safety.
3Reliability
If comprehensive attack path analysis is performed, then security coverage is improved, but processing time and resource consumption increase
Solution Approach 1:
The system performs preliminary action by pre-constructing the attack knowledge graph and pre-processing attack data before actual verification begins. Attack patterns, vulnerability information, and system configurations are analyzed and organized in advance, creating ready-to-use reference structures. This preliminary preparation eliminates the need for time-consuming real-time analysis during attack verification, significantly reducing processing time while maintaining comprehensive security coverage through pre-organized knowledge bases.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent implements dynamic adjustment of verification depth and scope based on attack complexity and priority. The system can adaptively select which attack paths to analyze in detail and which to perform quicker preliminary checks on. This dynamic verification strategy allows comprehensive security coverage for critical attack vectors while using lighter analysis for less critical paths, optimizing the balance between security coverage and processing time.
4Ease of operation
If attack scenarios are decomposed into sub-tasks, then verification manageability is improved, but task complexity increases due to multiple sub-tasks
Solution Approach 1:
The system segments the attack verification task into standardized sub-tasks with clear definitions and execution protocols. Each sub-task corresponds to a specific verification objective (e.g., vulnerability detection, attack path validation, protection effectiveness testing). This segmentation provides manageable units of work while the standardized nature of sub-tasks actually reduces overall complexity by enabling automated execution and clear progress tracking.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent creates a universal task execution framework that can handle multiple types of verification sub-tasks through a common platform. The same verification engine and analysis tools are used across different sub-tasks, reducing the need for separate specialized systems. This multi-functional approach simplifies task management by using unified processes for diverse verification objectives, actually reducing complexity despite the presence of multiple sub-tasks.
Data Source
AI summary
Provided are harmless attack verification and analysis method and system. The method includes: acquiring multi-source security data, determining attack cases in the data to construct an attack knowledge graph; constructing a scenario-based attack flow chart based on the graph, and formulating a harmless attack task based on the chart; determining a number of paths and a number of nodes of attack paths in the harmless attack task, and decomposing the harmless attack task into sub-tasks based on the number of paths and the number of nodes; acquiring path information of each attack path, determining a complexity of the attack path based on the path information, and determining attack priorities of the sub-tasks based on the complexities of the attack paths; and determining an attack sequence of the sub-tasks based on the attack priorities, and performing simulated attack verification on a protection boundary by the sub-tasks in the attack sequence.