PDA

View Full Version : The topology of covert conflict



Cain
April 30th, 2006, 04:04 PM
Abstract. Often an attacker tries to disconnect a network by destroying nodes or edges, while the defender counters using various resilience mechanisms. Examples include a music industry body attempting to close down a peer-to-peer file-sharing network; medics attempting to halt the spread
of an infectious disease by selective vaccination; and a police agency trying to decapitate a terrorist organisation. Albert, Jeong and Barab´asi famously analysed the static case, and showed that vertex-order attacks are effective against scale-free networks. We extend this work to the dynamic
case by developing a framework based on evolutionary game theory to explore the interaction of attack and defence strategies. We show, first, that naive defences don’t work against vertex-order attack; second, that defences based on simple redundancy don’t work much better, but that defences based on cliques work well; third, that attacks based on centrality work better against clique defences than vertex-order attacks do; and fourth, that defences based on complex strategies such as delegation plus clique resist centrality attacks better than simple clique defences. Our models thus build a bridge between network analysis and evolutionary game theory, and provide a framework for analysing defence and attack in networks where topology matters. They suggest definitions of efficiency of attack and defence, and may even explain the evolution of insurgent organisations from networks of cells to a more virtual leadership that facilitates operations rather than directing them. Finally, we draw some conclusions and present possible directions for future research.

Full pdf of the paper available here (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/TechReports/UCAM-CL-TR-637.html). Might just be some useful things to keep in mind for O:MF, given that is also a decentralized system of attack.

Little Billy
April 30th, 2006, 04:08 PM
Wow. All that jargon to say "you can't stop an asshat."

Cain
April 30th, 2006, 04:09 PM
Troof. But there are some pretty good good ideas hidden in the 15 page document. I'm finding systems based attacks a compelling idea, if it can be used properly...

Little Billy
April 30th, 2006, 04:17 PM
Troof. But there are some pretty good good ideas hidden in the 15 page document. I'm finding systems based attacks a compelling idea, if it can be used properly...


The naive defense of replenishing destroyed nodes is the typical "establishment" defense.

Of course, due to the sheer SIZE of the entity, cliques are also a standard defense...but taken to such an extreme that the cliques actually function against each other.

That's what can be exploited. Tricking one limb of the beast into reacting to another. Let it strangle itself.

Hawk Shadowsoul
May 1st, 2006, 01:22 PM
The naive defense of replenishing destroyed nodes is the typical "establishment" defense.

Of course, due to the sheer SIZE of the entity, cliques are also a standard defense...but taken to such an extreme that the cliques actually function against each other.

That's what can be exploited. Tricking one limb of the beast into reacting to another. Let it strangle itself.
The ags old "Divide and watch the fun" theory?