Assumption Buster Workshop: Abnormal Behavior Detection Finds Malicious Actors, 22925-22926 [2011-9877]
Download as PDF
jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices
that may be accumulated throughout an
agency. This notice provides the control
number assigned to each schedule, the
total number of schedule items, and the
number of temporary items (the records
proposed for destruction). It also
includes a brief description of the
temporary records. The records
schedule itself contains a full
description of the records at the file unit
level as well as their disposition. If
NARA staff has prepared an appraisal
memorandum for the schedule, it too
includes information about the records.
Further information about the
disposition process is available on
request.
Schedules Pending:
1. Department of the Interior, Office
Surface Mining and Reclamation
Enforcement (N1- 471–10–5, 2 items, 1
temporary item). Master files of an
electronic information system used to
document unfunded high priority coal
reclamation projects. Proposed for
permanent retention are snapshots of
the master files.
2. Department of Justice, Federal
Bureau of Investigation (N1–65–10–14,
3 items, 2 temporary items). Records of
the Domestic Emergency Support Team
in the Critical Incident Response group,
including files related to training,
exercises, and responses to events as
well as administrative files. Proposed
for permanent retention are policy files.
3. Department of Justice, Federal
Bureau of Investigation (N1–65–10–17,
1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files
of electronic information systems used
to analyze large volumes of evidence to
facilitate case processing. Evidence used
in an investigation is filed in the
appropriate investigation case file.
4. Department of Justice, Federal
Bureau of Investigation (N1–65–10–19,
3 items, 1 temporary item). Records of
the Foreign Emergency Report Team in
the Critical Incident Response Group,
including deployment files for
protection at overseas meetings, events,
training, and exercises. Proposed for
permanent retention are deployment
files related to terrorist incidents and
other high-profile incidents.
5. Department of Justice, Federal
Bureau of Investigation (N1–65–11–8, 5
items, 5 temporary items). Records of
the Office of Congressional Affairs,
including calendars, reference material,
routine constituent inquiries, and
master files of an electronic information
system used to track correspondence.
6. Department of Justice, Federal
Bureau of Investigation (N1–65–11–9, 2
items, 2 temporary items). Records of
the Institutional Review Board relating
to research projects undertaken within
the agency, including research
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:21 Apr 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
proposals, informed consent forms, and
other administrative management
records.
7. Department of Justice, Federal
Bureau of Investigation (N1–65–11–12,
1 item, 1 temporary item). Records of
the Critical Incident Response Group,
including case files related to
counterterrorism preparedness for
special events.
8. Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, United States Bankruptcy
Courts (N1–578–11–1, 11 items, 2
temporary items). Non-electronic
bankruptcy case files and adversary
proceedings files not selected as
permanent by random sampling or by
historical selection criteria. Proposed for
permanent retention are case files dated
1940 and earlier; cases filed under the
Bankruptcy Acts of 1800, 1841, and
1867; cases files under the Bankruptcy
Acts of 1898 and 1978 under Chapter
VIII, Section 75 (Agricultural), Chapter
VIII, Section 77 (Railroad
Reorganization), Chapter IX (Political
Subdivisions), Chapter X (Corporate
Reorganizations), Chapter XV (Railroad
Adjustments), Chapter 7, Subchapters III
(Stockbroker) and IV (Commodity
Broker), Chapter 9 (Municipality),
Chapter 11, Subchapter IV (Railroad
Reorganization), case files containing
orders pursuant to Chapter XIV of the
Bankruptcy Act of 1898 or Section 908
of Title IX of the Merchant Marine Act;
Chapter 12 of the Congressional Act of
1986 (Family Farms and Family
Fishermen); historically significant
cases; cases selected in a random
sample; and adversary proceedings that
go to trial, are historically significant,
and are selected by a random sample.
9. Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, United States District
Courts (N1–21–11–1, 6 items, 2
temporary items). Criminal case files for
misdemeanors, petty offenses, non-trial
cases from 1970 or after. Proposed for
permanent retention are trial cases;
cases relating to treason, national
security, or crimes by public officials;
and historically significant cases.
10. Federal Maritime Commission,
Agency-wide (N1–358–10–1, 2 items, 2
temporary items). Master files of an
electronic information system
containing copies of commission
issuances and public filings for public
use. Also included is the agency website
containing information about the agency
and its programs.
Dated: April 20, 2011.
Sharon G. Thibodeau,
Deputy Assistant Archivist for Records
Services—Washington, DC.
[FR Doc. 2011–10023 Filed 4–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22925
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Assumption Buster Workshop:
Abnormal Behavior Detection Finds
Malicious Actors
The National Coordination
Office (NCO) for the Networking and
Information Technology Research and
Development (NITRD) Program,
National Science Foundation.
ACTION: Call for participation.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
assumptionbusters@nitrd.gov.
Workshop: June 20, 2011;
Deadline: May 13, 2011. Apply via email to assumptionbusters@nitrd.gov.
Travel expenses will be paid at the
government rate for selected
participants who live more than
50 miles from Washington DC.
SUMMARY: The NCO, on behalf of the
Special Cyber Operations Research and
Engineering (SCORE) Committee, an
interagency working group that
coordinates cyber security research
activities in support of national security
systems, is seeking expert participants
in a day-long workshop on abnormal
and malicious behavior detection. The
workshop will be held June 20, 2011 in
the Washington DC area. Applications
will be accepted until 5 p.m. EDT, May
13, 2011. Accepted participants will be
notified by May 25, 2011.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Overview: This notice is issued by the
National Coordination Office for the
Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development
(NITRD) Program on behalf of the
SCORE Committee.
Background:
There is a strong and often repeated
call for research to provide novel cyber
security solutions. The rhetoric of this
call is to elicit new solutions that are
radically different from existing
solutions. Continuing research that
achieves only incremental
improvements is a losing proposition.
We are lagging behind and need
technological leaps to get, and keep,
ahead of adversaries who are themselves
rapidly improving attack technology. To
answer this call, we must examine the
key assumptions that underlie current
security architectures. Challenging those
assumptions both opens up the
possibilities for novel solutions that are
rooted in a fundamentally different
understanding of the problem and
provides an even stronger basis for
moving forward on those assumptions
that are well-founded. The SCORE
Committee is conducting a series of four
workshops to begin the assumption
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM
25APN1
jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
22926
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Notices
buster process. The assumptions that
underlie this series are that cyber space
is an adversarial domain, that the
adversary is tenacious, clever, and
capable, and that re-examining cyber
security solutions in the context of these
assumptions will result in key insights
that will lead to the novel solutions we
desperately need. To ensure that our
discussion has the requisite adversarial
flavor, we are inviting researchers who
develop solutions of the type under
discussion, and researchers who exploit
these solutions. The goal is to engage in
robust debate of topics generally
believed to be true to determine to what
extent that claim is warranted. The
adversarial nature of these debates is
meant to ensure the threat environment
is reflected in the discussion in order to
elicit innovative research concepts that
will have a greater chance of having a
sustained positive impact on our cyber
security posture.
The fourth topic to be explored in this
series is ‘‘Abnormal Behavior Detection
Finds Malicious Actors.’’ The workshop
on this topic will be held in the
Washington, DC area on June 20, 2011.
Assertion: ‘‘Abnormal Behavior
Detection Finds Malicious Actors.’’
In an effort to reduce losses due to
fraud, financial services companies have
been fairly successful in establishing
fraud detection analytics, based on
abnormal behavior identification, which
identify financial transactions that seem
out of norm for a particular financial
services customer. For example, credit
card companies acting on this
information will contact cardholders to
validate anomalous behavior, or if costs
are high, and users unavailable, can
freeze accounts until the anomaly is
investigated. In this way, they can
curtail the loss due to prolonged invalid
use of a credit card. Fraud detection
algorithms (based on user behavior
models) and procedures immediately set
off account alarms and/or deny
additional transactions after they have
detected a fraudulent or suspicious
transaction. Depending upon the fraud
method (e.g., automated gasoline
purchase), they may not always block
the first fraudulent transaction on a
given card.
Online banking financial institutions
employ similar behavioral models to
monitor the size and destinations of
financial transfers, and/or on-line
transactions (such as change of address
or payee) will delay transfers until the
customer can be reached to confirm the
transactions and/or provide additional
authentication. Despite the use of best
available behavior modeling and
monitoring, financial institutions
continue to sustain significant financial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:21 Apr 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
loss from fraud. Can the field of fraud
detection (and cybersecurity in general)
be improved by new technology and
approaches?
Fraud detection works on the
assumption that malicious fiscal
behavior is a subset of abnormal
behavior—if the fraudulent user mimics
the financial behavior of the authorized
user, these methods do not work.
Detection methods do not assume that
malicious behavior is automatically
distinguishable from unusual behavior
on the part of authorized users. The
fraud detection algorithms use the
financial services customer’s history to
build a profile of ‘‘normal’’ transactions
and develop thresholds for unusual
behavior. The volume of transactions
allows for reasonable thresholds to be
established. Fraud detection methods
rely on strong models of normal
behavior, or known criminal behavior
characteristics. The development of
many of these models is aided by the
fact that the value of a transaction is
numeric and allows sets of values to be
analyzed with well understood
algorithms. For example, credit card
purchases have relatively small and
fixed semantics: Store names are typed,
businesses are categorized, relationships
among businesses and purchases by
card users are fairly easy to establish
(e.g., people who buy plane tickets may
also purchase luggage, or may eat out
more when they are away, or may spend
more in general while traveling). These
models enable gradual change in
behavior to be learned and help drive
down false alerts.
Many cyber intrusion detection
techniques, or insider threat detection
techniques, aim to achieve similar
results by using abnormal behavior
detection as a starting point. Yet, it is an
open question whether these techniques
can expect to attain the same broadbased success when applied in the
broader cyber security domain. The
domains share an adversarial dynamic
that might indicate that similar analyses
could be effective. But do the
assumptions of the relationship between
malicious and normal behavior hold
true? Can we establish a solid footing in
terms of models of normal transaction
semantics and transaction value? Does
the real time nature of cyber decision
making, and the ease of dynamic
changes in the criminal’s attack
signature, present insurmountable
challenges for behavioral techniques?
In this workshop, representatives
from government and industry financial
organizations will present different
financial services fraud detection
mechanisms, strengths, and areas
needing further development. This will
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
allow workshop participants to have a
common understanding of the state of
fraud detection practice.
How To Apply
If you would like to participate in this
workshop, please submit (1) a resume or
curriculum vita of no more than two
pages which highlights your expertise in
this area and (2) a one-page paper
stating your opinion of the assertion and
exploring new ideas to improve fraud
detection specifically, and malicious
cyber behavior in general. The
workshop will accommodate no more
than 60 participants, so these brief
documents need to make a compelling
case for your participation. Applications
should be submitted to
assumptionbusters@nitrd.gov no later
than 5 p.m. EDT on May 13, 2011.
Selection and Notification:
The SCORE committee will select an
expert group that reflects a broad range
of opinions on the assertion. Accepted
participants will be notified by e-mail
no later than May 25, 2011. We cannot
guarantee that we will contact
individuals who are not selected,
though we will attempt to do so unless
the volume of responses is
overwhelming.
Submitted by the National Science
Foundation for the National
Coordination Office (NCO) for
Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development
(NITRD) on April 19, 2011.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2011–9877 Filed 4–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 70–0036; NRC–2009–0278]
Notice of Availability of Draft
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for a
License Amendment to Materials,
License No. SNM–33, Westinghouse
Electric Company, LLC, Hematite
Decommissioning Project, Festus,
Missouri (TAC NO. J00357)
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
AGENCY:
The public comment period on
the draft Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) closes on May 25, 2011.
Written comments should be submitted
as described in the ADDRESSES section of
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM
25APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22925-22926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9877]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Assumption Buster Workshop: Abnormal Behavior Detection Finds
Malicious Actors
AGENCY: The National Coordination Office (NCO) for the Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program,
National Science Foundation.
ACTION: Call for participation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: assumptionbusters@nitrd.gov.
DATES: Workshop: June 20, 2011; Deadline: May 13, 2011. Apply via e-
mail to assumptionbusters@nitrd.gov. Travel expenses will be paid at
the government rate for selected participants who live more than 50
miles from Washington DC.
SUMMARY: The NCO, on behalf of the Special Cyber Operations Research
and Engineering (SCORE) Committee, an interagency working group that
coordinates cyber security research activities in support of national
security systems, is seeking expert participants in a day-long workshop
on abnormal and malicious behavior detection. The workshop will be held
June 20, 2011 in the Washington DC area. Applications will be accepted
until 5 p.m. EDT, May 13, 2011. Accepted participants will be notified
by May 25, 2011.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Overview: This notice is issued by the National Coordination Office
for the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
(NITRD) Program on behalf of the SCORE Committee.
Background:
There is a strong and often repeated call for research to provide
novel cyber security solutions. The rhetoric of this call is to elicit
new solutions that are radically different from existing solutions.
Continuing research that achieves only incremental improvements is a
losing proposition. We are lagging behind and need technological leaps
to get, and keep, ahead of adversaries who are themselves rapidly
improving attack technology. To answer this call, we must examine the
key assumptions that underlie current security architectures.
Challenging those assumptions both opens up the possibilities for novel
solutions that are rooted in a fundamentally different understanding of
the problem and provides an even stronger basis for moving forward on
those assumptions that are well-founded. The SCORE Committee is
conducting a series of four workshops to begin the assumption
[[Page 22926]]
buster process. The assumptions that underlie this series are that
cyber space is an adversarial domain, that the adversary is tenacious,
clever, and capable, and that re-examining cyber security solutions in
the context of these assumptions will result in key insights that will
lead to the novel solutions we desperately need. To ensure that our
discussion has the requisite adversarial flavor, we are inviting
researchers who develop solutions of the type under discussion, and
researchers who exploit these solutions. The goal is to engage in
robust debate of topics generally believed to be true to determine to
what extent that claim is warranted. The adversarial nature of these
debates is meant to ensure the threat environment is reflected in the
discussion in order to elicit innovative research concepts that will
have a greater chance of having a sustained positive impact on our
cyber security posture.
The fourth topic to be explored in this series is ``Abnormal
Behavior Detection Finds Malicious Actors.'' The workshop on this topic
will be held in the Washington, DC area on June 20, 2011.
Assertion: ``Abnormal Behavior Detection Finds Malicious Actors.''
In an effort to reduce losses due to fraud, financial services
companies have been fairly successful in establishing fraud detection
analytics, based on abnormal behavior identification, which identify
financial transactions that seem out of norm for a particular financial
services customer. For example, credit card companies acting on this
information will contact cardholders to validate anomalous behavior, or
if costs are high, and users unavailable, can freeze accounts until the
anomaly is investigated. In this way, they can curtail the loss due to
prolonged invalid use of a credit card. Fraud detection algorithms
(based on user behavior models) and procedures immediately set off
account alarms and/or deny additional transactions after they have
detected a fraudulent or suspicious transaction. Depending upon the
fraud method (e.g., automated gasoline purchase), they may not always
block the first fraudulent transaction on a given card.
Online banking financial institutions employ similar behavioral
models to monitor the size and destinations of financial transfers,
and/or on-line transactions (such as change of address or payee) will
delay transfers until the customer can be reached to confirm the
transactions and/or provide additional authentication. Despite the use
of best available behavior modeling and monitoring, financial
institutions continue to sustain significant financial loss from fraud.
Can the field of fraud detection (and cybersecurity in general) be
improved by new technology and approaches?
Fraud detection works on the assumption that malicious fiscal
behavior is a subset of abnormal behavior--if the fraudulent user
mimics the financial behavior of the authorized user, these methods do
not work. Detection methods do not assume that malicious behavior is
automatically distinguishable from unusual behavior on the part of
authorized users. The fraud detection algorithms use the financial
services customer's history to build a profile of ``normal''
transactions and develop thresholds for unusual behavior. The volume of
transactions allows for reasonable thresholds to be established. Fraud
detection methods rely on strong models of normal behavior, or known
criminal behavior characteristics. The development of many of these
models is aided by the fact that the value of a transaction is numeric
and allows sets of values to be analyzed with well understood
algorithms. For example, credit card purchases have relatively small
and fixed semantics: Store names are typed, businesses are categorized,
relationships among businesses and purchases by card users are fairly
easy to establish (e.g., people who buy plane tickets may also purchase
luggage, or may eat out more when they are away, or may spend more in
general while traveling). These models enable gradual change in
behavior to be learned and help drive down false alerts.
Many cyber intrusion detection techniques, or insider threat
detection techniques, aim to achieve similar results by using abnormal
behavior detection as a starting point. Yet, it is an open question
whether these techniques can expect to attain the same broad-based
success when applied in the broader cyber security domain. The domains
share an adversarial dynamic that might indicate that similar analyses
could be effective. But do the assumptions of the relationship between
malicious and normal behavior hold true? Can we establish a solid
footing in terms of models of normal transaction semantics and
transaction value? Does the real time nature of cyber decision making,
and the ease of dynamic changes in the criminal's attack signature,
present insurmountable challenges for behavioral techniques?
In this workshop, representatives from government and industry
financial organizations will present different financial services fraud
detection mechanisms, strengths, and areas needing further development.
This will allow workshop participants to have a common understanding of
the state of fraud detection practice.
How To Apply
If you would like to participate in this workshop, please submit
(1) a resume or curriculum vita of no more than two pages which
highlights your expertise in this area and (2) a one-page paper stating
your opinion of the assertion and exploring new ideas to improve fraud
detection specifically, and malicious cyber behavior in general. The
workshop will accommodate no more than 60 participants, so these brief
documents need to make a compelling case for your participation.
Applications should be submitted to assumptionbusters@nitrd.gov no
later than 5 p.m. EDT on May 13, 2011.
Selection and Notification:
The SCORE committee will select an expert group that reflects a
broad range of opinions on the assertion. Accepted participants will be
notified by e-mail no later than May 25, 2011. We cannot guarantee that
we will contact individuals who are not selected, though we will
attempt to do so unless the volume of responses is overwhelming.
Submitted by the National Science Foundation for the National
Coordination Office (NCO) for Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development (NITRD) on April 19, 2011.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2011-9877 Filed 4-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P