SlideShare a Scribd company logo
Eric Ficke, Keith Harrison PhD, Greg White PhD
Center for Infrastructure Assurance and Security
The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249
What is CyberPatriot? (2013, January 1). Retrieved February 24, 2015, from
http://www.uscyberpatriot.org/Pages/About/What-is-CyberPatriot.aspx
CyberPatriot Participants Represent 49 States, Several Countries in CyberPatriot VII. (2013,
September 30). Retrieved February 24, 2015, from
https://www.uscyberpatriot.org/media/cyberpatriot-press-releases
The CyberPatriot program, upon which this
research is founded, was initiated by the Air
Force Association to inspire high school
students toward careers in cybersecurity or
other Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) disciplines. The
purpose of this particular research is to better
understand which areas of cybersecurity are
understood by high school competitors, in
order to develop better competition
compositions and related curricula in the
future.
The cyber defense competition consists of
five timed, scored rounds, in a tiered-
elimination style format, in addition to several
unscored practice rounds.
In each round, teams must work to fix
security vulnerabilities and policy violations in
order to score points. Each vulnerability
category is ranked according to difficulty,
which can then be used to judge which
categories of vulnerabilities should be
considered harder, and emphasized in future
curricula.
The purpose of this research is to better
understand which areas of cybersecurity are
better or worse understood by high school
competitors, in order to develop better
competitions and/or curriculum in the future.
The CyberPatriot program was initiated by the
Air Force Association to inspire high school
students toward careers in cybersecurity or
other science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) disciplines critical to our
nation’s future.
One component of the CyberPatriot program
is the National Youth Cyber Defense
Competition. This competition is designed to
be a hands-on introduction to the intricate
world of security in a way that is both
engaging and educational.
The competition is conducted through the use of
Virtual Machines (VMs), which are built and
configured with different operating systems
(Windows 2K3, XP, 7, etc. and Linux distros), roles
(Web Servers, DNS Servers, Workstations), and
administrations (“company policy”, user lists, etc).
The competition consists of five timed, scored
rounds, in a tiered-elimination style format, in
addition to several unscored practice rounds.
Each VM has various security vulnerabilities and
policy violations, which competitors must work to fix
in order to score points, as granted by the
CyberPatriot Competition System (CCS) scoring
engine. Some VMs also include forensics
questions, which are designed to introduce
competitors to new security topics and encourage
them to think critically about security implications.
Each vulnerability checked gets categorized by the
nature of the vulnerability and scored on the basis
of the percentage of teams which correctly fixed
that vulnerability within that round. Checks are then
separated according to the biggest margin of
difference between percentage of teams which
passed each check on that round. Checks that
were passed by a percentage higher than that
above the biggest margin are marked as “easy
checks”, while those below the biggest margin are
marked as “hard checks”. Each vulnerability
category is then marked according to how many
checks of that category were marked “easy” and
how many were marked “hard”.
1272 Teams from 52 US states and territories,
Germany, South Korea and Canada competed in
Round 2 of the competition. The VM from which we
obtained these results had a total of 27 checks, of
which 10 were named “easy” and 17 were named
“hard”. The margin used to separate the difficulty of
checks was from the 51st percentile to the 72nd, a
difference of 21 percentage points.
• Users checks:
• 100% “Easy” (6/6 checks)
• Malware checks:
• 75% “Easy” (3/4 checks)
• Policy checks:
• 16.67% “Easy” (1/6 checks)
• Updates checks:
• 0.0% “Easy” (0/4 checks)
• Services/Applications checks:
• 0.0% “Easy” (0/4 checks)
• Miscellaneous checks:
• 0.0% “Easy” (0/3 checks)
 Competitors excelled in fixing
vulnerabilities relating to system users
and malware presence
 Vulnerabilities relating to running and
configuring updates or specific
applications were fixed much less often
 Future cybersecurity curricula should
work to inform students about the
importance of updates and application
security
Figure #1. Vulnerability Checks from a single VM
from round 2, with vulnerability category and
percentage passed
CyberPatriot High School Cyber Defense Competition
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
PURPOSE
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS
SUMMARY
REFERENCES
Figure #2. Vulnerability Categories from a single VM
from round 2, with percentage of checks in each
difficulty and average percentage passed for checks
in that category
UTSA Undergraduate Research &
Creative Inquiry Showcase
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Users
Users
Users
Users
Users
Users
Malware
Malware
Malware
Policy
Policy
Misc
Updates
Updates
Updates
Policy
Malware
Misc
Policy
Services/Applications
Services/Applications
Services/Applications
Misc
Policy
Policy
Services/Applications
Updates
Individual Checks by Difficulty
"Easy" Checks "Hard" Checks
0
20
40
60
80
100
Vulnerability Categories by Difficulty
% "Easy" Checks Category Average
% "Hard" Checks

More Related Content

Similar to eric_ficke_cp_poster

Cybersecurity Day for Parliament
Cybersecurity Day for ParliamentCybersecurity Day for Parliament
Software Security in the Real World
Software Security in the Real WorldSoftware Security in the Real World
Software Security in the Real World
Mark Curphey
 
Application Threat Modeling In Risk Management
Application Threat Modeling In Risk ManagementApplication Threat Modeling In Risk Management
Application Threat Modeling In Risk Management
Mel Drews
 
Running Head 2Week #8 MidTerm Assignment .docx
Running Head    2Week #8 MidTerm Assignment               .docxRunning Head    2Week #8 MidTerm Assignment               .docx
Running Head 2Week #8 MidTerm Assignment .docx
healdkathaleen
 
Software Security Engineering
Software Security EngineeringSoftware Security Engineering
Software Security Engineering
Marco Morana
 
Building a Distributed Secure System on Multi-Agent Platform Depending on the...
Building a Distributed Secure System on Multi-Agent Platform Depending on the...Building a Distributed Secure System on Multi-Agent Platform Depending on the...
Building a Distributed Secure System on Multi-Agent Platform Depending on the...
CSCJournals
 
Ctia course outline
Ctia course outlineCtia course outline
Ctia course outline
ShivamSharma909
 
Application Security Testing for Software Engineers: An approach to build sof...
Application Security Testing for Software Engineers: An approach to build sof...Application Security Testing for Software Engineers: An approach to build sof...
Application Security Testing for Software Engineers: An approach to build sof...
Michael Hidalgo
 
The Federal Information Security Management Act
The Federal Information Security Management ActThe Federal Information Security Management Act
The Federal Information Security Management Act
Michelle Singh
 
Rational Unified Treatment for Web Application Vulnerability Assessment
Rational Unified Treatment for Web Application Vulnerability AssessmentRational Unified Treatment for Web Application Vulnerability Assessment
Rational Unified Treatment for Web Application Vulnerability Assessment
VESIT/University of Mumbai
 
Lessons Learned from Implementing the Cybersecurity Capacity Maturity Model f...
Lessons Learned from Implementing the Cybersecurity Capacity Maturity Model f...Lessons Learned from Implementing the Cybersecurity Capacity Maturity Model f...
Lessons Learned from Implementing the Cybersecurity Capacity Maturity Model f...
Carolin Weisser
 
Presentation to GFCE 2019 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Presentation to GFCE 2019 in Addis Ababa, EthiopiaPresentation to GFCE 2019 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Presentation to GFCE 2019 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Oxford Martin Centre, OII, and Computer Science at the University of Oxford
 
Research Article On Web Application Security
Research Article On Web Application SecurityResearch Article On Web Application Security
Research Article On Web Application Security
SaadSaif6
 
Treating Security Like a Product
Treating Security Like a ProductTreating Security Like a Product
Treating Security Like a Product
VMware Tanzu
 
Vulnerability Management System
Vulnerability Management SystemVulnerability Management System
Vulnerability Management System
IRJET Journal
 
Assessment and Mitigation of Risks Involved in Electronics Payment Systems
Assessment and Mitigation of Risks Involved in Electronics Payment Systems Assessment and Mitigation of Risks Involved in Electronics Payment Systems
Assessment and Mitigation of Risks Involved in Electronics Payment Systems
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
 
Securing And Protecting Information
Securing And Protecting InformationSecuring And Protecting Information
Securing And Protecting Information
Laura Martin
 
Deliverables Step-12 SLA 3-5 pages
Deliverables Step-12         SLA  3-5 pages Deliverables Step-12         SLA  3-5 pages
Deliverables Step-12 SLA 3-5 pages
LinaCovington707
 
Software security risk mitigation using object oriented design patterns
Software security risk mitigation using object oriented design patternsSoftware security risk mitigation using object oriented design patterns
Software security risk mitigation using object oriented design patterns
eSAT Journals
 
Software security risk mitigation using object
Software security risk mitigation using objectSoftware security risk mitigation using object
Software security risk mitigation using object
eSAT Publishing House
 

Similar to eric_ficke_cp_poster (20)

Cybersecurity Day for Parliament
Cybersecurity Day for ParliamentCybersecurity Day for Parliament
Cybersecurity Day for Parliament
 
Software Security in the Real World
Software Security in the Real WorldSoftware Security in the Real World
Software Security in the Real World
 
Application Threat Modeling In Risk Management
Application Threat Modeling In Risk ManagementApplication Threat Modeling In Risk Management
Application Threat Modeling In Risk Management
 
Running Head 2Week #8 MidTerm Assignment .docx
Running Head    2Week #8 MidTerm Assignment               .docxRunning Head    2Week #8 MidTerm Assignment               .docx
Running Head 2Week #8 MidTerm Assignment .docx
 
Software Security Engineering
Software Security EngineeringSoftware Security Engineering
Software Security Engineering
 
Building a Distributed Secure System on Multi-Agent Platform Depending on the...
Building a Distributed Secure System on Multi-Agent Platform Depending on the...Building a Distributed Secure System on Multi-Agent Platform Depending on the...
Building a Distributed Secure System on Multi-Agent Platform Depending on the...
 
Ctia course outline
Ctia course outlineCtia course outline
Ctia course outline
 
Application Security Testing for Software Engineers: An approach to build sof...
Application Security Testing for Software Engineers: An approach to build sof...Application Security Testing for Software Engineers: An approach to build sof...
Application Security Testing for Software Engineers: An approach to build sof...
 
The Federal Information Security Management Act
The Federal Information Security Management ActThe Federal Information Security Management Act
The Federal Information Security Management Act
 
Rational Unified Treatment for Web Application Vulnerability Assessment
Rational Unified Treatment for Web Application Vulnerability AssessmentRational Unified Treatment for Web Application Vulnerability Assessment
Rational Unified Treatment for Web Application Vulnerability Assessment
 
Lessons Learned from Implementing the Cybersecurity Capacity Maturity Model f...
Lessons Learned from Implementing the Cybersecurity Capacity Maturity Model f...Lessons Learned from Implementing the Cybersecurity Capacity Maturity Model f...
Lessons Learned from Implementing the Cybersecurity Capacity Maturity Model f...
 
Presentation to GFCE 2019 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Presentation to GFCE 2019 in Addis Ababa, EthiopiaPresentation to GFCE 2019 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Presentation to GFCE 2019 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
 
Research Article On Web Application Security
Research Article On Web Application SecurityResearch Article On Web Application Security
Research Article On Web Application Security
 
Treating Security Like a Product
Treating Security Like a ProductTreating Security Like a Product
Treating Security Like a Product
 
Vulnerability Management System
Vulnerability Management SystemVulnerability Management System
Vulnerability Management System
 
Assessment and Mitigation of Risks Involved in Electronics Payment Systems
Assessment and Mitigation of Risks Involved in Electronics Payment Systems Assessment and Mitigation of Risks Involved in Electronics Payment Systems
Assessment and Mitigation of Risks Involved in Electronics Payment Systems
 
Securing And Protecting Information
Securing And Protecting InformationSecuring And Protecting Information
Securing And Protecting Information
 
Deliverables Step-12 SLA 3-5 pages
Deliverables Step-12         SLA  3-5 pages Deliverables Step-12         SLA  3-5 pages
Deliverables Step-12 SLA 3-5 pages
 
Software security risk mitigation using object oriented design patterns
Software security risk mitigation using object oriented design patternsSoftware security risk mitigation using object oriented design patterns
Software security risk mitigation using object oriented design patterns
 
Software security risk mitigation using object
Software security risk mitigation using objectSoftware security risk mitigation using object
Software security risk mitigation using object
 

eric_ficke_cp_poster

  • 1. Eric Ficke, Keith Harrison PhD, Greg White PhD Center for Infrastructure Assurance and Security The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249 What is CyberPatriot? (2013, January 1). Retrieved February 24, 2015, from http://www.uscyberpatriot.org/Pages/About/What-is-CyberPatriot.aspx CyberPatriot Participants Represent 49 States, Several Countries in CyberPatriot VII. (2013, September 30). Retrieved February 24, 2015, from https://www.uscyberpatriot.org/media/cyberpatriot-press-releases The CyberPatriot program, upon which this research is founded, was initiated by the Air Force Association to inspire high school students toward careers in cybersecurity or other Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines. The purpose of this particular research is to better understand which areas of cybersecurity are understood by high school competitors, in order to develop better competition compositions and related curricula in the future. The cyber defense competition consists of five timed, scored rounds, in a tiered- elimination style format, in addition to several unscored practice rounds. In each round, teams must work to fix security vulnerabilities and policy violations in order to score points. Each vulnerability category is ranked according to difficulty, which can then be used to judge which categories of vulnerabilities should be considered harder, and emphasized in future curricula. The purpose of this research is to better understand which areas of cybersecurity are better or worse understood by high school competitors, in order to develop better competitions and/or curriculum in the future. The CyberPatriot program was initiated by the Air Force Association to inspire high school students toward careers in cybersecurity or other science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines critical to our nation’s future. One component of the CyberPatriot program is the National Youth Cyber Defense Competition. This competition is designed to be a hands-on introduction to the intricate world of security in a way that is both engaging and educational. The competition is conducted through the use of Virtual Machines (VMs), which are built and configured with different operating systems (Windows 2K3, XP, 7, etc. and Linux distros), roles (Web Servers, DNS Servers, Workstations), and administrations (“company policy”, user lists, etc). The competition consists of five timed, scored rounds, in a tiered-elimination style format, in addition to several unscored practice rounds. Each VM has various security vulnerabilities and policy violations, which competitors must work to fix in order to score points, as granted by the CyberPatriot Competition System (CCS) scoring engine. Some VMs also include forensics questions, which are designed to introduce competitors to new security topics and encourage them to think critically about security implications. Each vulnerability checked gets categorized by the nature of the vulnerability and scored on the basis of the percentage of teams which correctly fixed that vulnerability within that round. Checks are then separated according to the biggest margin of difference between percentage of teams which passed each check on that round. Checks that were passed by a percentage higher than that above the biggest margin are marked as “easy checks”, while those below the biggest margin are marked as “hard checks”. Each vulnerability category is then marked according to how many checks of that category were marked “easy” and how many were marked “hard”. 1272 Teams from 52 US states and territories, Germany, South Korea and Canada competed in Round 2 of the competition. The VM from which we obtained these results had a total of 27 checks, of which 10 were named “easy” and 17 were named “hard”. The margin used to separate the difficulty of checks was from the 51st percentile to the 72nd, a difference of 21 percentage points. • Users checks: • 100% “Easy” (6/6 checks) • Malware checks: • 75% “Easy” (3/4 checks) • Policy checks: • 16.67% “Easy” (1/6 checks) • Updates checks: • 0.0% “Easy” (0/4 checks) • Services/Applications checks: • 0.0% “Easy” (0/4 checks) • Miscellaneous checks: • 0.0% “Easy” (0/3 checks)  Competitors excelled in fixing vulnerabilities relating to system users and malware presence  Vulnerabilities relating to running and configuring updates or specific applications were fixed much less often  Future cybersecurity curricula should work to inform students about the importance of updates and application security Figure #1. Vulnerability Checks from a single VM from round 2, with vulnerability category and percentage passed CyberPatriot High School Cyber Defense Competition ABSTRACT BACKGROUND PURPOSE METHODOLOGY RESULTS SUMMARY REFERENCES Figure #2. Vulnerability Categories from a single VM from round 2, with percentage of checks in each difficulty and average percentage passed for checks in that category UTSA Undergraduate Research & Creative Inquiry Showcase 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Users Users Users Users Users Users Malware Malware Malware Policy Policy Misc Updates Updates Updates Policy Malware Misc Policy Services/Applications Services/Applications Services/Applications Misc Policy Policy Services/Applications Updates Individual Checks by Difficulty "Easy" Checks "Hard" Checks 0 20 40 60 80 100 Vulnerability Categories by Difficulty % "Easy" Checks Category Average % "Hard" Checks