Do Security Reports Meet Usability?: Lessons Learned from Using Actionable Mitigations for Patching TLS Misconfigurations

Salvatore Manfredi, M. Ceccato, Giada Sciarretta, Silvio Ranise
{"title":"Do Security Reports Meet Usability?: Lessons Learned from Using Actionable Mitigations for Patching TLS Misconfigurations","authors":"Salvatore Manfredi, M. Ceccato, Giada Sciarretta, Silvio Ranise","doi":"10.1145/3465481.3469187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Several automated tools have been proposed to detect vulnerabilities. These tools are mainly evaluated in terms of their accuracy in detecting vulnerabilities, but the evaluation of their usability is a commonly neglected topic. Usability of automated security tools is particularly crucial when dealing with problems of cryptographic protocols for which even small—apparently insignificant—changes in their configuration can result in vulnerabilities that, if exploited, pave the way to attacks with dramatic consequences for the confidentiality and integrity of exchanged messages. This becomes even more acute when considering such ubiquitous protocols as the one for Transport Layer Security (TLS for short). In this paper, we present the design and the lessons learned of a user study, meant to compare two different approaches when reporting misconfigurations. Results reveal that including contextualized actionable mitigations in security reports significantly impact the accuracy and the time needed to patch TLS vulnerabilities. Along with the lessons learned, we share the experimental material that can be used during cybersecurity labs to let students configure and patch TLS first-hand.","PeriodicalId":417395,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3465481.3469187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Several automated tools have been proposed to detect vulnerabilities. These tools are mainly evaluated in terms of their accuracy in detecting vulnerabilities, but the evaluation of their usability is a commonly neglected topic. Usability of automated security tools is particularly crucial when dealing with problems of cryptographic protocols for which even small—apparently insignificant—changes in their configuration can result in vulnerabilities that, if exploited, pave the way to attacks with dramatic consequences for the confidentiality and integrity of exchanged messages. This becomes even more acute when considering such ubiquitous protocols as the one for Transport Layer Security (TLS for short). In this paper, we present the design and the lessons learned of a user study, meant to compare two different approaches when reporting misconfigurations. Results reveal that including contextualized actionable mitigations in security reports significantly impact the accuracy and the time needed to patch TLS vulnerabilities. Along with the lessons learned, we share the experimental material that can be used during cybersecurity labs to let students configure and patch TLS first-hand.
安全报告是否符合可用性?:使用可操作的缓解措施来修补TLS错误配置的经验教训
已经提出了几个自动化工具来检测漏洞。这些工具主要是根据它们检测漏洞的准确性来评估的,但是评估它们的可用性是一个经常被忽视的话题。在处理加密协议问题时,自动化安全工具的可用性尤为重要,因为加密协议的配置即使是很小的(显然是微不足道的)更改也可能导致漏洞,如果利用这些漏洞,就会为攻击铺平道路,对交换消息的机密性和完整性造成严重后果。当考虑到像传输层安全(简称TLS)这样无处不在的协议时,这个问题变得更加尖锐。在本文中,我们介绍了用户研究的设计和经验教训,旨在比较报告错误配置时的两种不同方法。结果显示,在安全报告中包含上下文化的可操作缓解措施会显著影响修补TLS漏洞所需的准确性和时间。随着经验教训,我们分享了可以在网络安全实验室中使用的实验材料,让学生配置和修补TLS第一手。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信