Continuous Identity Risks Assessment for Multi-Cloud Environments

  • Authors

    • Uday Allala Lead SRE Engineer, USA. Author

    DOI:

    https://doi.org/10.67228/30713315/IJAIDT-2019PII9L3V

    Published 08-04-2019

  • Anomaly Detection, Identity Risk Assessment, Multi-Cloud Security, Continuous Authentication, Identity and Access Management, Behavioral Analytics, Zero Trust, Cloud Security

    Issue

    Vol. 2 No. 2 (2019)

    Section

    Articles

  • Abstract

    The quick uptake of multi-cloud environments also made identity and access management far more complex, forcing the use of traditional periodic security evaluations to fall short of identifying the constantly shifting nature of identity-based attacks. Different types of user activity, authentication methods, privilege changes, hardware and software characteristics, and resource-access behaviors can differ among cloud platforms, leading to patchy security visibility and a higher likelihood of credential compromise, privilege abuse, and unauthorized access. In this paper, we suggest an identity risk assessment approach for multi-cloud environments, which includes collecting identity events, using behavioral profiling, analyzing context features, detecting anomalies, and dynamically scoring risk to continuously assess the security posture of users and entities in multi-cloud environments. The suggested solution continuously monitors events related to identity and creates risk scores that adapt to behavior deviations, access rights, authentication context and observed threat signs. Detection effectiveness, assessment latency, scalability and computational overhead during the evaluation of normal and anomalous identity activities are investigated in a multi-cloud experimental environment. The evaluation shows that the continuous risk assessment method can be more effective in detecting abnormal identity behaviors than traditional rule-based monitoring methods, and can achieve faster response times. The framework offers a single, flexible solution for enhanced identity security, risk-based access decisions and ongoing identity security monitoring in multi-cloud environments.

  • References

    [1] Liu, F., Tong, J., Mao, J., Bohn, R., Messina, J., Badger, L., & Leaf, D. (2011). NIST cloud computing reference architecture. NIST special publication, 500(2011), 1-28.

    [2] Hashizume, K., Rosado, D. G., Fernández-Medina, E., & Fernandez, E. B. (2013). An analysis of security issues for cloud computing. Journal of internet services and applications, 4(1), 5.

    [3] Subashini, S., & Kavitha, V. (2011). A survey on security issues in service delivery models of cloud computing. Journal of network and computer applications, 34(1), 1-11.

    [4] Khalil, I. M., Khreishah, A., & Azeem, M. (2014). Cloud computing security: A survey. Computers, 3(1), 1-35.

    [5] Subramanian, N., & Jeyaraj, A. (2018). Recent security challenges in cloud computing. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 71, 28-42.

    [6] Almutairi, A., Sarfraz, M., Basalamah, S., Aref, W., & Ghafoor, A. (2011). A distributed access control architecture for cloud computing. IEEE software, 29(2), 36-44.

    [7] John, J. C., Sural, S., & Gupta, A. (2017). Attribute‐based access control management for multicloud collaboration. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 29(19), e4199.

    [8] Sookhak, M., Yu, F. R., Khan, M. K., Xiang, Y., & Buyya, R. (2017). Attribute-based data access control in mobile cloud computing: Taxonomy and open issues. Future Generation Computer Systems, 72, 273-287.

    [9] Ferraiolo, D. F., & Kuhn, D. R. (2009). Role-based access controls. arXiv preprint arXiv:0903.2171.

    [10] Hu, V. C., Kuhn, D. R., Ferraiolo, D. F., & Voas, J. (2015). Attribute-based access control. Computer, 48(2), 85-88.

    [11] Liu, F. T., Ting, K. M., & Zhou, Z. H. (2008, December). Isolation forest. In 2008 eighth ieee international conference on data mining (pp. 413-422). Ieee.

    [12] Chandola, V., Banerjee, A., & Kumar, V. (2009). Anomaly detection: A survey. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 41(3), 1-58.

    [13] Buczak, A. L., & Guven, E. (2015). A survey of data mining and machine learning methods for cyber security intrusion detection. IEEE Communications surveys & tutorials, 18(2), 1153-1176.

    [14] Sommer, R., & Paxson, V. (2010, May). Outside the closed world: On using machine learning for network intrusion detection. In 2010 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (pp. 305-316). IEEE.

    [15] Garcia-Teodoro, P., Diaz-Verdejo, J., Maciá-Fernández, G., & Vázquez, E. (2009). Anomaly-based network intrusion detection: Techniques, systems and challenges. computers & security, 28(1-2), 18-28.

    [16] Engen, V., Vincent, J., & Phalp, K. (2011). Exploring discrepancies in findings obtained with the KDD Cup ’99 data set. Intelligent Data Analysis, 15(2), 251–276.

    [17] Stylios, I., Kokolakis, S., Thanou, O., & Chatzis, S. (2021). Behavioral biometrics & continuous user authentication on mobile devices: A survey. Information Fusion, 66, 76-99.

    [18] Raj, P., & Raman, A. (2018). Multi-cloud management: Technologies, tools, and techniques. In Software-defined cloud centers: Operational and management technologies and tools (pp. 219-240). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    [19] Banyal, R. K., Jain, V. K., & Jain, P. (2014, October). Dynamic trust based access control framework for securing multi-cloud environment. In Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on information and communication technology for competitive strategies (pp. 1-8).

    [20] Shashanka, M., Shen, M. Y., & Wang, J. (2016, December). User and entity behavior analytics for enterprise security. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) (pp. 1867-1874). IEEE.

    [21] Toosi, A. N., Calheiros, R. N., & Buyya, R. (2014). Interconnected cloud computing environments: Challenges, taxonomy, and survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 47(1), 1-47.

  • Downloads