APT Attack model Sample Clauses

APT Attack model. Despite the limitations mentioned in the previous section, one of the most referenced models is the one proposed by RSA, which is used for modelling the Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) attacks or Targeted Attacks that normally involve SE techniques [142]. However, this model also focuses most on the attack process and less on its dynamics or the victims. The APT model, depicted in Figure 26, is probably the most common cyber-attack model, which include Social Engineering as core part. APTs are targeted attacks, which mean that there is a well-defined goal and victims are specially selected. The goal is typically used to obtain critical information, which can be valuable itself (e.g. Intellectual Property, or digital money), or may enable further attacks (e.g. knowledge on internal procedures, that could allow effective fraud schema). This kind of attacks are mainly built to circumvent the existing technological countermeasures, obtain privileged access to the company infrastructure and then expand in order to reach the final goal. There are a lot of examples regarding this kind of attacks, which are different for exploits or attack vectors, but they all have something in common: the core part of the attack is related to Social Engineering. In order to obtain a privileged access inside the company network, attackers exploit humans deceiving them to conduct a dangerous behaviour. The combination of technological and “social” attack vectors with certain techniques makes APTs really dangerous, as a matter of fact, all kind of companies can be potentially targeted: even RSA, one of the most famous information security firms [143]. In this particular example, it is interesting how the analysis outlines a possible typical attack model that begins with a social engineering attack and ends with the data exfiltration. 53 For example. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇. ▇▇, ▇. Chan, and Y.-▇. Tian, “Social engineering in social networking sites: Affect- based model,” presented at the 8th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST-2013), Dec-2013. Figure 26 describes an Advanced Persistent Threat model with further information than the one proposed from RSA, it also includes specific phases executed before the SE attack itself with the purpose of retrieving specific information in order to create a highly contextualized and potential effective attack [144].

Related to APT Attack model

  • MSAA Indicator Technical Specification Document This Agreement shall be interpreted with reference to the MSAA Indicator Technical Specifications document.

  • Contract Task Order A- E shall be assigned work via a task order by COUNTY which shall subsequently be referred to as the “Contract Task Order” (hereinafter “CTO”). A CTO for each project shall be developed by A-E in conjunction with COUNTY Project Management staff. The County Project Manager shall manage all A-E’s work including monitoring the CTO work schedule, quality of deliverables, review of invoiced amounts, adherence to set budget, and internal review of submittal packages. A-E shall follow all requirements as outlined in the CTO; this general Scope of Work, the project specific Scope Statement, and the Architect-Engineer Guide (Rev July 2018). The CTO shall include a detailed Scope Statement, describing tasks to be performed with a specific list of deliverables for each task, schedule of work and cost to complete the work. The schedule of work shall allow enough time for meetings with County Management staff to review the work progress, provide technical and policy direction, resolve problems and ensure adherence to the work completion schedule. The CTO shall include a cover sheet provided by County Project Management staff with the appropriate signature blocks and contract information. Once both Parties agree, and all Parties have signed the CTO, County Management staff shall provide A-E with a Notice to Proceed (NTP) to begin work. A-E shall submit all plans, reports and other documents produced under the CTO to the assigned County Project Manager within the timeframe indicated in the CTO or as directed by County Project Management staff.

  • Task Order The Contractor submits a Task Order programme to the Service Manager within 2 days of receiving the Task Order

  • Limited Software Warranty MyECheck represents, warrants, and covenants that: MyECheck warrants to the original end user (“Customer”), and not to subsequent end users, of the Extreme Networks software product (“Software”) that for ninety (90) days from the date of installation of the Software from MyECheck, the Software shall substantially conform with the specification for the Software at the (“Documentation”). MyECheck does not warrant (i) that the Software is error free, (ii) that Customer will be able to operate the Software without problems or interruptions or (iii) that the Software will be free of vulnerability to intrusion or attack. Except for the limited warranty set forth in this section, the Software is provided “AS IS.”

  • Task Orders 6.1 The Project will be divided into “Tasks.” 6.2 Task Orders shall be jointly prepared by the CITY and CONSULTANT defining the detailed scope of services to be provided for the particular Project. Each Task Order shall be separately numbered and approved in accordance with this Agreement and all applicable CITY code requirements. 6.3 Under all Task Orders and Projects, CITY may require the CONSULTANT, by specific written authorization, and for mutually agreed upon additional compensation, to provide or assist in obtaining one or more of the following special services. These services may include, at the discretion of the CITY, the following items: 6.3.1 Providing additional copies of reports, contract drawings and documents; and 6.3.2 Assisting CITY with litigation support services arising from the planning, development, or construction. 6.4 Prior to initiating the performance of any services under this Agreement, CONSULTANT must receive a written Notice to Proceed / Purchase Order from the CITY. The CONSULTANT must receive the approval of the Contract Administrator or his designee in writing prior to beginning the performance of services in any subsequent Task Order under this Agreement. 6.5 If, in the opinion of the CITY, the CONSULTANT is improperly performing the services under a specific Task Order, or if at any time the CITY shall be of the opinion that said Task Order is being unnecessarily delayed and will not be completed within the agreed upon time, the CITY shall notify the CONSULTANT in writing. The CONSULTANT has within ten (10) working days thereafter to take such measures as will, in the judgment of the CITY, ensure satisfactory performance and completion of the work. If the CONSULTANT fails to cure within the ten (10) working days, the CITY may notify the CONSULTANT to discontinue all work under the specified Task Order. The CONSULTANT shall immediately respect said notice and stop said work and cease to have any rights in the possession of the work and shall forfeit the Task Order and any remaining monies. The CITY may then decide, after City Commission approval, to issue a new Task Order for the uncompleted work to another consultant using the remaining funds. Any excess costs arising therefrom over and above the original Task Order price shall be charged against CONSULTANT, as the original CONSULTANT.