Archive for the ‘cyber security’ Category

ai-one named Finalist in SDBJ Innovation Awards for 2013

Thursday, June 27th, 2013

At the San Diego Business Journal Annual Innovation Award event, ai-one was named a finalist in the technology category. The award was presented at the prestigious event on June 18th at Scripps, attended by several hundred leaders in San Diego’s tech, medical, software and telecom industries. ai-one received the award for its leading edge technology in machine learning and content analytics, as evidenced by the release this year of the new Nathan API for deep learning applications.

The award was accepted by ai-one COO Tom Marsh and partner for defense and intelligence, Steve Dufour, CEO of ISC Consulting of Arizona.

Tom Marsh & Steve Dufour at SDBJ Innovation Awards

Tom Marsh & Steve Dufour at SDBJ Innovation Awards

Ai-one’s Artificial Brain’ Has a Real Eye for Data SDBJ

TECH: Software Can Dig Through and Decipher Information

Software writer ai-one Inc. doesn’t just promise code. The company promises to pull new perspectives and second opinions from seemingly inscrutable data.

Self-Aware, Self-Defending Adaptive Network Appliance Software (SASDANAS)

Thursday, January 12th, 2012

On November 29, 2011, our consulting partner Ariston Consulting submitted a proposal to the US Air Force to develop a new form of defense for cyber assets using machine learning for cyber awareness and resilience.  This proposal was partially developed by ai-one in an effort to bring the most advanced machine learning technologies to the Air Force at the lowest possible cost. 

Our proposal (below) was in response to BAA Number  AFRL-PK-11-0001 as a Rapid Innovation Funding program. Our proposal met all four operational criteria yet was rejected on January 6, 2012 due to our lack of prior history with the US Air Force. The AF simply preferred to do business with a company that they knew rather than a new vendor.

However, on December 20, 2011 the Air Force released a request to build a system very similar to what we proposed to build below under the contract BAA-RIK-12-03. Both projects were issued by the Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, AFRL – Rome Research Site, AFRL/Information Directorate, 26 Electronic Parkway, Rome, NY, 13441-4514.

We are not accusing the Air Force of any wrong doing nor is there any evidence that they copied and pasted our ideas into another BAA. Quite to the contrary, the Air Force is a big place and we are not the only people thinking of ways for networks to defend themselves using autonomic machine learning technologies. However, we feel that our technology can be deployed at very minimal cost compared to the budget provided in the BAA issued a month after we proposed a smaller, more rapid solution.

We think it is valuable to share this information with the public for several reasons:

  1. To publish our findings in a public forum to prevent any other party from obtaining a patent for cyber security applications or network defense applications using the approach described herein.
  2. To encourage major defense contractors to contact Ariston Consulting and to use ai-one’s biologically inspired intelligence in cyber security applications.
  3. To encourage the Air Force to consider reducing the budget allocated for BAA-RIK-12-03 by 90%. There is simply no business reason to spend 10-times what we proposed.

Title:     SASDANAS: A network that protects itself from cyber attacks.

BAA Number:  AFRL-PK-11-0001

Firm:         Ariston Consulting LLC

P.O. Box 1721

Sierra Vista, AZ 85636

Phone: (520) 378-6112


Duration of Effort:         24 months

Estimated Cost of Effort:          $2,800,000

Self Certification of Applicant:   Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

Air Force Need Area:  02. Cyberspace Superiority and Mission Assurance

Air Force Primary User:  24th Air Force Wing, San Antonio, TX

Programs/Platforms for Proposed Technology:

DoD-Reimbursed IR&D:  NO

Proposed Approach Relate to Prior DoD-Funded SBIR or STTR:  NO

Foreign Participants for Effort:  NO

Funded by DoD or Another Federal Agency: NO

Percentage of Effort

by Offerer:                    60%

by Others:                    40%

 Preferred Funding Instrument:    Contract

Technical POC:     Jonathan Woodruff, CEO, Ariston Consulting

Phone: 520.378.6112



Business POC:        Steve Mecham, COO, Ariston Consulting

Phone: 520.378.6112



Project Description/Objective:  SASDANAS: A network that protects itself from cyber attacks.

Ariston Consulting LLC proposes to develop a Self-Aware, Self-Defending Adaptive Network Appliance Software (SASDANAS) system that acts as an intelligent agent to monitor network activity, content and behavior to augment the capacity of human analysts to identify and counteract all forms of cyber threats.

Ariston Consulting is a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) based in Sierra Vista, AZ, provides advanced technology testing and engineering solutions. Expertise and experience in providing non-personal scientific and engineering services to test Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems in support of the US Air Force (USAF), US Army, and DISA.

SASDANAS is an intelligent agent that learns and understands the threat level posed by every byte-pattern across a network. The software system uses a new form of machine learning to monitor every detail of a network to identify and isolate cyber security threats – including malware, application high-jacking, sabotage and illicit access, hacking and unauthorized use. It enables the Air Force to make all cyber assets self-aware, self-protecting and adaptive to any external or internal threat. The approach eliminates the opportunity for zero-day attacks because it detects all anomalous packet behavior and content. Furthermore, SASDANAS provides the Air Force with a first-mover advantage as the system learns through use and thus becomes more intelligent over time.

SASDANAS is a 64-bit multithread, massively parallel application that is deployable through a REpresentational state transfer (REST) architecture. Each instance of SASDANAS may be deployed in series and/or in parallel. This architecture provides the USAF the greatest degree of flexibility when deploying into field operations. This approach enables the USAF to use SANDANAS in either: a) moving-windows approach to read every packet as it flows across the network; or, b) identifying threats by capturing an image of the topology of network at byte- or packet-level of detail to understand the behavior and content of network. Each instance of SASDANAS will have the capacity to understand up to 18 exabytes of data at a time. Speed of SASDANAS is dependent on available memory and processing capacity. When deployed in parallel, SASDANAS has the theoretical capacity to monitor the activity of the entire Internet.

Unlike current approaches to cyber security, SASDANA uses a new technology called a HoloSemantic DataSpace (HSDS) to detect, classify and store every byte pattern. The HSDS is thus able to recognize every packet’s behavior and content to determine if the byte-pattern conforms to expectations or is anomalous and therefore subject to further scrutiny to determine if it is a threat. The HSDS is an adaptive, associative network that detects the relationship of every byte that is fed into the system. Thus, the HSDS is capable of identifying both known threat patterns while concurrently identifying and isolating anomalous patterns that may signify a zero-day attack or non-compliant use of the network (e.g., sabotage).

The HSDS is a newly discovered form of neuronal network that mimics the neurophysiology of the neocortex. It is commercially trademarked as a “biologically inspired intelligence” and operates similar to a human brain. It learns autonomically by detecting byte-patterns at the moment of stimulation. The HSDS stores each unique byte pattern only once regardless of how many times it encounters that specific pattern. It registers and adjusts the semiotic value for each byte pattern each time it is stimulated – adjusting the size of the net automatically. It determines the semiotic value for each byte pattern with the following dimensions, each of which may have many values: time of stimulation, place of stimulation, syntax of surrounding byte patterns, and packet payload and addressing. Thus, the HSDS creates an n-dimensional representation of the semiotic value of every byte-pattern; thereby capturing every detail within the complexity of data.

The HSDS technology is commercially available from ai-one inc. since June 2011. It is currently in use at Orange (France Telecom) and more than 40 additional installation sites around the world. The commercial version of the HSDS is offered in three versions: Topic-Mapper to analyze human languages, graphalizer to analyze sensor data, and Ultra-Match to analyze visual images. The technology has been used by The Federal Criminal Police Office of Germany (Bundeskriminalamt or BKA) to build a crime scene analysis tool for the Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police (Eidgenössische Justiz- und Polizeidepartement or EJPD). The commercial versions of HSDS have a technology readiness level (TRL) of 9. The TRL for the proposed customization of current HSDS COTS technology is 7. Ariston Consulting will license ai-one’s technology to create a new software application to meet the unique needs of protecting USAF cyber assets.  The HSDS differs from current forms of neural networks, machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies in the following ways:

Transparency – HSDS generates a lightweight ontology (LWO) that adjusts dynamically with each passing byte (and/or packet). The LWO describes the relationship of every byte within the network. The LWO is machine generated, machine curated and accessible by humans.

Benefit: Humans can see how SASDANAS interprets the value and threat level of every packet.


Autonomic:  HSDS learns without any human intervention. It does not require any prior conditions or neighborhood functions. Rather, it automatically generates computational and data cells within the network as needed immediately upon network stimulation – just like the human brain.

Benefit: SASDANAS is objective and subject to cognitive biases that may distort threat detection.


Speed, Accuracy, Sensitivity: HSDS captures every detail regardless of the degree of complexity. In incremental learning situations, the proposed 64-bit architecture is expected to be at least 105 faster than latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) or vectoring approaches such as COStf-idf.

Benefit: SASDANAS is very fast and accurate – even by neural net standards.


Trainability: The system can be trained and untrained by humans. It is aware of which patterns are learned through training and which patterns have been taught from humans.

Benefit: SASDANAS eliminates the risk of overtraining. It is flexible.


Compatible with Existing Technologies: The system is deployable using industry standard approaches as a cloud-based application.

Benefit: SASDANAS reduces the cost of maintaining and protecting cyber assets while extending their functionality.

Ariston Consulting proposes to build SASDANAS as a software proof-of-concept for further development as a hardware solution called Self-Aware, Self-Defending Adaptive Network Appliance Chipsets (SASDANACS). Based on preliminary tests of the core commercial technology, Ariston estimates that the hardware version will operate at least 10,000 times faster than the software version. This speed, combined with an estimated capacity of 18 exabytes per instance, enables the hardware version to monitor and protect cyber assets at wire-speed and at Internet scale.

SASDANA is deployable at any layer with network (from switch layers 1 through 7) and is compatible with known specifications for Wireless Network After Next (WNAN) as described in unclassified DARPA and AFRL reports. Its architecture provides the AF with a wide range of deployment options.


Ariston Consulting LLC will adapt commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) HSDS software from ai-one inc. to build SASDANA. Ariston Consulting has secured rights to license and modify technologies owned by ai-one inc.for the purpose of creating custom applications for agencies of the United States Government, including the Department of Defense.

Critical Need/JUPM Challenge Area Addressed:

02. Cyberspace Superiority and Mission Assurance

Benefits to the Warfighter:

Cyber security – Networks monitor and defend themselves.

Force leverage – SASDANA drastically increases the analytical capacity of human analysis.

Morale – SASDANA makes network security analysis and counter measures more interesting by eliminating mundane tasks.

Funding/Cost:              $2,800,000.

Program Plan:

a)     Period of Performance:  Not more than 24 months from commencement of contract for Phase 1.

i)      Ariston Consulting shall report progress on technical design, engineering and prototype development every 30 days throughout the project.

b)    Schedule – Total of 24 months:

i)      Detailed technical specification including use and test cases:  3 months

ii)     Technical development of software using Agile methodology: 12 months

iii)    Software testing: 3 months

iv)    Software revisions: 3 months

v)     Preparation and submission of final technical report: 3 months

c)     Deliverables:

i)      Scientific and Technical Reports every three (3) months, Final Report at conclusion

ii)     Funds and Man-hour Expenditure Report every three (3) months, Final Report at conclusion

iii)    Contract Status Report (CFSR)

iv)    Status Report

v)     Presentation Materials

vi)    Software: As proposed, on CD-ROM

d)    Metrics/Measure of Success:

i)      Ability to detect known malware compared to industry standard technology (e.g., McAfee).

ii)     Ability to detect unknown malware threat imposed by AFRL Red Team.

iii)    Ability to detect anomalous behavior of a packet within a network.

e)     Facilities/Equipment:

i)      All development will be completed at an Ariston consulting controlled Top Secret (TS) facility.

f)     Risk:

i)      Technical risk of SASDANAS is minimal as the technology currently is available for commercial use by ai-one inc. Ariston Consulting will mitigate risk by employing ai-one engineers to train Ariston staff, transfer knowledge and provide guidance based on commercial experience.

g)    Proposed Transition Plan:

i)      Technical data: Unlimited rights granted to USAF.

ii)     Non-commercial software (NCS): Unlimited rights granted for each additional instance of SASDANAS software shall be sold to the US Government.

iii)    NCS Documentation: Unlimited rights granted to USAF.

iv)    Commercial computer software rights: Not applicable. SASDANAS will be a modified version of ai-one technology that will not be commercially available.

v)     There are no restrictions on the use of a licensed instance of SASDANAS for use within the United States Air Force. The Air Force may deploy SASDANAS at its own discretion, in any manner it so chooses.

vi)    SASDANA’s application program interface (API) may be accessed by any entity authorized by the USAF.

h)     Other Key Participants:

i)      Commercial supplier of HSDS technology, software development kit and technical training:

ai-one inc. (a Delaware C-corporation)

Atten: Olin Hyde, Vice President

5711 La Jolla Blvd., La Jolla, CA 92037

Phone: 1-858-381-5897/Email:

The Current State of Cyber Security is Fundamentally Flawed

Tuesday, October 18th, 2011

The following is from ai-one’s white paper on Machine Learning for Cyber Security at Network Speed & Scale.  Click here to download a copy from SlideShare (registration required).

A Call to Action

Our research indicates that cyber security is far worse than is commonly reported in news outlets. We estimate there is an extreme shortage of human capital with the skills necessary to thwart attacks from rapidly evolving, highly adaptive adversaries.[1], [2] Research for this paper includes publically available sources of information found on the Internet, interviews with network and software security experts and experts in artificial intelligence. In particular, we speculate on how machine learning might impact the security of large-scale (enterprise) networks from both offensive and defensive perspectives. In particular, we seek to find ways that machine learning might create and thwart zero-day attacks in networks deploying the most current security technologies, such as neural network enabled intrusion detection and protection system (IDPS), heuristic and fuzzy matching anti-malware software systems, distributed firewalls, and packet encryption technologies. Furthermore, we evaluate ways that adaptive adversaries might bypass application level security measures such as:

  • address space layout randomization (ASLR)
  • heap hardening
  • data execution prevention (DEP)

We conclude that machine learning provides first-mover advantages to both attackers and defenders. However, we find that the nature of machine learning’s ability to understand complexity provides the

Twitter DDOS

greater advantage to network defenses when deployed as part of a multi-layer defensive framework.

As networks grow in value they become exponentially more at risk to cyber attacks. Metcalfe’s Law states that the value of any network is proportional to the number of users.[3] From a practical standpoint, usability is proportional to functionality. That is, the use of a network is proportional to its functionality: The more it can do, the more people will use it. From a cyber security standpoint, each additional function (or application) running on a network increases the threat surface. Vulnerabilities grow super-linearly because attacks can happen at both the application surface (through an API) and in the connections between applications (through malicious packets).[4]


Coordinated cyber attacks using more than one method are the most effective means to find zero-day vulnerabilities. The December 2009 attack on Google reportedly relied upon exploiting previously discovered pigeonholes to extract information while human analysts were concurrently distracted by what appeared to be an unrelated attack.

Sources & Types of Cyber Attacks

Threats Attack Types


(employees, contractors, etc.)



(hostile nations, terrorist organizations, criminals, etc.)

  • Malicious code (viruses, Trojans, etc.)
  • Incremental payloads (MHOTCO, API hijacking, etc.)
  • Brute Force (DDoS, hash collisions, etc.)
  • Impersonation (ID hack, etc.)
  • Camouflage (cloaking, masking, etc.)
  • Conspiracy (distributed leaks, espionage, etc.)


Cyber attacks are usually derivatives of previously successful tactics.[5] Attackers know that software programmers are human – they make mistakes. Moreover, they tend to repeat the same mistakes – making it relatively easy to exploit vulnerabilities once they are detected.[6] Thus, if a hacker finds that a particular part of a network has been breached with a particular byte-pattern (such as a birthday attack) they will often create numerous variations of this pattern to be used in the future to secure an entry into the network (such as a pigeonhole).

Let’s evaluate a few of these types of attacks to compare and contrast Computer programming and machine learning approaches to exploit and defend cyber vulnerabilities.

Exploiting API Weaknesses (Application Hijacking)

Detecting flaws in application program interfaces (APIs) is a rapidly evolving form of cyber attack where vulnerabilities in the underlying application are exploited. For example, an attacker may use video files to embed code that will cause a video player to erase files. This approach often involves incrementally inserting malicious code, frame-by-frame, to corrupt the file buffer and/or hijack the application. This incremental approach depends upon finding flaws within the code base. This is easily done if the attacker has access to the application outside the network – such as a commercial or open-source copy of the software.

Programming Measures and Counter-Measures to API Exploits

Traditional approaches to thwart derivative attacks to an API are relatively straightforward and human resource intensive: First, the attack is analyzed to identify markers (such as identifiers within packet payload). Next, the markers are categorized, classified and recorded – usually into a master library (e.g., McAfee Global Threat Intelligence). Finally, anti-malware software (such as McAfee) and IDPS network appliances (such as ForeScout CounterACT) scan packets to detect threats from known sources (malware, IPs, DNS, etc.). Threats that are close derivatives of known threats are easily thwarted using look up tables, algorithms and heuristics while concurrently detecting and isolating anomalous network behavior for further human review.

Problems with the Computer Programming Approach

“Should we fear hackers? Intent is at the heart of this question.”
Kevin Mitnick, Hacker, after his release from Federal prison 2000.

There are many problems with defenses that know only what they are programmed to know. First, it is almost impossible for a person to predict and program a computer to handle every possible attack. Even if you could, it is practically impossible to scale human resources to meet the demands of addressing each potential threat as network complexities grow exponentially. A single adaptive adversary can keep many security analysts very busy.  Next, cyber threats are far easier to produce than they are to detect – it takes 10 times more effort to isolate and develop counter measures to a virus than it does to create it.[7]  Finally, the sheer scale of external intelligence and human resources far outstrips the defensive resources available within the firewall. For example, the US Army’s estimated 21,000 security analysts must counter the collective learning capacity and computational resources of all hackers seeking to disrupt ARCYBER – potentially facing a 100:1 disadvantage worldwide.[8]

Moreover, new approaches to malware involve incremental loading of fragments of malware into a network where they are later assembled and executed by a native application. Often the malicious code fragments are placed over many disparate channels and inputs thereby disguising themselves as noise or erroneous packets.[9]

Machine Learning Measures and Counter-Measures to API Exploits

Machine learning is an ideal technology for both attacking and defending against API source code vulnerabilities. Knowing that programmers tend to repeat mistakes, an attacker can find similarities across the code base to identify vulnerabilities. A sophisticated attacker might use genetic algorithms and/or statistical techniques (such as naïve Bayes) to find new vulnerabilities that are similar to others that have been found previously. Machine learning provides defenders with an advantage over attackers because it detects these flaws before the attack. This enables the defender to entrap, deceive or use other counter-measures against the attacker.

Machine learning provides a first-mover advantage to both defender and attacker – but the advantage is far stronger for the defender because it can detect any anomaly within the byte-pattern of the network – even after malicious code has bypassed cyber defenses, as in a sleeper attack.[10] Thus, the attacker would need to camouflage byte-patterns in addition to finding and exploiting vulnerabilities – thus requiring the attacker to add tremendous complexity to his tactics to bypass defenses. Since machine learning becomes more intelligent with use, the defenders systems will harden with each attack – becoming exponentially more secure over time.

Exploiting Impersonations

Counterfeiting network authentication to gain illicit access to network assets is one of the oldest tricks in the hacker’s book. This can be done as easily as leaving a thumb drive infected with malware in a parking lot for a curious insider to insert into a network computer. It can also involve sophisticated social engineering to crack passwords, find use patterns and points of entry for a hacker to impersonate a legitimate user.[11]

Programming Measures and Counter-Measures to Impersonations

Traditional approaches to impersonation attacks depend upon user authentication and controlling access to network assets using predetermined permissions. Once an attacker is inside the network with a false identity, he can run freely so long as he does not trigger any alarms by violating his permissions. This defense is entirely programmatic as it assumes that if the attacker gets past the firewall he will behave differently than a legitimate user. This is irrelevant to defense since the attacker can use his presence to learn about network assets to attack them in different ways. For example, the attacker can identify APIs, network appliances and determine other security protocols to identify further vulnerabilities that might be compromised with an external attack.

Problems with the Computer Programming Approach to Prevent Impersonations

Rules-based permissions are only as good as the rules can model human behavior. Attackers familiar with these rules and the standard practices of network security easily stay within acceptable boundaries of use.

Machine Learning Measures and Counter-Measures to Impersonation

In the case of insider threats, machine learning provides the defender more advantages than the attacker. Although attackers can use machine learning of byte-patterns to “hack” an identity, they are limited to behaving exactly as that identity would – to the extent that they must know how that person has behaved in the past and how the system will perceive their every movement. The defenders advantage is that machine learning creates an “entology” – an ontology of the entity – for every authenticated user. This is a heterarchical representation of all past behavior at the byte- or packet-level. This enables network security to evaluate use patterns to find anomalies that would be difficult (if not impossible) to predict using a set of computer programming commands. Machine learning does not depend on rules – rather just observation to find associations and patterns. This can be done at every at every point within the network – routers, network appliances, APIs, data bases access points, etc.

[1] The shortage in cyber warriors in the US Government is widely reported. For example, see

[2] Threats to the Information Highway: Cyber Warfare, Cyber Terrorism and Cyber Crime

[3] V∝n2 where value (V) is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of a network (n).

[4] Threat vulnerability is a corollary to Metcalfe’s Law whereby each additional network connection provides an additional point security exposure. T∝(n2p2) where vulnerability (T) is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of a network (n) times the square of the number of APIs (p).

[5] Interview with former anonymous hacker.

[6] Yamaguchi, Fabian. “Automated Extraction of API Usage Patterns from Source Code for Vulnerability Identification” Diploma Thesis TU Berlin, January 2011.

[7] Estimate based on evaluation of virus source codes available at  Also see: Stepan, Adrian. “Defeating Polymorphism: Beyond Emulation” Microsoft Corporation, 2005.

[9] Examples of this technique were discussed at the BlackHat Security Conference in early August 2011.

[10] For a discussion on sleeper attacks see: Borg, Scott. “Securing the Supply Chain for Electronic Equipment: A Strategy and Framework.” The Internet Security Alliance report to the White House. (available on and also The US Cyber Consequences Unit (

[11] Interview with former forensic network security agent at major investment bank.

Machines Can Learn the Inherent Complexity of Data

Monday, October 17th, 2011

The following is from ai-one’s white paper on Machine Learning for Cyber Security at Network Speed & Scale.  Click here to download a copy from SlideShare (registration required).

Machines can learn like humans by understanding the inherent complexity of patterns and associations in data.

The goal of this paper is to inspire new ideas and invite collaboration to innovate new ways to protect large-scale cyber assets. Our central questions are:

  1. How will real-time, deep pattern recognition change cyber warfare?
  2. How will machine learning of byte-patterns impact the evolution of cyber attacks?
  3. How can machine learning systems protect large-scale networks?
  4. Can machine learning reduce the human capital and expenditures required to defend large scale networks?

Cyber security (defenses) of the US military, government and critical civilian infrastructure are inadequate. The US Department of Homeland’s “Cyberstorm III” drill in September 2010 demonstrated that private industry and government resources are unable to protect critical infrastructure from destruction from a well-orchestrated cyber attack.[1]American cyber defense has fallen far behind the technological capabilities of our adversaries [such]…that the number of cyber attacks is now so large and their sophistication so great that many organizations are having trouble determining which new threats and vulnerabilities pose the greatest risk.”[2]

This paper outlines a framework to improve US cyber defenses in a matter of months at very minimal cost with virtually no technological risk.

“America’s prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cyber security.”  
President Barak Obama, May 29, 2009

A new form of machine learning discovered by ai-one inc. has the potential to transform cyber warfare. This technology was made commercially available in June 2011. It is in use by Swiss law enforcement, a major European mobile network and under evaluation by more than 40 organizations worldwide.[3]

Large scale government and corporate networks are irresistible targets for cyber attacks – from hackers, hostile government agencies and malicious NGOs. These networks are fantastically complex. Each user, application, data source, sensor and control mechanism add value. Yet each of these components increases the threat surface for cyber attacks. Defending a network by simplifying network complexity is not an option. Taking functionality away from a network would be self-defeating. Moreover, the best networks use a blend of custom, commercial and open-source technologies – each presenting a new opportunity for attack. Thus, cyber security depends on understanding complexity – not simplifying it.

“All war presupposes human weakness and seeks to exploit it.”
Carl von Clausewitz in Vom Kriege (1832)

Current technologies using Computer programming – such as anti-malware software, firewalls and network appliances (such as IDPS) – are unable to detect the most catastrophic forms of zero-day attacks: incremental delivery of viruses, application hijacking, impersonation, insider conspiracies and cloaked DDoS.[4]

Representation of Heterarchy

Why? Computer programming is reductionist and prone to cognitive biases. First, programmers and analysts simplify threat profiles by categorizing them so they can be processed mathematically and logically using structured data. For example, they look for viruses and potential variations using fuzzy matching techniques. Simplifying the complexity of suspicious byte-patterns into mathematical models provides ample opportunities for attackers to “hide in the noise.” Secondly, programmers and analysts are human. They make mistakes. Moreover, they tend to repeat mistakes – so if you find one security hole, you can search for patterns that will lead you to others.

Cyber attackers know these weaknesses and exploit them by hiding within the noise of network complexity and discovering patterns of weaknesses. Deception and exploitation of predictable defensive patterns are the pillars of successful offensive cyber attacks.

Thus, current defenses are destined to fail against the next generation of zero-day cyber attacks (such as incremental viral insertion, MHOTCO and genetic algorithm intrusions).[5]

“All warfare is based on deception.”
The Art of War by Sun Tzu, 600 BC

New artificial intelligence technology that learns through detecting data heterarchies enables unprecedented levels of cyber security and countermeasures. Knowing the structure of data is the key to understanding its meaning. Machine learning using heterarchical pattern recognition reveals the relationships and associations between all bytes across an entire system (or network) – including overlaps, multiplicities, mixed ascendancies, and divergent-but-coexistent patterns. This approach is similar to how humans learn: We associate stimuli with patterns. For example, a child learns that the sound “dog” refers to the 65-pound, four-legged creature with soft fuzzy white hair. A computer would need to be programmed with a series of commands to know that dog refers to a specific creature – and is thus unable to recognize similarities that are not part of the predetermined definition of “dog” – such as a black 5-pound miniature poodle.

In June 2011, ai-one released a new machine learning application programming interface (API) that is a radical departure from traditional forms of artificial intelligence. The technology is a neural network that detects heterarchical byte-patterns and creates a dynamic descriptive associative network – called a lightweight ontology. This technology determines the meaning of data by evaluating the relationships between each byte, cluster of bytes, words, documents, and so on. Unlike other forms of artificial intelligence, ai-one’s approach:

  • Detects how each byte relates to another – including multiple paths, asynchronous relationships and multiple high-order co-occurrences.
  • Automatically generates an associative network (lightweight ontology) revealing all patterns and relationships – detecting anomalies within any portion of the data set.
  • Enables machine learning without human intervention.
  • Unbiased. Does not rely upon external ontologies or standards.
  • Learns associations upon data ingestion – so it is much faster than techniques that require recalculations, such as COStf-idf (a vector space model approach). [6], [7]
  • Non-redundant. Each byte pattern is stored only once. This has the effect of compressing data while increasing pattern recognition speed.
  • Spawning cells. The underlying cell structure in the neural network is autonomic; generating cells as they are needed as they are stimulated by sensors (during data input).
  • Neural cells can be theoretically shared across other instances of the network.[8]
“Understanding ai-one requires an open mind – one that ignores what has been and embraces what is possible.”
Allan Terry, PhD, Former DARPA AI Scientist (Prime Contractor)

This technology has the potential to enable cyber security systems to detect, evaluate and counter threats by assessing anomalies within packets, byte-patterns, data traffic and user behaviors across the entire network. When placed into a matrix chipset, this technology can theoretically evaluate every byte across the entire network in real time with exabytes (1018) of capacity using a combination of sliding windows, high performance computing (HPC) and hardware accelerators.

As such, we will present how this technology has the potential to revolutionize cyber security by supporting each of the “Five Pillars” framework defined by the US Military for cyberwarfare:[9], [10]

Cyberwarfare Pillar Potential Roles for Machine Learning

Cyber domain is similar to other elements in battlespace.

  • Transparency to command & control of emerging threats
  • Unbiased detection & analysis of threats by detecting anomalies
  • Empower human analysts with actionable intelligence

Proactive defenses

  • Constant real-time monitoring of every packet across network
  • Near instant recognition of anomalies within packet payload or communication frames

Protection of critical infrastructure

  • Enhance intrusion detection and protection systems (IDPS) with real-time libraries & heuristic approximations of potential threats

Collective defense

  • Early detection & instant response across entire network
  • Enable counter-counter-measures, trapping, etc.

Maintain advantage of technological change

  • Early adoption of technology with accelerating rate of returns (1st mover advantage).


The next generation of cyber security attacks will be deadly in their subtly: They can remain undetected until it is too late to prevent catastrophic loss of data, connectivity and/or malicious manipulation of sensitive information. Such attacks can collapse key infrastructure systems such as power grids, communications networks, financial systems and national security assets.

The advantages of machine learning as a first line of defense against zero-day attacks include:

  • Force multiplication – enabling fewer human analysts to indentify, thwart and counter far greater numbers of attacks than programmatic approaches.
  • Evolutionary advantage – enabling cyber defenses to preempt threat adaptations by detecting any change within byte patterns.
  • Battlespace awareness – providing network security analysts with situational awareness by identifying and classifying byte pattern mutations.
  • Proactive defenses – Constant monitoring of the entire threat surface to detect any patterns of vulnerability before they can be exploited by the enemy.
Rueters Cyberattack Snapshot

[1] US GAO report, “CYBERSECURITY: Continued Attention Needed to Protect Our Nation’s Critical Infrastructure.” Statement  of  Gregory C.  Wilshusen, Director, Information Security Issues, July 26, 2011.

[2] The Lipman Report, “Threats to the Information Highway: CyberWarfare, Cyber Terrorism and Cyber Crime.” October 15, 2010, p.1.

[3] Bundeskriminalamt (German equivalent to the US FBI) built a shoe print recognition system that is in use at three major Swiss CSI labs. ai-one is restricted from advertising or using the name of customers as part of licensing and non-disclosure agreements.  

[4] Zero-day attacks refer to threats to networks that exploit vulnerabilities that are unknown to administrators and/or cyber security applications and appliances. Zero-day exploits include detection of security holes that are used or shared by attackers before the network detects the vulnerability.

[5] See Appendix for “Worst Case Scenario” that describes possible MHOTCO attack.

[6] COStf-idf is an approach to determine the relevance of a term in any given corpus.

[7] For a more extensive comparison see: Reimer, U., Maier, E., Streit, S., Diggelmann, T., Hoffleisch, M., Learning a Lightweight Ontology for Semantic Retrieval in Patient-Centered Information Systems. In International Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(3), 11-26, (July-September 2011)

[8] ai-one internal research project scheduled for mid-2012.

[10] For purposes of this paper, the requirements of large multi-national corporations (such as Goldman-Sachs, Google, Exxon, etc.) are substantially similar to those of government agencies (such as DoD, DHS, NSA, etc.).