Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.34708

StallGrid: Measuring Internet-exposed Engagement in Protocol-Native OT Tarpits

Arthur Cordeiro·Casper Andersen·Emmanouil Vasilomanolakis
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Operational technology systems face exposure to scanning and protocol-specific attack tools, where compromise risks disrupting physical processes rather than just data. Traditional OT defenses rely on blocking and filtering under strict patch constraints, while tarpitting delays scanners through sustained protocol-level interaction. Modbus TCP and IEC-104 carry no native authentication or integrity protection. Application-layer tarpitting, which stalls scanners inside a legitimate protocol exchange, has been studied for IT and IoT protocols, but not for OT/ICS, whose session semantics (state machines, exception codes) create stalling opportunities IT/IoT lack, and whose patch-constrained environments need exactly this kind of alternative defense. We present StallGrid, to our knowledge the first application-layer tarpits for OT/ICS, stalling scanners via Modbus Exception Codes \texttt{0x05}/\texttt{0x06} and prolonged residence in IEC-104's connected state machine. Five variants (three Modbus TCP, two IEC-104) ran simultaneously for 24 days online, logging 6,709 sessions, 2,039 cumulative per-tarpit unique IPs, and over 2,000 hours of accumulated connection engagement. GreyNoise enrichment attributes 87--97\% of stall time to malicious-tagged IPs, just 22--30\% of connecting addresses; protocol-level behavior further correlates with malicious classification, a fingerprinting signal beyond raw stall time. Shorter induced delay (1.5s) yielded more total engagement than longer delay (3s), observed across both protocols. These results position protocol-native tarpitting as a practical, low-cost complementary defense for OT/ICS environments where patching remains infeasible.

Explore related subjects

cs.CR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Arthur Cordeiro, Casper Andersen, Emmanouil Vasilomanolakis. 2026-09-28. StallGrid: Measuring Internet-exposed Engagement in Protocol-Native OT Tarpits. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.34708

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Context-Aware Spear Phishing: Generative AI-Enabled Attacks Against Individuals via Public Social Media Data

We demonstrate how publicly available social-media data and generative AI (GenAI) can be misused to automate and scale highly personalized, context-aware spear-phishing campaigns. With minimal attacker effort, a small amount of public activity per target is sufficient for GenAI models to extract interests and contextual cues, producing persuasive messages that mirror a target's style while bypassing generic content-moderation safeguards. We introduce a modular framework that combines multimodal signal extraction, communication-style profiling, and attack-type instantiation across seven strategies (baiting, scareware, honey trap, tailgating, impersonation, quid pro quo, and personalized emotional exploitation). We conduct a large-scale, multi-model evaluation covering thousands of generated emails and eight security-relevant criteria, benchmarking against a corpus of real-world phishing messages. The GenAI-produced emails exhibit markedly higher personalization, contextual grounding, and persuasive leverage. Importantly, a complementary user study corroborates these results, revealing that LLM-generated attacks consistently outperform APWG eCrimeX emails across eight dimensions while eliciting lower suspicion among human recipients. Finally, we measure and analyze the behavior of existing proactive, prompt-level defense mechanisms, which incorporate adaptive mechanisms, as well as two complementary defense approaches-policy-augmented SOTA safeguard models and system-instruction chain-of-thought moderation. We document how these defenses respond to contextualized and adaptive attack prompts, underscoring the need for platform-level safeguards that explicitly account for contextualized abuse at scale.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

Defenses at Odds: Measuring and Explaining Defense Conflicts in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) may require additional defenses after deployment as risks and governance requirements evolve. Subsequent defenses can interact with earlier defenses, raising the question of their sequential compatibility. We study this question with CONFLICTEVAL, evaluating 144 ordered compositions of six defenses spanning safety, privacy, and fairness across six models. The resulting interactions are heterogeneous across defense pairs, application orders, and models. Notably, some compositions exhibit defense conflicts: the subsequent defense improves its target objective while weakening protection established by the earlier defense. We investigate these interactions through the directional compatibility of defense-induced changes in risk-relevant representations. Across 11 selected cases, we use activation interventions to assess which defense-induced representational changes support protection and examine how subsequent defenses affect these changes. We find that, in some conflict cases, subsequent defenses counteract representational changes supporting earlier protection, providing evidence for one possible pathway to defense conflicts. Building on this analysis, we propose Conflict-Triggered Directional Retention (CTDR), which penalizes opposing shifts along directions supporting earlier protection. On six selected conflicting compositions from this analysis, CTDR reduces first-objective regression while maintaining positive gains on the subsequent defense objective.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

AI Security Research Should Better Incentivize Defense Research

This work examines an imbalance in artificial intelligence (AI) security research: the field tends to produce more work on attacking AI systems than on defending them. Drawing on related academic papers, we find biased attack-to-defense ratios across subfields, including federated learning, speech recognition, membership inference, large language models, etc. The imbalance possibly means far beyond a simple count: attack papers are routinely evaluated under favorable conditions that make threats look more severe than they are in practice, while defenses are held to a stricter standard that few can meet. The result is a literature rich in demonstrated vulnerabilities and thin on usable and deployed protections. We thus argue that AI security research should better incentivize defense research.

cs.CR↗