Attacks/Breaches

10/10/2016
08:00 AM
John Moynihan
John Moynihan
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Database Breaches: An Alarming Lack Of Preparedness

It's no secret that databases are fertile ground for malicious activities. Here's how a seven-step process for monitoring known harbingers of an imminent attack can help reduce the risk.

The recently announced cyberattack at Yahoo, wherein 500 million user accounts were compromised over a period of several months, is irrefutable proof of an alarming reality - databases are under siege and many organizations are incapable of protecting them. 

Although some of you may find this statement to be overly simplistic and presumptuous, those with a practical understanding of these digital repositories will likely appreciate my candor. Whether through a stolen system administrator credential, a customized malware exploit, an irresponsible third-party or a malicious insider, databases remain at imminent risk of unauthorized access. Despite the fact that databases house the financial, health, employment, credit, and educational information of virtually every American, secrets related to our national security and invaluable intellectual property, many organizations are incapable of identifying uninvited visitors once they've gained access. This is evidenced by the Yahoo attack wherein nation-state operatives navigated the company's customer database for several months without detection.

Foreign governments, cybercrime groups and other adversaries of the United States are well aware that databases have become fertile ground for their malicious activities. Accordingly, cyber campaigns are being launched on these digital treasure troves on a routine basis. Although state-sponsored actors have successfully penetrated databases housed at the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Anthem, and Sony, newly released data suggests that many entities continue to disregard this evolving risk.

Alarming Lack of Oversight
An Osterman Research survey, conducted of approximately 200 organizations with an average workforce of 22,000, reveals an astonishing absence of database security. Among the report's most disturbing statistics, only 20% of those surveyed indicated that they continuously monitor critical databases for the purpose of detecting unauthorized activity. In other words, four out of five either don't conduct any type of monitoring or only do so intermittently. 

Database monitoring, a process by which an organization continuously captures, analyzes, tests, and verifies transactions, is the only mechanism by which unauthorized access may be detected. However, there is a common misconception that merely logging database activity constitutes a monitoring program; it does not. This distinction requires emphasis. Although logging is a critical component of the monitoring process, the mere stockpiling of log data, without ongoing analysis, testing and verification of system activity, is meaningless for the purpose of detecting and disrupting the database attacks that have plagued our public and private sectors.

Implementing a Strategy 
A central element of an effective monitoring program is the implementation of an automated alert mechanism. Without a process to generate real-time alerts, the program will eventually stall due to the massive volume of database transactions. An alerting process allows an organization to instantaneously sift through the din of database noise and focus upon the events that may actually pose a risk to the data housed within.

The alert may be in the form an email, text message, or automated telephone call to the cybersecurity auditor on duty. Upon receiving an alert, it is imperative that the auditor immediately evaluate and resolve any potential threat to the database. There are certain conditions that are known harbingers of an imminent database attack and must be alerted on. When these events occur, the alerting process will simultaneously notify the appropriate staff and facilitate a real time investigation. For example:

  1. Modification of a table, column, or row: indicative of a data manipulation attack;
  2. Disabling of an audit log: precedes a database attack;
  3. Accessing the database from an unrecognized IP address: indicates access from suspect location;
  4. Attempt to access a restricted segment of the database: indicates escalation of privileges;
  5. Access at unconventional times or dates: indicates stolen user credential being used off hours;
  6. Copying of information: indicates attempted theft of data;
  7. Attempts to transfer or export large amounts database information: indicates data theft.

These events are often associated with unauthorized access, therefore each must be immediately addressed through analysis and verification.

Database attacks are among today's most serious cyber threats. Unfortunately, many organizations have yet to implement a basic monitoring process to timely detect this expanding form of electronic malice. Organizations that fail to deploy an ongoing database monitoring program remain at an imminent risk of unauthorized access and the financial, reputational, and legal consequences that will result.

Related Content:

 

John Moynihan, CGEIT, CRISC, is President of Minuteman Governance, a Massachusetts cybersecurity consultancy that provides services to public and private sector clients throughout the United States. Prior to founding this firm, he was CISO at the Massachusetts Department of ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Minuteman30
50%
50%
Minuteman30,
User Rank: Author
10/16/2016 | 8:53:42 PM
Re: When the database log is disabled, fire off a red flare
I agree, Charlie, this is the type of system event that all companies should laert on.
Charlie Babcock
50%
50%
Charlie Babcock,
User Rank: Ninja
10/12/2016 | 2:40:11 PM
When the database log is disabled, fire off a red flare
The disabling of server logs or database logs is such a warning sign of an intruder that I don't understand why all companies don't have an alerting system in place when such an event occurs. Granted an authorized administrator may be doing it legitimately, but why not check?
BillC941
50%
50%
BillC941,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/11/2016 | 9:28:02 AM
Good points
I would offer up you probably need to look for unusual sources using your API/Service accounts since nobody seems to reduce the priveleges on those accounts.

Furthermore I would strongly recommend monitoring changes to Store Procedure Calls especially the powerful ones like create a user or delete a user related.  That's my two cents based on the bad things I have observed over the years.

 

 
WebAuthn, FIDO2 Infuse Browsers, Platforms with Strong Authentication
John Fontana, Standards & Identity Analyst, Yubico,  9/19/2018
Turn the NIST Cybersecurity Framework into Reality: 5 Steps
Mukul Kumar & Anupam Sahai, CISO & VP of Cyber Practice and VP Product Management, Cavirin Systems,  9/20/2018
NSS Labs Files Antitrust Suit Against Symantec, CrowdStrike, ESET, AMTSO
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/19/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Flash Poll
The Risk Management Struggle
The Risk Management Struggle
The majority of organizations are struggling to implement a risk-based approach to security even though risk reduction has become the primary metric for measuring the effectiveness of enterprise security strategies. Read the report and get more details today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-17321
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-22
An issue was discovered in SeaCMS 6.64. XSS exists in admin_datarelate.php via the time or maxHit parameter in a dorandomset action.
CVE-2018-17322
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-22
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in index.php/index/category/index in YUNUCMS 1.1.4 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the area parameter.
CVE-2018-14889
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-21
CouchDB in Vectra Networks Cognito Brain and Sensor before 4.3 contains a local code execution vulnerability.
CVE-2018-14890
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-21
Vectra Networks Cognito Brain and Sensor before 4.2 contains a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Web Management Console.
CVE-2018-14891
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-21
Management Console in Vectra Networks Cognito Brain and Sensor before 4.3 contains a local privilege escalation vulnerability.