Attacks/Breaches

7/20/2015
10:30 AM
John Strand
John Strand
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

How I Learned To Love Active Defense

Yes, traditional cyber defenses can be effective. They just need to be a little more active.

There has been quite a bit of discussion on active defense and hacking back lately and, once again, it seems that many of the discussion points seem to fall into basic categories of revenge hacking and no active defense versus traditional defenses.  But is there a way to think about active defense in such a way that it is neither controversial nor giving up?

First, a thought experiment in threat modeling because buzzwords are fun.

Take a few moments and think of three AV companies. 

Please take a moment and write them down.

Now, take a few moments and think of three IDS/IPS/firewall vendors. 

Please write them down as well.

Next, take a few moments and write down your major threat actors. We usually see organized crime on this list along side various nation states.

Ok, one last question, do you believe the threat actors you listed have the ability to bypass the technologies/vendors you listed? The answer without question is yes, they can.  But why?  The reason is quite simple when thought through. In most organizations, the security technologies used are often the same technologies, deployed in roughly the same configuration again, and again, and again. It is easy, if not trivial, for many attackers to purchase the same technologies you use to defend your network in the efforts to bypass them in a lab setting before they even attack your network. So, before a single evil packet is slung, they know they will get in. They also know they will not be detected.

How does an active defense posture assist with this? Simply put, it introduces a little chaos into network security architectures. If attackers don’t know what is there, they will make mistakes.  These mistakes are key when improving detection capabilities.

Triple A of Active Defense
Active defense can be broken down into three main groups: annoyance, attribution, and attack.  It helps to break active defense down like this because it allows this defensive tactic to be much more than "hacking back."

Annoyance: This is where we try to increase the amount of work effort an attacker needs to put forth to attack a network. This can be achieved through honeypots, bogus DNS entries, and infinitely recursive web directories to stall or break web crawlers. Even IPS systems, which take an active response to attack behaviors, can be in this category. This can also be called security through obscurity. It has been said that “security through obscurity is no security at all.” This phrase is catchy, but not true. If you are properly monitoring the points of obscurity the attacker may mistakenly fall into, it can greatly increase your detection dates. 

For example, let’s say an attacker scans the ports of one of your external systems. Let’s say that it appears that every port is open and responding with a different service profile. How long do you think it would take for the attacker to find the real ports? In the process of doing so, would they trip alerts along the way? Tools like Portspoof do just this, and can be highly effective deterrent/detective components of any defensive architecture.

Attribution:  This is where we are trying to unmask the attackers. This can be done via Word web bugs, applets, ActiveX controls, and macros to identify the IP location and geolocation of attackers. This phase is great for incident response and for identifying more advanced attackers trying to break into your networks. 

Attack: This is where most people think active defense takes place. It is hacking back using pentest tricks like fake websites with malware embedded in them, macros for remote access to an attacker’s system, and lurking for specific intel about the attacker. I will keep this simple: Do not do this phases without fully executed warrants and the participation of law enforcement.

If this sounds a bit overwhelming for some of you, don’t be discouraged. There is a free distribution toolkit called the Active Defense Harbinger Distribution, which has all the tools one would need to get started installed and ready to go. There is even a usage document on the desktop with full, step-by-step directions on how to use each tool.

A few additional words of caution. First, never engage in hacking back for revenge. Without a warrant. it is illegal. It is also wrong.  

Second, there are more than a few people who caution against active defense because the attackers may get angry and trash your network. This argument is the equivalent of giving up. 

Finally, there are some who say we need to focus on the basics and fundamentals first. I would say this, too, is incomplete. Active defense is something that can complement and extend traditional defenses. The two are not in conflict; it is not an either/or situation. 

One finally thought: When you started in security, did you think it would be waiting around for the next breach? Did you think it would be reduced to babysitting various tools?  Or did you think it would be a dynamic field where you would go against attackers and track them down?  Traditional defenses can be effective. They just need to be a little more active.

John Strand is a senior instructor with the SANS Institute. He teaches SEC504: Hacker Techniques, Exploits, and Incident Handling; SEC560: Network Penetration Testing and Ethical Hacking; SEC580: Metasploit Kung Fu for Enterprise Pen Testing; and SEC464: Hacker Guard: ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Titaninfosec
50%
50%
Titaninfosec,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/21/2015 | 2:47:33 PM
Legality of Hack Back
Hi John, nice article. I have written many articles on this topic and agree with all you stated, to include the legal cautions. But, there are methods to conduct the attribution and attack back portions legally without having law enforcement involvement or warrants. Most of my articles on this topic and the "how to" legally are published in the ISSA Journal. Dave (Risk and Cyber Attorney)

 
Printers: The Weak Link in Enterprise Security
Kelly Sheridan, Associate Editor, Dark Reading,  10/16/2017
20 Questions to Ask Yourself before Giving a Security Conference Talk
Joshua Goldfarb, Co-founder & Chief Product Officer, IDDRA,  10/16/2017
Why Security Leaders Can't Afford to Be Just 'Left-Brained'
Bill Bradley, SVP, Cyber Engineering and Technical Services, CenturyLink,  10/17/2017
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Security Vulnerabilities: The Next Wave
Just when you thought it was safe, researchers have unveiled a new round of IT security flaws. Is your enterprise ready?
Flash Poll
The State of Ransomware
The State of Ransomware
Ransomware has become one of the most prevalent new cybersecurity threats faced by today's enterprises. This new report from Dark Reading includes feedback from IT and IT security professionals about their organization's ransomware experiences, defense plans, and malware challenges. Find out what they had to say!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2017-0290
Published: 2017-05-09
NScript in mpengine in Microsoft Malware Protection Engine with Engine Version before 1.1.13704.0, as used in Windows Defender and other products, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (type confusion and application crash) via crafted JavaScript code within ...

CVE-2016-10369
Published: 2017-05-08
unixsocket.c in lxterminal through 0.3.0 insecurely uses /tmp for a socket file, allowing a local user to cause a denial of service (preventing terminal launch), or possibly have other impact (bypassing terminal access control).

CVE-2016-8202
Published: 2017-05-08
A privilege escalation vulnerability in Brocade Fibre Channel SAN products running Brocade Fabric OS (FOS) releases earlier than v7.4.1d and v8.0.1b could allow an authenticated attacker to elevate the privileges of user accounts accessing the system via command line interface. With affected version...

CVE-2016-8209
Published: 2017-05-08
Improper checks for unusual or exceptional conditions in Brocade NetIron 05.8.00 and later releases up to and including 06.1.00, when the Management Module is continuously scanned on port 22, may allow attackers to cause a denial of service (crash and reload) of the management module.

CVE-2017-0890
Published: 2017-05-08
Nextcloud Server before 11.0.3 is vulnerable to an inadequate escaping leading to a XSS vulnerability in the search module. To be exploitable a user has to write or paste malicious content into the search dialogue.