Attacks/Breaches

8/28/2013
07:37 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Struggling With Attack Detection And Analysis

New survey shows organizations don't know when they've been attacked and can't easily determine scope of attacks

Enterprises are increasingly finding it harder to detect attacks in a timely fashion or quickly determine the scope of attacks when they are discovered. A new survey out this week shows that while the majority of organizations seem confident in their ability to quickly analyze and respond to security alerts, many have a hard time finding attacks in real-time or even being sure they've experienced an attack.

Conducted among 250 decision-makers worldwide, the Bit9 survey showed that 62 percent of organizations analyze and respond to security alerts. However, more than a fifth of organizations reported their ability to protect endpoints and servers from emerging threats that have no signature to be deficient or non-existent. Nearly the same amount of organizations reported the same deficiency in their ability to determine in real-time how many systems are infected by file discovered to be malicious.

Furthermore, 55 percent of organizations reported that they either couldn't discover zero-day attacks or only could find them by accident during routine maintenance or if a user contacts help desk due to abnormal system behavior.

[Are you missing the downsides of big data security analysis? See 3 Inconvenient Truths About Big Data In Security Analysis.]

Perhaps most telling of all, though, is that a full 13 percent of decision makers reported that they didn't know whether they'd experienced an attack in the past year.

"That was a big surprise. I would expect that number to be a single digit and a low single digit at that," says Nick Levay, CSO of Bit9. "A lot of organizations don't necessarily do a good job of keeping track of metrics related security events. I have a feeling that inadequate tracking of some of that stuff results in senior decision makers not necessarily having an accurate view of what kinds of security events are occurring in the network."

It's a trend corroborated by many experts operating within the security space, who explain that organizations are not able to keep up with advanced attacks due to poor visibility across isolated systems.

"Many companies have infected machines and don't even know it, highlighting the advanced nature of certain malware," says Vann Abernethy, senior product manager at NSFOCUS. "Some very advanced malware variants can move laterally within an organization to avoid detection, then go dormant for a long time, communicate back to its command and control using encryption, or turn off common anti-virus and anti-malware."

Abernethy explains that organizations need to be able to augment existing security defenses with better forensics, so that security teams are looking closely at system behavior through "daily forensic inspection and data analysis."

Most organizations today don't focus enough on that kind of analysis, instead overly relying on alerting and prevention tools, says Jason Mical, vice president of cyber security for AccessData.

"These products only catch what you tell them to look for," he says. "At this point, organizations need to increase their visibility into what's happening in their enterprises and focus on eliminating those cyber security blind spots."

In order to do that, more security organizations have to streamline their cybersecurity infrastructure, Mical says.

This means finding ways to better enable real-time collaboration across different infosec teams and potentially considering ways to consolidate disparate analysis tools into a platform-based technology approach.

"Right now, most organizations still have disparate teams, each using several disparate tools. They have to correlate all the critical data manually," he says. "It causes dangerous delays in validating suspected threats or responding to known threats."

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Add Your Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Google Engineering Lead on Lessons Learned From Chrome's HTTPS Push
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/8/2018
White Hat to Black Hat: What Motivates the Switch to Cybercrime
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/8/2018
PGA of America Struck By Ransomware
Dark Reading Staff 8/9/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-3937
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-14
An exploitable command injection vulnerability exists in the measurementBitrateExec functionality of Sony IPELA E Series Network Camera G5 firmware 1.87.00. A specially crafted GET request can cause arbitrary commands to be executed. An attacker can send an HTTP request to trigger this vulnerability...
CVE-2018-3938
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-14
An exploitable stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the 802dot1xclientcert.cgi functionality of Sony IPELA E Series Camera G5 firmware 1.87.00. A specially crafted POST can cause a stack-based buffer overflow, resulting in remote code execution. An attacker can send a malicious POST r...
CVE-2018-12537
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-14
In Eclipse Vert.x version 3.0 to 3.5.1, the HttpServer response headers and HttpClient request headers do not filter carriage return and line feed characters from the header value. This allow unfiltered values to inject a new header in the client request or server response.
CVE-2018-12539
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-14
In Eclipse OpenJ9 version 0.8, users other than the process owner may be able to use Java Attach API to connect to an Eclipse OpenJ9 or IBM JVM on the same machine and use Attach API operations, which includes the ability to execute untrusted native code. Attach API is enabled by default on Windows,...
CVE-2018-3615
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-14
Systems with microprocessors utilizing speculative execution and Intel software guard extensions (Intel SGX) may allow unauthorized disclosure of information residing in the L1 data cache from an enclave to an attacker with local user access via a side-channel analysis.