Partner Perspectives  Connecting marketers to our tech communities.
4/14/2015
04:10 PM
Emilio Iasiello
Emilio Iasiello
Partner Perspectives
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
50%
50%

Threat Intelligence Is a Two-Way Street

Intelligence analysis should be looked upon as less of a service and more of a partnership.

In the wake of public breaches of large enterprises, organizations are quickly realizing the need to develop cybersecurity strategies that include developing or acquiring technical and analytical solutions to support network defenders and decision makers alike. As a result, there has been a noticeable boon in the global cybersecurity industry, which is expected to grow to $155.7 billion by 2019, according to a report from Cybersecurity Ventures, a world market research organization.

One capability being offered by many of these cybersecurity companies is cyberthreat intelligence, which usually encompasses a fusion of technical and threat analysis. Vendors promote their analytic capabilities to deliver accurate, timely threat information in order to provide advanced warning or decision-making advantage to their customers.

However, one challenge that all private security companies have in this space is getting the proper guidance and information from customers, which could be used to improve and focus analysis. An intelligence production cycle will typically have these components, though some organizations may have an added or subtracted step:

  • Setting requirements
  • Gathering data
  • Interpreting gathered data
  • Analyzing and reporting
  • Disseminating final product

During the setting-requirements phase is when a customer will engage with an intelligence unit to identify and determine the issues that need to be covered and shape any intelligence requirements that need to be addressed. Granted, there are those occasions when customers may not know exactly what they want or don’t know how to communicate it via their intelligence requirements. At these times, it is incumbent upon intelligence analysts to help educate and inform customers about the potential pitfalls that may result if requirements are not more advantageously scoped.

This is a critical stage of the process because if questions are not properly scoped and prioritized, collection strategies will be impacted, and the finished intelligence product may not be responsive or may be too vague to be useful. Time invested up front in setting prioritized focused requirements will prevent this from happening.

This is particularly important with cyber-intelligence because organizations can provide information unique to their particular environment and receive indicators and intelligence that help shape their cybersecurity postures. Indeed, Carnegie Mellon’s Software Engineering Institute (SEI) echoes this sentiment in a January 2013 report reviewing how private companies conduct cyber-intelligence. SEI’s key findings cited scoping the cyber-environment to an organization’s mission as one of its recommended best practices for the cyber-intelligence industry.

Ultimately, intelligence analysis should be looked upon as less of a service and more of a partnership whose success relies on the full commitment and engagement of both intelligence producer and intelligence consumer. Organizations that adopt the intelligence cycle into their business practices will find that the more they provide to the process, the more they will receive. Sharing pertinent data such as technical data collected from hostile activity transpiring against networks, and providing advanced notice of business activities, will help focus analytic efforts on the most pertinent cyberthreats against the enterprise. In turn, this information can contribute to the larger community via threat indicators, thereby strengthening the greater collective’s cybersecurity efforts. 

Emilio Iasiello has more than 12 years' experience as a strategic cyber intelligence analyst, supporting US government civilian and military intelligence organizations, as well as the private sector. He has delivered cyber threat presentations to domestic and international ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
New Bluetooth Hack Affects Millions of Vehicles
Dark Reading Staff 11/16/2018
Understanding Evil Twin AP Attacks and How to Prevent Them
Ryan Orsi, Director of Product Management for Wi-Fi at WatchGuard Technologies,  11/14/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
Fidelis Cybersecurity provides organizations with a robust, comprehensive portfolio of products, services, and expertise to combat today's sophisticated advanced threats and prevent data breaches. Our commercial enterprise and government customers around the globe can face advanced threats with confidence through use of our Network Defense and Forensics Services – delivered by an elite team of security professionals with decades of hands-on experience – and our award-winning Fidelis XPS™ Advanced Threat Defense Products, which provide visibility and control over the entire threat life cycle.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-17948
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-20
An open redirect vulnerability exists in the Access Manager Identity Provider prior to 4.4 SP3.
CVE-2018-1779
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-20
IBM API Connect 2018.1 through 2018.3.7 could allow an unauthenticated attacker to cause a denial of service due to not setting limits on JSON payload size. IBM X-Force ID: 148802.
CVE-2018-19367
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-20
Portainer through 1.19.2 provides an API endpoint (/api/users/admin/check) to verify that the admin user is already created. This API endpoint will return 404 if admin was not created and 204 if it was already created. Attackers can set an admin password in the 404 case.
CVE-2018-19335
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-20
Google Monorail before 2018-06-07 has a Cross-Site Search (XS-Search) vulnerability because CSV downloads are affected by CSRF, and calculations of download times (for requests with a crafted groupby value) can be used to obtain sensitive information about the content of bug reports.
CVE-2018-19334
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-20
Google Monorail before 2018-05-04 has a Cross-Site Search (XS-Search) vulnerability because CSV downloads are affected by CSRF, and calculations of download times (for requests with an unsupported axis) can be used to obtain sensitive information about the content of bug reports.