Perimeter
6/3/2009
02:45 PM
John H. Sawyer
John H. Sawyer
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%
Repost This

Security Incident Ratings Made Easy

Management likes numbers. They get the the warm fuzzies when numbers can be graphed in a way that they can quickly discern what's going on. Of course, if the numbers are bad, then they may not feel those warm fuzzies. In the IT security world, we try to provide useful numbers to show what a great job we're doing, but it's hard to quantify thwarted attacks -- other than relying on numbers from an IPS and anti-malware system.

Management likes numbers. They get the the warm fuzzies when numbers can be graphed in a way that they can quickly discern what's going on. Of course, if the numbers are bad, then they may not feel those warm fuzzies. In the IT security world, we try to provide useful numbers to show what a great job we're doing, but it's hard to quantify thwarted attacks -- other than relying on numbers from an IPS and anti-malware system.Rating systems for attacks and vulnerabilities have been around for a while, but most are crude, risk-based matrices that rate security incidents with high, medium, and low ratings for probability on one axis, and impact on the other. Otherwise, I haven't seen anything that rates incidents well until a recent post from Richard Bejtlich on the TaoSecurity blog.

I'm not going to rehash his rating scheme, but what I do want to bring attention to are two factors: the granularity of the 10-point scale and moving it into the high/medium/low categorization, and the use of vulnerability as a type of incident.

A couple of readers commented that having 10 levels was too granular, but I disagree. If you need to break ratings down to a high, medium, or low classification, then Richard offers the option of viewing 1-3 as low, 4-6 as medium, 7-9 as high, and 10 as game over. The granularity is good for better reporting later on. I personally like graphs that have a smaller scale and more points to graph than ones that are more jagged. I think it helps to pinpoint more subtle changes in the data over time.

Richard said his reasoning for including vulnerabilities as an incident type is that some of his businesses classify them as such, even though it goes against how traditional incident detectors and responders think. I have mixed feelings on this one. The incident responder in me wants to agree and say that vulnerabilities shouldn't be included, but the security pro in me who wears many hats says it should. Why?

For security teams who are small and do incident response, vulnerability scanning, and penetration testing, detecting vulnerabilities and dealing with incidents tends to blur. If their experience is like mine, you have one ticketing system to manage it all, so it's often easy to simply and have an incident type of vulnerability. In fact, sometimes the detection of the vulnerability leads to a determination that a true incident has occurred already as a result of the vulnerability.

For teams who already have a mature incident rating system, this may seem old hat, but for those of you who don't, it may be just what you're looking for. And, remember, you don't have to use it verbatim. You can mix it up and use it as you please so that it best fits your organization.

John H. Sawyer is a senior security engineer on the IT Security Team at the University of Florida. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are his own and do not represent the views and opinions of the UF IT Security Team or the University of Florida. When John's not fighting flaming, malware-infested machines or performing autopsies on blitzed boxes, he can usually be found hanging with his family, bouncing a baby on one knee and balancing a laptop on the other. Special to Dark Reading.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-3946
Published: 2014-04-24
Cisco IOS before 15.3(2)S allows remote attackers to bypass interface ACL restrictions in opportunistic circumstances by sending IPv6 packets in an unspecified scenario in which expected packet drops do not occur for "a small percentage" of the packets, aka Bug ID CSCty73682.

CVE-2012-5723
Published: 2014-04-24
Cisco ASR 1000 devices with software before 3.8S, when BDI routing is enabled, allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via crafted (1) broadcast or (2) multicast ICMP packets with fragmentation, aka Bug ID CSCub55948.

CVE-2013-6738
Published: 2014-04-24
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM SmartCloud Analytics Log Analysis 1.1 and 1.2 before 1.2.0.0-CSI-SCALA-IF0003 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via an invalid query parameter in a response from an OAuth authorization endpoint.

CVE-2014-0188
Published: 2014-04-24
The openshift-origin-broker in Red Hat OpenShift Enterprise 2.0.5, 1.2.7, and earlier does not properly handle authentication requests from the remote-user auth plugin, which allows remote attackers to bypass authentication and impersonate arbitrary users via the X-Remote-User header in a request to...

CVE-2014-2391
Published: 2014-04-24
The password recovery service in Open-Xchange AppSuite before 7.2.2-rev20, 7.4.1 before 7.4.1-rev11, and 7.4.2 before 7.4.2-rev13 makes an improper decision about the sensitivity of a string representing a previously used but currently invalid password, which allows remote attackers to obtain potent...

Best of the Web