Threat Intelligence
2/27/2017
08:00 AM
Blake Moore
Blake Moore
Commentary
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

In Cybersecurity, Language Is a Source of Misunderstandings

To successfully fight threats across industries, we must all use the same terminology.

Have you ever traveled to a place where you didn't speak the local language and attempted to ask for help? Or have you attempted to say something in another dialect but it came out meaning something entirely different?

Language is the key to communication and a critical component in effective public-private information sharing in the cyber domain. Unfortunately — although some international organizations have attempted to document them — there are no common definitions for cyber terms globally across government, business, and academia. When you throw in industry buzzwords and marketing jargon around cybersecurity, it can become nearly impossible for organizations to speak quickly and efficiently with each other about security.

To fully engage in cross-industry dialogue within the context of cybersecurity, we must speak the same language. We can't outmaneuver threats without it.

Defining the Term "Cyber Attack"
There are at least 16 different definitions of the term "cyber attack" globally, all of which span a fairly large spectrum. Most of them, at least mention something about denying, disrupting, destroying, or degrading information systems. Using this premise, Sony, Ukrenergo, Dyn, and Saudi Aramco experienced cyber attacks. However, the events that took place at OPM, Target, and Banner Health were not—although they were reported as such. So, what do we call what happened? A host of other security-related terms might be applied, including data exfiltration, privacy breach, data breach, intrusion, cyber incident, and cyber compromise. In some cases, it may be a combination of several of these.

But even these terms have a variety of definitions. In the newly released Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations, authored by 19 international law experts, an example of this is cited on page 418: "…the Experts noted general agreement that cyber operations that merely cause inconvenience or irritation to the civilian population do not rise to the level of attack, although they cautioned that the scope of the term 'inconvenience' is unsettled."

So why does this all matter? When there are multiple media that all label an event with terms of varying definition, we negatively affect our ability as security professionals to characterize and respond appropriately. As an industry, the lack of defined terms is helping the hackers win. Mismatched terminology can introduce unnecessary fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and affect the potential for government authorities to assist a breach victim, alter the public's perception of the situation, or cause adversaries to push forward to achieve their objectives.

The Quest for Standard Terminology
There is a fairly recent concept that warrants particular attention to ensure government, industry, and academia are speaking the same language, especially in light of the global movement toward a more proactive security posture: active defense.

Active defense is a term that captures a spectrum of proactive cybersecurity measures that fall between traditional passive defense and offense, according to the George Washington University Center for Cyber & Homeland Security. There is a plethora of detail on this concept in a recent GWU report, but at its essence, active defense identifies a list of 11 techniques that private entities can employ to interdict cyber exploitations and attacks in a "gray zone." This zone falls between passive defense, which typically features basic internal security controls, and offensive cyber, which features more proactive activities security organizations can undertake, such as "hacking back."

These gray-zone active defense techniques range from information-sharing to denial and deception to botnet takedowns and rescue missions for recovering assets (the latter requiring close government cooperation). At the heart of this concept is the ability for the public and private sectors to partner on the planning and execution of these techniques.

Advancing toward a more universal spoken and written language in cyber will take time. But there are positive developments taking place. Some helpful concepts are gaining adoption and helping security professionals define their activities for their colleagues, industry peers, partners, and customers. The concepts below fall within the low-risk spectrum of active defense and can be executed given a shared technical language (e.g., shared semantic models):

  • Active Response: According to SANS, active response is a mechanism that provides the intrusion-detection systems with the capability to respond to an attack when it has been detected.
  • Adaptive Response: Adaptive response describes enablement of end-to-end context and automated response across multivendor environments. Because most security technologies aren't designed to work with each other, using frameworks like adaptive response gives vendors to the ability to detect threats faster through analytics, and collaborate on a response. This defense strategy for multilayered, heterogeneous security architectures enables faster decision-making and more cohesive responses to threats.
  • Adaptive Security: Adaptive security is the ability to adapt and respond to a rapidly changing threat landscape by recognizing behavior rather than root files or code. The rise of technologies focusing on user and behavior analytics are a good example of adaptive security in action.

Though that's a short list, these terms represent a step in the right direction for the industry. But we have a long way to go. Without a common language in cybersecurity, we can't achieve intelligent information-sharing both within a single organization or between the complex web of vendors and solutions in today's market. Lack of defined key terms is blocking the industry from effectively implementing anything beyond passive defensive mechanisms. 

We must continue to strive toward establishing a common global cybersecurity language that spans government, industry, and academia: this is our center of gravity. Until we make progress, this is a deficiency that will remain a vulnerability that our common adversaries exploit to outpace and outmaneuver us. 

Related Content:

 

Blake Moore is a cyber threat intelligence and operations expert with over 16 years of experience across public and private sectors. Mr. Moore is currently the Senior Director of Operations and Chief of Staff for cybersecurity markets at Splunk, where he leads operations and ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Matt_Carlson
50%
50%
Matt_Carlson,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/6/2017 | 1:54:23 AM
Re: Words matter, but ACTIONS matter more
You would think that when it comes to the language of coding that everything would be easily understood. But of course, there will always be some misunderstanding here and there if people don't put notes in their coding! Happens a number of times even with SEO coding too. It's really important that whatever you do that has anything to do with digital media is clearly outlined for people to understand what you're doing.
orenfalkowitz
100%
0%
orenfalkowitz,
User Rank: Strategist
2/27/2017 | 7:49:28 PM
Words matter, but ACTIONS matter more
I agree that there is a language problem in the cybersecurity industry. Security professionals are too focused on nuances and the minutia in security incident distinctions rather than meanignful distinctions in outcomes.

Take for example "phishing".  It is the root cause in 97% of all cybersecurity incidents but I worry that there are so many words being used to describe phishing that users are confused. And further, focusing on the payloads and effects like ransomware don't help user focus on the important problems they should be dolving. After all 99% of ransomware is delivered via phishing.  

Focusing on terminology is important, but it's an excercise that is best left to military strategists.  Companys and individuals need to focus their cybersecurity approach on actions at a point where the outcomes are chagned and actions that can be measured. 
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
5 Security Technologies to Watch in 2017
Emerging tools and services promise to make a difference this year. Are they on your company's list?
Flash Poll
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
The transition from DevOps to SecDevOps is combining with the move toward cloud computing to create new challenges - and new opportunities - for the information security team. Download this report, to learn about the new best practices for secure application development.
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-7445
Published: 2015-10-15
The Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) subsystem in the Linux kernel through 4.x mishandles requests for Graphics Execution Manager (GEM) objects, which allows context-dependent attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via an application that processes graphics data, as demonstrated b...

CVE-2015-4948
Published: 2015-10-15
netstat in IBM AIX 5.3, 6.1, and 7.1 and VIOS 2.2.x, when a fibre channel adapter is used, allows local users to gain privileges via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2015-5660
Published: 2015-10-15
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in eXtplorer before 2.1.8 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that execute PHP code.

CVE-2015-6003
Published: 2015-10-15
Directory traversal vulnerability in QNAP QTS before 4.1.4 build 0910 and 4.2.x before 4.2.0 RC2 build 0910, when AFP is enabled, allows remote attackers to read or write to arbitrary files by leveraging access to an OS X (1) user or (2) guest account.

CVE-2015-6333
Published: 2015-10-15
Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC) 1.1j allows local users to gain privileges via vectors involving addition of an SSH key, aka Bug ID CSCuw46076.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
In past years, security researchers have discovered ways to hack cars, medical devices, automated teller machines, and many other targets. Dark Reading Executive Editor Kelly Jackson Higgins hosts researcher Samy Kamkar and Levi Gundert, vice president of threat intelligence at Recorded Future, to discuss some of 2016's most unusual and creative hacks by white hats, and what these new vulnerabilities might mean for the coming year.