Threat Intelligence

6/1/2016
01:45 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

The Double-Sided Coin Of OPSEC

Defenders must worry about their own operations security but can also learn a lot from attackers' OPSEC practices.

Most information security leaders recognize the importance of solid operations security (OPSEC) to keep the bad guys from getting an edge when formulating attacks. First developed by military minds, the idea behind OPSEC principles is simple even if the practices aren't always so cut-and-dried: keep the adversary guessing by denying them any information that might help them formulate their attacks. It's a fairly well-understood concept in the infosec world, but rarely used to flip the equation on the bad guys.

That's the premise behind a new study out today from Digital Shadows, which examined that maturity curve of OPSEC across the criminal underground and presents some opportunities that the good guys have to gain the advantage by paying attention.

"I think there’s two components for the enterprises. One, how do you think about your own OPSEC? And then, two, how do you keep an eye on what adversaries are doing to see if you can keep up with the trends, that sort of thing; tools that they’re using," explains Rick Holland, vice president of Digital Shadows and author of the report.

None of the individual criminals or criminal groups are created equally with regard to OPSEC, he says. It all depends on their motivations and financial models. For example, hacktivists might have poor OPSEC because they're whole M.O. is wrapped up around notoriety. Carders tend to have poor OPSEC because they're working on such volume, and the barrier to entry is pretty low to get into that business.

Meanwhile, more advanced operations with stealthy targeted attack campaigns invest more in OPSEC and may not advertise to the Dark Web at large about their services, choosing to do business only with those they know.

Simply observing how mature or immature an adversary is will give defenders some information about their operations. But for the most part, even those criminals with advanced OPSEC will only invest as much as they need to in keeping their tails clean.  

"An attacker who’s optimizing their OPSEC is just going to have a little bit better OPSEC than they need so that they don’t over-invest, especially on the more mature side. If you think of OPSEC as a cost of goods sold for them," he says. "They don’t want to put too much into it, and fortunately for the bad guys, the OPSEC bars can be relatively low given the lack of maturity that most of the companies they’re targeting have."

According to Holland, organizations tend to have their heads in the sand both internally and externally.

"I think organizations make a lot of decisions without understanding the risks that they face. Having some kind of OPSEC perspective in the organization is really, really important because it should drive the security program – not just the offset, but the data you’re trying to protect, the people associated with that data," he says.

Holland says many organizations don't conduct proper threat modeling and often don't understand things such as what types of adversaries are targeting them and their vertical markets, and how to use that type of intelligence to tune their security. 

Related Content:

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
Whoopty
50%
50%
Whoopty,
User Rank: Ninja
6/2/2016 | 7:45:29 AM
Silkroad
I think one of the best examples of poor OpSec was Ross Ulbright, the convicted admin of the Silk Road darknet marketplace. He was caught sending a tonne of fake passports to himself, logging in to the site in public locations, using personal emails for early set up requests about the site... 

You would imagine he'd be much more security concious than that, which is where half the conspiracy theories come from.
Crowdsourced vs. Traditional Pen Testing
Alex Haynes, Chief Information Security Officer, CDL,  3/19/2019
BEC Scammer Pleads Guilty
Dark Reading Staff 3/20/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
Organizations are responding to new threats with new processes for detecting and mitigating them. Here's a look at how the discipline of incident response is evolving.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-15583
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-25
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in point_list.php in GNUBOARD5 before 5.3.1.6 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the popup title parameter.
CVE-2017-7340
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-25
A Cross-Site Scripting vulnerability in Fortinet FortiPortal versions 4.0.0 and below allows an attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via the applicationSearch parameter in the FortiView functionality.
CVE-2014-9187
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-25
Multiple heap-based buffer overflow vulnerabilities exist in Honeywell Experion PKS all versions prior to R400.6, all versions prior to R410.6, and all versions prior to R430.2 modules, which could lead to possible remote code execution or denial of service. Honeywell strongly encourages and recomme...
CVE-2014-9189
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-25
Multiple stack-based buffer overflow vulnerabilities were found in Honeywell Experion PKS all versions prior to R400.6, all versions prior to R410.6, and all versions prior to R430.2 modules that could lead to possible remote code execution, dynamic memory corruption, or denial of service. Honeywell...
CVE-2019-10044
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-25
Telegram Desktop before 1.5.12 on Windows, and the Telegram applications for Android, iOS, and Linux, is vulnerable to an IDN homograph attack when displaying messages containing URLs. This occurs because the application produces a clickable link even if (for example) Latin and Cyrillic characters e...