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.
Government Shutdown Brings Certificate Lapse Woes
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  1/11/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
The Year in Security 2018
This Dark Reading Tech Digest explores the biggest news stories of 2018 that shaped the cybersecurity landscape.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Data breach fears and the need to comply with regulations such as GDPR are two major drivers increased spending on security products and technologies. But other factors are contributing to the trend as well. Find out more about how enterprises are attacking the cybersecurity problem by reading our report today.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-20735
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-17
** DISPUTED ** An issue was discovered in BMC PATROL Agent through 11.3.01. It was found that the PatrolCli application can allow for lateral movement and escalation of privilege inside a Windows Active Directory environment. It was found that by default the PatrolCli / PATROL Agent application only...
CVE-2019-0624
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-17
A spoofing vulnerability exists when a Skype for Business 2015 server does not properly sanitize a specially crafted request, aka "Skype for Business 2015 Spoofing Vulnerability." This affects Skype.
CVE-2019-0646
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-17
A Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists when Team Foundation Server does not properly sanitize user provided input, aka "Team Foundation Server Cross-site Scripting Vulnerability." This affects Team.
CVE-2019-0647
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-17
An information disclosure vulnerability exists when Team Foundation Server does not properly handle variables marked as secret, aka "Team Foundation Server Information Disclosure Vulnerability." This affects Team.
CVE-2018-20727
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-17
Multiple command injection vulnerabilities in NeDi before 1.7Cp3 allow authenticated users to execute code on the server side via the flt parameter to Nodes-Traffic.php, the dv parameter to Devices-Graph.php, or the tit parameter to drawmap.php.