Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Analytics

3/16/2015
06:00 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail

10 Ways To Measure IT Security Program Effectiveness

The right metrics can make or break a security program (or a budget meeting).
2 of 10

False Positive Reporting  

Tracking the False Positive Reporting Rate (FPRR) can help put the work of lower-level analysts under the microscope, making sure that the judgments they're making on automatically filtered security event data is sifting out false positives from indicators of compromise before they escalate to others in the response team. 

'Despite the implementation of automated filtering, the SOC team must make the final determination as to whether the events they are alerted to are real threats,' Boison of Lockheed Martin says. 'The reporting of false positives to incident handlers and higher-level management increases their already heavy workload and, if excessive, can de-motivate and cause decreased vigilance.'

A high FPRR could indicate better training is needed from Level 1 Analysts or better tuning of analytics tools.

'All too often Level 1 analysts lack a good understanding and visibility to incidents cause and therefore escalate false alerts to Level 3 analysts,' says Lior Div, CEO of Cyberreason. 'This causes waste of expensive resources.'


(Image: Pixabay)

False Positive Reporting

Tracking the False Positive Reporting Rate (FPRR) can help put the work of lower-level analysts under the microscope, making sure that the judgments they're making on automatically filtered security event data is sifting out false positives from indicators of compromise before they escalate to others in the response team.

"Despite the implementation of automated filtering, the SOC team must make the final determination as to whether the events they are alerted to are real threats," Boison of Lockheed Martin says. "The reporting of false positives to incident handlers and higher-level management increases their already heavy workload and, if excessive, can de-motivate and cause decreased vigilance."

A high FPRR could indicate better training is needed from Level 1 Analysts or better tuning of analytics tools.

"All too often Level 1 analysts lack a good understanding and visibility to incidents cause and therefore escalate false alerts to Level 3 analysts," says Lior Div, CEO of Cyberreason. "This causes waste of expensive resources."

(Image: Pixabay)

2 of 10
Comment  | 
Print  | 
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
RyanSepe
100%
0%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
3/17/2015 | 8:44:18 AM
Vulnerability Assessment
Many of these ways focus around and IRT(reactive) and Vulnerability Assessment Process(both proactive and reactive). These are two reactive measures that if handled effectively can increase an organization's security posture expontentially. However, many organizations do not employ these effectively. The reasons for this vary, bandwidth, personnel, expertise, etc. This is why sometimes outsourcing to an MSSP is beneficial. This argument can be made using the statistic aggregation denoted by this article.
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
Data breaches and regulations have forced organizations to pay closer attention to the security incident response function. However, security leaders may be overestimating their ability to detect and respond to security incidents. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-11619
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-07
FasterXML jackson-databind 2.x before 2.9.10.4 mishandles the interaction between serialization gadgets and typing, related to org.springframework.aop.config.MethodLocatingFactoryBean (aka spring-aop).
CVE-2020-11620
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-07
FasterXML jackson-databind 2.x before 2.9.10.4 mishandles the interaction between serialization gadgets and typing, related to org.apache.commons.jelly.impl.Embedded (aka commons-jelly).
CVE-2020-11509
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-07
An XSS vulnerability in the WP Lead Plus X plugin through 0.98 for WordPress allows remote attackers to upload page templates containing arbitrary JavaScript via the c37_wpl_import_template admin-post action (which will execute in an administrator's browser if the template is used to create a page).
CVE-2020-6647
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-07
An improper neutralization of input vulnerability in the dashboard of FortiADC may allow an authenticated attacker to perform a cross site scripting attack (XSS) via the name parameter.
CVE-2020-9286
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-07
An improper authorization vulnerability in FortiADC may allow a remote authenticated user with low privileges to perform certain actions such as rebooting the system.