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

5/29/2013
12:45 AM
50%
50%

3 Lessons From Layered Defense's Missed Attacks

Research shows that combining two security products produces widely different improvements in security

Layering security measures typically protects systems better: Research (PDF) by three University of Michigan graduate students in 2008, for example, found that using multiple antivirus engines result in much better protection than using a single program.

Yet recent analysis by NSS Labs highlights that layering security devices rarely catches all attacks, and the attacks that manage to dodge defenses do so with regularity. The analysis -- a survey of the company's past tests of next-generation firewalls, intrusion prevention systems, and endpoint protection software -- found that the tested products tended to fail in similar ways. While two products always performed better together than individually, their combined performances varied tremendously.

Overall, the lesson is that companies need to carefully select technologies to derive the greatest benefits from overlapping security measures, says Stefan Frei, research director at NSS Labs and author of the analysis.

"It really depends on what you combine, so you have to know which devices have the least amount of overlap," Frei says.

While defense in depth is still a desirable strategy, NSS Labs' analysis suggests that companies need to look more deeply to get the most out of layering security measures. Most importantly, the analysis found that products tended to fail to detect attacks in ways that appeared to be correlated across products.

Frei combined data from four previous studies that NSS Labs performed during the past 18 months to study the correlation between detection failures. In 2012, the company studied how well 16 intrusion prevention systems and eight next-generation firewalls did against nearly 1,500 exploits. In 2013, the company repeated the tests against next-generation firewalls using more than 1,700 exploits. The company also ran 13 endpoint protection packages against 43 recent exploits.

Frei and other experts pointed to three main lessons from the analysis:

1. Layering defenses does work
Combining products did reduce the effectiveness of attacks, albeit not as much as expected. Over the three tests of intrusion prevention systems and next-generation firewalls, the average failure rate varied between 4 and 9 percent. But two products together typically failed only 0.8 percent of the time. And while the average failure rate for endpoint protection products was 45 percent, using two programs together reduced it to 26 percent.

Yet adding on devices typically does not drive the number of failures to zero, as models that assume random failures would predict. While four next-generation firewalls in combination should have caught all the exploits in the 2013 test, in reality eight exploit bypassed all the tested firewalls, the analysis found.

[IT security professionals working to keep their organizations' systems and data safe need to follow the adage: To protect against a cyberattacker, you have to think like a cyberattacker. See How Attackers Choose Which Vulnerabilities To Exploit.]

"This significant correlation of detection failures indicates that deploying multiple products within a security category, or even multiple products across multiple categories ... does not always provide the 'defense in depth' that we are led to believe exists from studying vendor claims for the efficacy of their products," Frei states in the report.

2. Different technologies work better together
Companies that do decide to pair products to increase security should attempt to find products that will have the least amount of overlap between their detection failures. A comparison of next-generation firewalls, for example, found that a combination of the two worst performers still did more poorly than many other single products, while a combination of the two best products did not product the best result.

Overall, companies should look for products that take different approaches to security to best lock down their systems. Pairing antivirus software with a product that uses virtual containers is one example. Malwarebytes and Immunet, now part of Sourcefire's FireAmp product, typically approach malware detection in a different way than other AV companies and so are frequently used as companion programs.

"One antivirus program is enough to cover that section of the threat landscape," says Doug Swanson, vice president of development for Malwarebytes. "You pick up something like us to go after the portion of the landscape that they do not cover."

For companies that use multiple products in the same category -- firewall, intrusion prevention system, or antivirus -- performing their own analysis of the detection failures can help them identify products that tend to have correlated failures.

3. Duplicate, but expect failure
In the end, duplicating every product to gain defense in depth is cost-prohibitive, so companies have to be smart about their strategies, says Jason Brvenik, vice president of security strategy for Sourcefire, a maker of network and endpoint protection systems. As part of their strategies, businesses should plan for when their defenses fail.

"You do see overlap when you use different vendors for different aspects of security," he says. "But we are seeing attackers still being able to get in. They are still winning."

Companies need to design their layered defense to include, not just stopping the attackers from breaking in, but to alert defenders and slow down attackers' efforts once they are in the network, says Brvenik.

"It is changing the way you solve the problems from stopping the bad guys, to stopping them where you can, and understanding that when they succeed, you need to interdict before they get away with it," he says.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Add Your Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message. Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT's Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline ... View Full Bio

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 7/9/2020
Omdia Research Launches Page on Dark Reading
Tim Wilson, Editor in Chief, Dark Reading 7/9/2020
Mobile App Fraud Jumped in Q1 as Attackers Pivot from Browsers
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  7/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
This report describes some of the latest attacks and threats emanating from the Internet, as well as advice and tips on how your organization can mitigate those threats before they affect your business. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15105
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
Django Two-Factor Authentication before 1.12, stores the user's password in clear text in the user session (base64-encoded). The password is stored in the session when the user submits their username and password, and is removed once they complete authentication by entering a two-factor authenticati...
CVE-2020-11061
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
In Bareos Director less than or equal to 16.2.10, 17.2.9, 18.2.8, and 19.2.7, a heap overflow allows a malicious client to corrupt the director's memory via oversized digest strings sent during initialization of a verify job. Disabling verify jobs mitigates the problem. This issue is also patched in...
CVE-2020-4042
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
Bareos before version 19.2.8 and earlier allows a malicious client to communicate with the director without knowledge of the shared secret if the director allows client initiated connection and connects to the client itself. The malicious client can replay the Bareos director's cram-md5 challenge to...
CVE-2020-11081
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
osquery before version 4.4.0 enables a priviledge escalation vulnerability. If a Window system is configured with a PATH that contains a user-writable directory then a local user may write a zlib1.dll DLL, which osquery will attempt to load. Since osquery runs with elevated privileges this enables l...
CVE-2020-6114
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
An exploitable SQL injection vulnerability exists in the Admin Reports functionality of Glacies IceHRM v26.6.0.OS (Commit bb274de1751ffb9d09482fd2538f9950a94c510a) . A specially crafted HTTP request can cause SQL injection. An attacker can make an authenticated HTTP request to trigger this vulnerabi...