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.

Threat Intelligence

1/5/2017
02:30 PM
Terry Sweeney
Terry Sweeney
Slideshows
Connect Directly
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

7 Ways To Fine-Tune Your Threat Intelligence Model

The nature of security threats is too dynamic for set-and-forget. Here are some ways to shake off that complacency.
Previous
1 of 8
Next

Image Source: Pixabay

Image Source: Pixabay

We look at threat intelligence as the active, selective gathering of multiple threads: The latest malware variants, a new twist on ransomware, some nefarious innovation on social engineering, DDoS stratagems, to name a few.  These services are as different from old-school security feeds as sprinkler systems are from fire hydrants. Security feeds vacuum up (and disperse) everything in their wake; threat intel is, well, more intelligent, not to mention curated and customizable.

One of Dark Reading's columnists summed up the difference more succinctly: There's data, and then there's information – in the case of threat intel, it's specific data that allows users to gauge exposure and risk, then act accordingly. Business, government and non-profits see the value of threat intel; global service revenue is forecast to top $5.8 billion by 2020, according to Markets and Markets.

But the set-and-forget mentality is an occupational hazard in all of IT; seasoned infosec professionals understand the security landscape changes too quickly to relax for very long. So here are some flash points to help guard against complacency with threat intel, and maybe even raise your organization's security IQ.

What's worked for you and your organization? What's overblown marketing hype? We know you won't be shy about letting us know in the comments section… let us hear from you.

 

Terry Sweeney is a Los Angeles-based writer and editor who has covered technology, networking, and security for more than 20 years. He was part of the team that started Dark Reading and has been a contributor to The Washington Post, Crain's New York Business, Red Herring, ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Previous
1 of 8
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
cemal.dikmen
50%
50%
cemal.dikmen,
User Rank: Author
1/15/2017 | 8:11:20 AM
Question
lack of suitable technologies (525%). Did you mean 52%???
RetiredUser
50%
50%
RetiredUser,
User Rank: Ninja
1/5/2017 | 11:04:41 PM
Re: $5.8 billion
Michael, I think that makes sense if you look at the breakdown.  Keep in mind that this is a wide-ranging examination and as we in the tech world know, costs are in every nook and cranny.

The scope of the report looks at the whole threat intelligence security market and covers all the solutions below:
  • Security Information And Event Management (SIEM)
  • Log Management
  • Identity and Access Management (IAM)
  • Security and Vulnerability Management (SVM)
  • Risk Management
  • Incident Forensics

That's already quite a bit of annual $$ right there per solution.  Then the service breakdown below is also considered. 
  • Managed Services
    • Advance Threat Monitoring
    • Security Intelligence Feeds
  • Professional Services
    • Consulting Services
    • Training and Support

Considering the projection covers SMBs and Large Enterprises, all the major verticals and the North America, European, Asia-Pacific, Middle East & Africa, and Latin America markets, I actually wonder if the $$ assessment won't be found wanting by that time.

I understand your intitial doubt, but I work for a company that just spent about $25M on technology over the last couple years, not including budget for Security to secure that tech.  That's one major company in one major vertical in Tech.

I think the numbers are starting to look pretty solid with the scope in mind, and knowing the threat activity that is out there now and what we've seen in the past. 
michaelfillin
50%
50%
michaelfillin,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/5/2017 | 4:37:49 PM
$5.8 billion
$5.8 billion, really ? Can't trust that
News
Former CISA Director Chris Krebs Discusses Risk Management & Threat Intel
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  2/23/2021
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
Security + Fraud Protection: Your One-Two Punch Against Cyberattacks
Joshua Goldfarb, Director of Product Management at F5,  2/23/2021
News
Cybercrime Groups More Prolific, Focus on Healthcare in 2020
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/22/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Building the SOC of the Future
Building the SOC of the Future
Digital transformation, cloud-focused attacks, and a worldwide pandemic. The past year has changed the way business works and the way security teams operate. There is no going back.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-25284
PUBLISHED: 2021-02-27
An issue was discovered in through SaltStack Salt before 3002.5. salt.modules.cmdmod can log credentials to the info or error log level.
CVE-2021-3144
PUBLISHED: 2021-02-27
In SaltStack Salt before 3002.5, eauth tokens can be used once after expiration. (They might be used to run command against the salt master or minions.)
CVE-2021-3148
PUBLISHED: 2021-02-27
An issue was discovered in SaltStack Salt before 3002.5. Sending crafted web requests to the Salt API can result in salt.utils.thin.gen_thin() command injection because of different handling of single versus double quotes. This is related to salt/utils/thin.py.
CVE-2021-3151
PUBLISHED: 2021-02-27
i-doit before 1.16.0 is affected by Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) issues that could allow remote authenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via C__MONITORING__CONFIG__TITLE, SM2__C__MONITORING__CONFIG__TITLE, C__MONITORING__CONFIG__PATH, SM2__C__MONITORING__CONFIG__PATH, C__M...
CVE-2021-3197
PUBLISHED: 2021-02-27
An issue was discovered in SaltStack Salt before 3002.5. The salt-api's ssh client is vulnerable to a shell injection by including ProxyCommand in an argument, or via ssh_options provided in an API request.