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.

ABTV

// // //

Faster Response Means Lower Costs

Speed may be the missing ingredient in minimizing damage from cyberattacks.

When responding to an emergency, speed matters. It's true in traffic incidents and structure fires, and it's true in the realm of computers and networks. There's no real surprise here, but a new report by the Aberdeen Group has quantified just how much speed matters -- and it turns out to matter quite a lot.

One of the things that the study (sponsored by McAfee) looked at was dwell time, or the time between breach and detection. Put another way, the dwell time is just how long the attacker was able to run free inside a system before being detected. The median time to detect in the attacks studied by Aberdeen (which were taken, in turn, from the Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report) was 38 days. That means half were detected in less that five weeks, while the other half took up to four years to be detected.

The report broke the attacks into two broad categories: those intended to steal information and those intended to disrupt service. Aberdeen found that the impact of response time differed greatly between the two types of attacks. In attacks designed to steal confidential data, detection and response twice as fast meant a reduction in business impact of 30%. In those attacks intended to disrupt service, detection and response twice as fast meant that business impact was reduced by 70%.

In a Security Now telephone interview with Barbara Kay, McAfee's senior director of product and solutions marketing, she pointed out that information like this can be important for an IT staff, especially when it comes to budget discussions. "You have people in IT trying to justify expenditures and this data set says that reducing time to detect and time to respond both make a tangible difference in impact. Investing in detection and response does have a tangible impact," Kay said. "This is a sound business decision."

Kay pointed out that knowing the importance of response time could have an impact on a less-easily measured IT factor, as well. "It makes staff know that their time matters," she said. "Showing the staff that their time matters and that they have an impact makes a difference in an overworked staff."

Longer response times were generally (though not always) attached to zero-day attacks -- attacks in which the first public knowledge of a vulnerability comes when it is used in a successful attack. In cases where the vulnerability is known and corrected before an attack is launched -- as with the recent WannaCry attack -- attention turns to whether the patch has been applied and the legitimacy of reasons for not patching the issue.

Aberdeen estimates that an enterprise will deal with between 220 and 660 vendor patches a year. That translates to a median of 910 hours a year in disruption to enterprise applications. Given that "five nines" reliability is seen as standard reliability in many organizations (a metric that, by the way, means 26 seconds per year in downtime), 910 hours is completely unacceptable. So what options are available to organizations that want to stay on top of the situation?

A solid patch-management regimen is at the top of the list. Next up is virtual patching -- sometimes known as external patching or vulnerability shielding -- to deal with the vulnerabilities before the system can be patched. In virtual patching, an attack based on a vulnerability is understood and a blocking rule is applied by a firewall, filter or UTM to prevent the exploit from ever reaching the vulnerable system. This can be an effective protective mechanism while waiting for patches to be applied.

So get faster. Much faster. It's the responsible thing to do in security.

— Curtis Franklin is the editor of SecurityNow.com. Follow him on Twitter @kg4gwa.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Machine Learning, AI & Deep Learning Improve Cybersecurity
Machine intelligence is influencing all aspects of cybersecurity. Organizations are implementing AI-based security to analyze event data using ML models that identify attack patterns and increase automation. Before security teams can take advantage of AI and ML tools, they need to know what is possible. This report covers: -How to assess the vendor's AI/ML claims -Defining success criteria for AI/ML implementations -Challenges when implementing AI
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-42247
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
pfSense v2.5.2 was discovered to contain a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the browser.php component. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary web scripts or HTML via a crafted payload injected into a file name.
CVE-2022-41443
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
phpipam v1.5.0 was discovered to contain a header injection vulnerability via the component /admin/subnets/ripe-query.php.
CVE-2022-33882
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
Under certain conditions, an attacker could create an unintended sphere of control through a vulnerability present in file delete operation in Autodesk desktop app (ADA). An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to escalate privileges and execute arbitrary code.
CVE-2022-42306
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
An issue was discovered in Veritas NetBackup through 8.2 and related Veritas products. An attacker with local access can send a crafted packet to pbx_exchange during registration and cause a NULL pointer exception, effectively crashing the pbx_exchange process.
CVE-2022-42307
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
An issue was discovered in Veritas NetBackup through 10.0.0.1 and related Veritas products. The NetBackup Primary server is vulnerable to an XML External Entity (XXE) Injection attack through the DiscoveryService service.