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.


11:30 AM
Danelle Au
Danelle Au
Connect Directly
E-Mail vvv

I, for One, Welcome Our Robotic Security Overlords

Automation will come in more subtle ways than C-3PO - and it's transforming cybersecurity.

There's a common fallacy in popular culture that depicts robots as an improved, mechanical version of the human form. The Tin Man from The Wizard of Oz, Gort from The Day the Earth Stood Still, Rosie from The Jetsons,and C-3PO from Star Wars are just a few classic examples of that mistaken assumption. Actual humanish robots don't do as well as their science fiction counterparts, as this compilation clip from the DARPA Robotics Competition gloriously illustrates.

Humans are all-purpose survivors. Robots, on the other hand, are at their best when designed to carry out specific tasks. Don't think Tin Man; think ZX200S. Don't think Rosie; think Roomba. Robots can accomplish the things they are designed to do faster and more accurately than people — and without fatigue or complaint. The fatigue part is critical. At our best, humans are prone to make mistakes. And while practice improves our performance, fatigue will quickly degrade both our motor functions and our decision-making. To protect public safety, truck drivers and pilots are limited by law from operating their vehicles for long periods without adequate rest. And with evidence that driving drowsy can be as dangerous as driving intoxicated, many states have laws against fatigued driving by private motorists.

Fatigue is also an issue in cybersecurity — one that can lead to poor decision-making. On their own, security analysts can't be expected to keep pace with the onslaught of threats. The volume and persistence of attacks against the enterprise are simply too high and too constant. By some calculations, networks may be subject to thousands of attempts to breach security every day, and if yours is a high-priority target, that number is far greater. It is estimated that the U.S. Department of Defense is bombarded by a withering 36 million daily email-borne attacks. Even at our best, human beings can't handle those kinds of numbers. We need help.

Fortunately, we are seeing greater use of automation and machine-driven decision-making tools to combat this problem. As always, new categories of cybersecurity technology have emerged to meet growing threats and are giving enterprises a means of not only thwarting the adversary, but of overcoming the pitfalls that come with relying solely on human intervention.

Here are some predominant ways automation is transforming cybersecurity:

• Practice and Repetition for Preparedness
Security's biggest challenge was trying to prove a negative. No breach must mean that the technology and defense is working. Yet at some point, compromise is confirmed, and sometimes it existed for an extended period — and rarely is anyone ready. The reality is that true preparedness — and from it, we hope, prevention — comes from two models that must be understood and repeated, as often if possible, and with automated technology assistance where available. The two viewpoints that need to be driven into organizational muscle memory are "paths, not point-of-attack" and "plan execution, not point-in-time."

It's crucial to understand that one compromise does not make a breach. Finding the point of entry is only the beginning of the "kill chain," and organizations need to find as many of the subsequent paths to the ultimate target — and then also track the potential paths back out. Automation is huge in calculating the universe of paths and probabilities. Once this is done, repetition — both in practicing attacks and coordinating response — are the critical complement. Industry analyst firm Gartner has outlined some of the technologies in these two categories, terming them breach and attack simulation and security orchestration and response, respectively.  

• Correlation of Data for Incident Response
One of the biggest challenges for security analysts when they receive an alert is understanding whether the threat is real or not (that is, a false positive). A variety of data from different sources is needed to make that decision. For example, if a malware alert is triggered, an analyst might want to pull the logs for the device associated with the IP address in question, validate the owner and role of the device with a network access control system, and check the malware sample in VirusTotal (to see if another security product has detected this variant). Security automation and orchestration platforms can simplify this process, enabling multiple sources of information to be pulled together into one screen for analysts to query, eliminating one of cybersecurity's most time-consuming operational tasks.

•Security Analytics for Threat Detection
The first phase of threat detection technology that emerged gave security teams the ability to detonate files with potential infection in a virtual sandbox — the advanced persistent threat or zero-day malware solution. Once a file was found to be infected, a signature for the malware in question was created, extending protections beyond "patient zero." New automation and analytics solutions expand beyond this capability to include processing and analyzing massive amounts of user and network data to identify anomalies. Automation enables faster and more accurate analysis and, combined with machine learning, brings greater insights to potential threats lurking in the environment.

Automation in cybersecurity brings the promise of scalability of resources, maximization of efficiencies, and increased effectiveness. What is critical is to ensure that vendors offering each of the promising technologies above do not further bog down security teams with more "noise."

Tomorrow's security operations centers won't be staffed by robotic bipeds with lasers for eyes and synthesized voices asking the hackers they detect to "take me to your leader." But they will be — and indeed are — outfitted by sophisticated systems that use machine learning, intelligent automation, and indefatigable vigilance to keep hackers from succeeding at their craft. I, for one, welcome our robotic security overlords.

Related Content:

Danelle is vice president of strategy at SafeBreach. She has more than 15 years of experience bringing new technologies to market. Prior to SafeBreach, Danelle led strategy and marketing at Adallom, a cloud security company acquired by Microsoft. She was also responsible for ... View Full Bio

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
User Rank: Apprentice
7/26/2018 | 11:24:54 AM
Good post
Good post.Thank you for sharing it.It is informative and very useful too
How SolarWinds Busted Up Our Assumptions About Code Signing
Dr. Jethro Beekman, Technical Director,  3/3/2021
'ObliqueRAT' Now Hides Behind Images on Compromised Websites
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  3/2/2021
Attackers Turn Struggling Software Projects Into Trojan Horses
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/26/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
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
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-09
Products.GenericSetup is a mini-framework for expressing the configured state of a Zope Site as a set of filesystem artifacts. In Products.GenericSetup before version 2.1.1 there is an information disclosure vulnerability - anonymous visitors may view log and snapshot files generated by the Generic ...
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-09
The `com.bmuschko:gradle-vagrant-plugin` Gradle plugin contains an information disclosure vulnerability due to the logging of the system environment variables. When this Gradle plugin is executed in public CI/CD, this can lead to sensitive credentials being exposed to malicious actors. This is fixed...
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-09
react-dev-utils prior to v11.0.4 exposes a function, getProcessForPort, where an input argument is concatenated into a command string to be executed. This function is typically used from react-scripts (in Create React App projects), where the usage is safe. Only when this function is manually invoke...
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-08
Dell iDRAC8 versions prior to contain a host header injection vulnerability. A remote unauthenticated attacker may potentially exploit this vulnerability by injecting arbitrary ‘Host’ header values to poison a web-cache or trigger redirections.
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-08
Maxum Rumpus 8.2.13 and 8.2.14 is affected by a command injection vulnerability. The web administration contains functionality in which administrators are able to manage users. The edit users form contains a parameter vulnerable to command injection due to insufficient validation.