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.

Perimeter

10/24/2013
08:25 PM
50%
50%

To Determine Threat Level, Context Matters

Computers communicating with the Amazon cloud, users logging in after hours, and the risk posed by Java; without context, evaluating threats is nearly impossible

While many security professionals are ready to toss Java--the favored target of attackers' exploitation efforts--out of the enterprise, business decision makers often fall back on classifying the software as a business necessity.

Yet, neither side generally has a good way to evaluate the threat posed by Java, because they lack data on actual use of Java in the business and how often malware incidents are caused by the software, says Michael Viscuso, CEO of Carbon Black, a business and security intelligence firm. In a presentation in early October at the ISSA International Conference, Viscuso showed attendees how one company evaluated their use of Java--72 workers needed it for online-meeting software--versus its relative threat--a handful of malware infections could be traced back to the exploitation of a Java vulnerability.

"Getting that context helps malware hunters find more malware and, at the same time, helps the decision maker know that, if I am going to disable Java across the enterprise, then I need a replacement to appease those 72 people," he says. "Now I can answer questions about the security of the business."

While intelligence on attackers can help companies understand the threat landscape, only when that information is married to a company's specific internal data does it really enable businesses to take a more active role is defending their networks. And combining different sets of business-specific data to find relationships can be build an even stronger context in which to evaluate threats, says Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer with CrowdStrike.

"All these different sources of data can help you make a better decisions about what the threat means to your business," he says.

What constitutes context? Different security experts have different definitions. Carbon Black's Viscuso breaks context down into four attributes: Visibility into events on the network, metadata from those events, the frequency the events happen and the ability to track relationships between different events. Much of the time, companies only look at events; perhaps, they combine it with frequency information and metadata; but do they look at the relationship between different events.

"With that approach, you are looking at each event individually, and that means you have to be correct about each event, whether it is something bad or something good," he says. "With relationships, it becomes much more obvious what is good, what is bad and what is a false positive or negative."

[Threat intelligence is only useful if it's tailored to your specific organization. Here are some tips on how to customize. See Creating And Maintaining A Custom Threat Profile.]

Looking at events as snapshots in time hampers companies from finding the threats in their network and evaluating the criticality of those threats, agrees CrowdStrike's Alperovitch.

"You may see anomalous activity on the inside, such as traffic going to a certain IP address or a program downloaded from the Internet, but it really means nothing without context--what adversary you are dealing with," he says.

The first stop to developing better context, however, is to know what is going on inside their own network. That visibility component is the foundation of everything that comes after, says Lance James, head of intelligence for security-services firm Vigilant, a Deloitte company.

"Make sure you get to know your network first," he says. "You should not be getting threat data if you don't know what is going on in your network."

Once a good baseline of visibility is established, the relationship between network traffic, user identity and the company's applications can help the company develop a context in which to evaluate threats, says Will Hayes, chief product officer at LucidWorks, a data-analytics firm.

"If you can quantify the identity, know the session, and you understand the applications, in a broader sense, you can do a whole lot of statistical analysis and find out a lot of interesting things; you would definitely find anomalous behavior," he says.

By building up personas, representations of the company's users and their activities, a company can quickly evaluate any new event within that context and quickly determine if the event poses a threat, Hayes 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

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
SOC 2s & Third-Party Assessments: How to Prevent Them from Being Used in a Data Breach Lawsuit
Beth Burgin Waller, Chair, Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Practice , Woods Rogers PLC,  12/5/2019
Navigating Security in the Cloud
Diya Jolly, Chief Product Officer, Okta,  12/4/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Our Endpoint Protection system is a little outdated... 
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19604
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-11
Arbitrary command execution is possible in Git before 2.20.2, 2.21.x before 2.21.1, 2.22.x before 2.22.2, 2.23.x before 2.23.1, and 2.24.x before 2.24.1 because a "git submodule update" operation can run commands found in the .gitmodules file of a malicious repository.
CVE-2019-14861
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
All Samba versions 4.x.x before 4.9.17, 4.10.x before 4.10.11 and 4.11.x before 4.11.3 have an issue, where the (poorly named) dnsserver RPC pipe provides administrative facilities to modify DNS records and zones. Samba, when acting as an AD DC, stores DNS records in LDAP. In AD, the default permiss...
CVE-2019-14870
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
All Samba versions 4.x.x before 4.9.17, 4.10.x before 4.10.11 and 4.11.x before 4.11.3 have an issue, where the S4U (MS-SFU) Kerberos delegation model includes a feature allowing for a subset of clients to be opted out of constrained delegation in any way, either S4U2Self or regular Kerberos authent...
CVE-2019-14889
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
A flaw was found with the libssh API function ssh_scp_new() in versions before 0.9.3 and before 0.8.8. When the libssh SCP client connects to a server, the scp command, which includes a user-provided path, is executed on the server-side. In case the library is used in a way where users can influence...
CVE-2019-1484
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-10
A remote code execution vulnerability exists when Microsoft Windows OLE fails to properly validate user input, aka 'Windows OLE Remote Code Execution Vulnerability'.