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.

Attacks/Breaches

7/20/2015
10:30 AM
John Strand
John Strand
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

How I Learned To Love Active Defense

Yes, traditional cyber defenses can be effective. They just need to be a little more active.

There has been quite a bit of discussion on active defense and hacking back lately and, once again, it seems that many of the discussion points seem to fall into basic categories of revenge hacking and no active defense versus traditional defenses.  But is there a way to think about active defense in such a way that it is neither controversial nor giving up?

First, a thought experiment in threat modeling because buzzwords are fun.

Take a few moments and think of three AV companies. 

Please take a moment and write them down.

Now, take a few moments and think of three IDS/IPS/firewall vendors. 

Please write them down as well.

Next, take a few moments and write down your major threat actors. We usually see organized crime on this list along side various nation states.

Ok, one last question, do you believe the threat actors you listed have the ability to bypass the technologies/vendors you listed? The answer without question is yes, they can.  But why?  The reason is quite simple when thought through. In most organizations, the security technologies used are often the same technologies, deployed in roughly the same configuration again, and again, and again. It is easy, if not trivial, for many attackers to purchase the same technologies you use to defend your network in the efforts to bypass them in a lab setting before they even attack your network. So, before a single evil packet is slung, they know they will get in. They also know they will not be detected.

How does an active defense posture assist with this? Simply put, it introduces a little chaos into network security architectures. If attackers don’t know what is there, they will make mistakes.  These mistakes are key when improving detection capabilities.

Triple A of Active Defense
Active defense can be broken down into three main groups: annoyance, attribution, and attack.  It helps to break active defense down like this because it allows this defensive tactic to be much more than "hacking back."

Annoyance: This is where we try to increase the amount of work effort an attacker needs to put forth to attack a network. This can be achieved through honeypots, bogus DNS entries, and infinitely recursive web directories to stall or break web crawlers. Even IPS systems, which take an active response to attack behaviors, can be in this category. This can also be called security through obscurity. It has been said that “security through obscurity is no security at all.” This phrase is catchy, but not true. If you are properly monitoring the points of obscurity the attacker may mistakenly fall into, it can greatly increase your detection dates. 

For example, let’s say an attacker scans the ports of one of your external systems. Let’s say that it appears that every port is open and responding with a different service profile. How long do you think it would take for the attacker to find the real ports? In the process of doing so, would they trip alerts along the way? Tools like Portspoof do just this, and can be highly effective deterrent/detective components of any defensive architecture.

Attribution:  This is where we are trying to unmask the attackers. This can be done via Word web bugs, applets, ActiveX controls, and macros to identify the IP location and geolocation of attackers. This phase is great for incident response and for identifying more advanced attackers trying to break into your networks. 

Attack: This is where most people think active defense takes place. It is hacking back using pentest tricks like fake websites with malware embedded in them, macros for remote access to an attacker’s system, and lurking for specific intel about the attacker. I will keep this simple: Do not do this phases without fully executed warrants and the participation of law enforcement.

If this sounds a bit overwhelming for some of you, don’t be discouraged. There is a free distribution toolkit called the Active Defense Harbinger Distribution, which has all the tools one would need to get started installed and ready to go. There is even a usage document on the desktop with full, step-by-step directions on how to use each tool.

A few additional words of caution. First, never engage in hacking back for revenge. Without a warrant. it is illegal. It is also wrong.  

Second, there are more than a few people who caution against active defense because the attackers may get angry and trash your network. This argument is the equivalent of giving up. 

Finally, there are some who say we need to focus on the basics and fundamentals first. I would say this, too, is incomplete. Active defense is something that can complement and extend traditional defenses. The two are not in conflict; it is not an either/or situation. 

One finally thought: When you started in security, did you think it would be waiting around for the next breach? Did you think it would be reduced to babysitting various tools?  Or did you think it would be a dynamic field where you would go against attackers and track them down?  Traditional defenses can be effective. They just need to be a little more active.

John Strand is a senior instructor with the SANS Institute. He teaches SEC504: Hacker Techniques, Exploits, and Incident Handling; SEC560: Network Penetration Testing and Ethical Hacking; SEC580: Metasploit Kung Fu for Enterprise Pen Testing; and SEC464: Hacker Guard: ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Titaninfosec
50%
50%
Titaninfosec,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/21/2015 | 2:47:33 PM
Legality of Hack Back
Hi John, nice article. I have written many articles on this topic and agree with all you stated, to include the legal cautions. But, there are methods to conduct the attribution and attack back portions legally without having law enforcement involvement or warrants. Most of my articles on this topic and the "how to" legally are published in the ISSA Journal. Dave (Risk and Cyber Attorney)

 
Commentary
How SolarWinds Busted Up Our Assumptions About Code Signing
Dr. Jethro Beekman, Technical Director,  3/3/2021
News
'ObliqueRAT' Now Hides Behind Images on Compromised Websites
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  3/2/2021
News
Attackers Turn Struggling Software Projects Into Trojan Horses
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/26/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
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
CVE-2021-27099
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-05
In SPIRE before versions 0.8.5, 0.9.4, 0.10.2, 0.11.3 and 0.12.1, the "aws_iid" Node Attestor improperly normalizes the path provided through the agent ID templating feature, which may allow the issuance of an arbitrary SPIFFE ID within the same trust domain, if the attacker controls the v...
CVE-2021-28038
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-05
An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel through 5.11.3, as used with Xen PV. A certain part of the netback driver lacks necessary treatment of errors such as failed memory allocations (as a result of changes to the handling of grant mapping errors). A host OS denial of service may occur during m...
CVE-2021-28039
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-05
An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel 5.9.x through 5.11.3, as used with Xen. In some less-common configurations, an x86 PV guest OS user can crash a Dom0 or driver domain via a large amount of I/O activity. The issue relates to misuse of guest physical addresses when a configuration has CONFI...
CVE-2021-28040
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-05
An issue was discovered in OSSEC 3.6.0. An uncontrolled recursion vulnerability in os_xml.c occurs when a large number of opening and closing XML tags is used. Because recursion is used in _ReadElem without restriction, an attacker can trigger a segmentation fault once unmapped memory is reached.
CVE-2020-28502
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-05
This affects the package xmlhttprequest before 1.7.0; all versions of package xmlhttprequest-ssl. Provided requests are sent synchronously (async=False on xhr.open), malicious user input flowing into xhr.send could result in arbitrary code being injected and run.