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

8/28/2013
07:37 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Struggling With Attack Detection And Analysis

New survey shows organizations don't know when they've been attacked and can't easily determine scope of attacks

Enterprises are increasingly finding it harder to detect attacks in a timely fashion or quickly determine the scope of attacks when they are discovered. A new survey out this week shows that while the majority of organizations seem confident in their ability to quickly analyze and respond to security alerts, many have a hard time finding attacks in real-time or even being sure they've experienced an attack.

Conducted among 250 decision-makers worldwide, the Bit9 survey showed that 62 percent of organizations analyze and respond to security alerts. However, more than a fifth of organizations reported their ability to protect endpoints and servers from emerging threats that have no signature to be deficient or non-existent. Nearly the same amount of organizations reported the same deficiency in their ability to determine in real-time how many systems are infected by file discovered to be malicious.

Furthermore, 55 percent of organizations reported that they either couldn't discover zero-day attacks or only could find them by accident during routine maintenance or if a user contacts help desk due to abnormal system behavior.

[Are you missing the downsides of big data security analysis? See 3 Inconvenient Truths About Big Data In Security Analysis.]

Perhaps most telling of all, though, is that a full 13 percent of decision makers reported that they didn't know whether they'd experienced an attack in the past year.

"That was a big surprise. I would expect that number to be a single digit and a low single digit at that," says Nick Levay, CSO of Bit9. "A lot of organizations don't necessarily do a good job of keeping track of metrics related security events. I have a feeling that inadequate tracking of some of that stuff results in senior decision makers not necessarily having an accurate view of what kinds of security events are occurring in the network."

It's a trend corroborated by many experts operating within the security space, who explain that organizations are not able to keep up with advanced attacks due to poor visibility across isolated systems.

"Many companies have infected machines and don't even know it, highlighting the advanced nature of certain malware," says Vann Abernethy, senior product manager at NSFOCUS. "Some very advanced malware variants can move laterally within an organization to avoid detection, then go dormant for a long time, communicate back to its command and control using encryption, or turn off common anti-virus and anti-malware."

Abernethy explains that organizations need to be able to augment existing security defenses with better forensics, so that security teams are looking closely at system behavior through "daily forensic inspection and data analysis."

Most organizations today don't focus enough on that kind of analysis, instead overly relying on alerting and prevention tools, says Jason Mical, vice president of cyber security for AccessData.

"These products only catch what you tell them to look for," he says. "At this point, organizations need to increase their visibility into what's happening in their enterprises and focus on eliminating those cyber security blind spots."

In order to do that, more security organizations have to streamline their cybersecurity infrastructure, Mical says.

This means finding ways to better enable real-time collaboration across different infosec teams and potentially considering ways to consolidate disparate analysis tools into a platform-based technology approach.

"Right now, most organizations still have disparate teams, each using several disparate tools. They have to correlate all the critical data manually," he says. "It causes dangerous delays in validating suspected threats or responding to known threats."

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.

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/14/2020
Lock-Pickers Face an Uncertain Future Online
Seth Rosenblatt, Contributing Writer,  8/10/2020
Hacking It as a CISO: Advice for Security Leadership
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 New Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities That Could Put Your Enterprise at Risk
In this Dark Reading Tech Digest, we look at the ways security researchers and ethical hackers find critical vulnerabilities and offer insights into how you can fix them before attackers can exploit them.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-17475
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of authentication in the network relays used in MEGVII Koala 2.9.1-c3s allows attackers to grant physical access to anyone by sending packet data to UDP port 5000.
CVE-2020-0255
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2020-10751. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2020-10751. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2020-10751 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-14353
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2017-18270. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2017-18270. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2017-18270 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-17464
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none.
CVE-2020-17473
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of mutual authentication in ZKTeco FaceDepot 7B 1.0.213 and ZKBiosecurity Server 1.0.0_20190723 allows an attacker to obtain a long-lasting token by impersonating the server.