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.

Black Hat Asia
March 26-29, 2019
Singapore
Black Hat USA
August 3-8, 2019
Las Vegas, NV, USA
Black Hat Europe
December 2-5, 2019
London UK
10/21/2016
02:00 PM
Black Hat Staff
Black Hat Staff
Event Updates
50%
50%

Black Hat Europe 2016:
The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Security Operations

Why cyber analysts spend nearly 75% if their time on false positives, and what to do about it.

False positives … those annoying notifications that make you panic at first, but after further investigation, turn out to be nothing to worry about. Initially, they seem like a minor inconvenience but what happens when you have hundreds, or even thousands of them occurring every day and you find yourself wasting 75% (or more) of your time on them? 

Unfortunately, this is exactly what’s happening to cybersecurity analysts in Security Operation Centers all over the world who are following a traditional, reactive approach to security threat monitoring. Within most SOCs, false positives are a major problem not only because they take up time and resources to address, but also because they distract security analysts from dealing with legitimate security threats. In addition, when security analysts become desensitized to alerts due to a high volume of false positives, they start to miss true indicators of cyberattacks. 

What causes false positives? The most common source of false positives are poorly configured or poorly tuned security tools such as SIEM solutions, IDS/IPS solutions, and endpoint detection and response tools. Each of these solutions uses a variety of techniques to detect attacks based on a set of pre-defined rules, known signatures, patterns, expected user behaviors, and so on. A false positive typically originates within one of these solutions when a rule, signature or pattern is defined too broadly, or is missing some logic. As a result, the solution incorrectly identifies events that match the current logic, even though they aren’t legitimate security threats. With that in mind, here are seven basic habits that organizations can follow to help minimize false positives:

1) Be proactive.The most important characteristic of successful security operations is to be proactive in your threat management approach. If all you do is wait for alerts and alarms to go off, you will spend more time chasing false positives than you will on identifying real threats. It’s critical to be proactive in hunting for threats, which is the only proven approach for detecting the most advanced cyber threats. At Raytheon Foreground Security, we follow a framework and related methodology that we developed called proactive threat hunting to implement this important concept.

2) Begin with the end in mind. Alerting technologies can significantly improve your ability to identify suspicious or malicious activity when used correctly. Unfortunately, many organizations use them too broadly. The key is to focus on the types of threats you intend to detect. To do that, it’s necessary to first assess the risk and security needs of your business and then focus your alerting technologies on the highest-risk threats. Focusing on your end goal (i.e., the most relevant threats you want to detect) will help reduce false positives.

3) Put first things first. Prioritization is one of the best tools a SOC can use to minimize time spent on false positives. Alerts that have the highest reliability and are associated with detecting high-risk events should obviously be assigned a higher priority so analysts can work the queue from highest priority to lowest, ensuring the most reliable alerts covering the events of the greatest risk are addressed first.

4) Think win-win. Thinking win-win sees life as a cooperative arena, not a competitive one. You can apply this concept by choosing collaborative intelligence sources that will bring different fidelity, relevance, and value to your security operations. (Choose wisely though; blindly integrating intelligence feeds without evaluating their fidelity and false positive rates could actually have a detrimental effect on your security operations, if you’re not careful.)

5) Seek first to understand. Addressing the issue of false positives should start with a thorough understanding of what threats a given tool is intended to address, as well as how it functions. When implementing a tool, ensure that you fully understand the reason for deploying it, rather than making assumptions about common use cases, or worse - installing a tool with default settings.

6) Synergize (use correlation). In many cases, an event may not be interesting unless it’s observed along with one or more other events of interest. In such cases, you should use a set of clearly defined correlation rules and only send an alert to your work queue if all related correlation criteria are satisfied.

7) Fine tune your tactics. Continuously improve and adjust alerting rules based on lessons learned. By reviewing every alert that goes into your queue, you’ll learn how to tune and improve your rules. Today's threats are sophisticated and require intelligent, targeted, insightful alert logic to extract events of concern while minimizing false positives. Continuously working to tune this logic is critical for minimizing false positives.    

Although false positives will always exist in cyber security operations, it is possible to minimize their quantity and impact by following the seven basic habits described above. For more information, visit foregroundsecurity.com.

 

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
CathyRoberson19
50%
50%
CathyRoberson19,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/27/2016 | 2:58:32 AM
Great,
Great points you made, thanks for the tips. This is an easy way to learn about unknown stuffs and know what they do thereby creating a relationship. I love these stuffs that relates to my topic of one's writing or general good points are great way to go.

essayservices .org
CathyRoberson19
50%
50%
CathyRoberson19,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/27/2016 | 2:57:40 AM
Great,
Great points you made, thanks for the tips. This is an easy way to learn about unknown stuffs and know what they do thereby creating a relationship. I love these stuffs that relates to my topic of one's writing or general good points are great way to go.

essayservices.org
For Cybersecurity to Be Proactive, Terrains Must Be Mapped
Craig Harber, Chief Technology Officer at Fidelis Cybersecurity,  10/8/2019
A Realistic Threat Model for the Masses
Lysa Myers, Security Researcher, ESET,  10/9/2019
USB Drive Security Still Lags
Dark Reading Staff 10/9/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-17545
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-14
GDAL through 3.0.1 has a poolDestroy double free in OGRExpatRealloc in ogr/ogr_expat.cpp when the 10MB threshold is exceeded.
CVE-2019-17546
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-14
tif_getimage.c in LibTIFF through 4.0.10, as used in GDAL through 3.0.1 and other products, has an integer overflow that potentially causes a heap-based buffer overflow via a crafted RGBA image, related to a "Negative-size-param" condition.
CVE-2019-17547
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-14
In ImageMagick before 7.0.8-62, TraceBezier in MagickCore/draw.c has a use-after-free.
CVE-2019-17501
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-14
Centreon 19.04 allows attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via the Command Line field of main.php?p=60807&type=4 (aka the Configuration > Commands > Discovery screen).
CVE-2019-17539
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-14
In FFmpeg before 4.2, avcodec_open2 in libavcodec/utils.c allows a NULL pointer dereference and possibly unspecified other impact when there is no valid close function pointer.