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.

Endpoint

12/14/2016
12:00 PM
50%
50%

Anti-Malware Is Necessary In The Data Center: 3 Examples

Simply because data center endpoints don't have the same threat profile as general desktops doesn't mean they don't need anti-malware software. Here's why.

People often ask about the value of anti-malware software on data center endpoints such as Web servers, databases, file servers - the list goes on. This is a reasonable question because, with respect to malware, data center endpoints simply don’t have the same threat profile or business use-cases as general desktops, where users click on things all day, every day. Also, when endpoints don’t have all those pesky users, it would seem malware would have a much harder time getting onto data center endpoints. Yet, it happens all the time. How?

Before providing security guidance, I would first like to share the most common attack patterns seen in the wild, and recommendations backed up by data. For this, I rummaged through the Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR) 2016, which combines knowledge from more than 3,000 confirmed data breaches, and has a lot to say about malware usage.

The figure below, from the DBIR, presents an insightful attack pattern. What’s happening is, through a variety of extremely common techniques, such as phishing and others, a user’s desktop is compromised and infected with malware. While the data on this particular compromised endpoint may not be of high value, the malware is used to harvest static credentials (user names and passwords) just the same.

Birth and Rebirth of a Data Breach
Source: Verizon DBIR
Source: Verizon DBIR

 

The next step in the breach is often to leverage the stolen credentials to pivot across the network, logging into point-of-sale systems, databases, Web servers, and file servers — where the real crown jewels are located — and infecting them with malware for command and control, and data exfiltration purposes. Since the threat actor is using valid credentials to access these data center endpoints, and not exploits, intrusion detection alarm bells are less likely to be triggered. So, in this case, if anti-malware software had been installed on these endpoints, that’s one more effective security control a threat actor would have had to bypass in order to obtain what they were after.

Another topic the Verizon DBIR discusses is “secondary motives.” For example, threat actors will compromise Web servers in the data center, often through exploiting SQL Injection or a PHP Remote File Include, and implant malware on the endpoint. The malware will typically have a couple of common purposes separate from data exfiltration.

One purpose is what’s referred to as a watering hole attack. The threat actor selects a certain website to compromise and serves up malware to a particular set of users - their primary targets - who are likely to visit the website. Another purpose is for the malware to launch spam campaigns or DDoS attacks on more primary targets.

Websites often have far more computing resources and bandwidth at their disposal than a typical user PC, which makes them attractive targets. Again, if sufficient anti-malware technology had been installed on Web servers, it would have made it that much harder for the bad guys to establish a foothold, even though they successfully exploited a vulnerability.

Count of Hashes by Lifespans In Seconds
Image Source: Verizon DBIR
Image Source: Verizon DBIR

These examples show how important anti-malware software would have been in protecting against these unwarranted attacks. When reviewing common attack patterns, anti-malware software absolutely has value in the data center. With the introduction of new, signature-free next-generation approaches that use machine learning and dynamic behavior tracking, organizations can deploy this technology in a minimally invasive manner.

This is crucial to understand. As the Verizon DBIR also said, and the figure above illustrates, "99% of malware hashes are seen for only 58 seconds or less.” If we can disrupt the way adversaries generally conduct their operations, we can make the biggest impact in protecting our systems.

Related Content:

Jeremiah Grossman, Chief of Security Strategy, SentinelOne, Professional Hacker, Black Belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, & Founder of WhiteHat Security. Jeremiah Grossman's career spans nearly 20 years. He has lived a literal lifetime in computer security to become one of the ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
News
Inside the Ransomware Campaigns Targeting Exchange Servers
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/2/2021
Commentary
Beyond MITRE ATT&CK: The Case for a New Cyber Kill Chain
Rik Turner, Principal Analyst, Infrastructure Solutions, Omdia,  3/30/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
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-2015-20001
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.2.0, BinaryHeap is not panic-safe. The binary heap is left in an inconsistent state when the comparison of generic elements inside sift_up or sift_down_range panics. This bug leads to a drop of zeroed memory as an arbitrary type, which can result in a memory ...
CVE-2020-36317
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.49.0, String::retain() function has a panic safety problem. It allows creation of a non-UTF-8 Rust string when the provided closure panics. This bug could result in a memory safety violation when other string APIs assume that UTF-8 encoding is used on the sam...
CVE-2020-36318
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.49.0, VecDeque::make_contiguous has a bug that pops the same element more than once under certain condition. This bug could result in a use-after-free or double free.
CVE-2021-28875
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.50.0, read_to_end() does not validate the return value from Read in an unsafe context. This bug could lead to a buffer overflow.
CVE-2021-28876
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.52.0, the Zip implementation has a panic safety issue. It calls __iterator_get_unchecked() more than once for the same index when the underlying iterator panics (in certain conditions). This bug could lead to a memory safety violation due to an unmet safety r...