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 //

Privacy

7/20/2018
04:05 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

What the Incident Responders Saw

New report on IR professionals' experiences reveals just how advanced attackers, such as nation-state hackers, dig in even after they're detected.

When incident response teams shut down an advanced attack, most of them then find a backup command-and-control infrastructure lying in wait to trigger after the first one gets taken down. Overall, nearly half end up battling attackers who try to thwart incident response and remediation efforts.

That's just some of the activity IR professionals say they experience, according to a new Carbon Black study of 37 large incident response teams running Carbon Black's next-generation endpoint security tool. The new Quarterly Incident Response Threat Report is based on surveys and interviews with large IR partners - such as Kroll and Rapid7 - who on average conducted one IR engagement per day in 2017, and handle 300-400 IR engagements per quarter.

"Sixty-four percent found a secondary C2 on sleep cycle," says Tom Kellermann, chief security officer at Carbon Black. "This highlights how the adversary has gone from burglary to home invasion: they intend on staying and will take counter attempts ... and could get destructive."

Russia and China, not surprisingly, are the main sources of attacks: 81% of IR pros say Russia is the number one offender, and 76% say China. But that doesn't mean all of the security incidents they investigated were cyber spying: just a third of responders say the cases were cyber espionage. Nearly 80% say the financial sector is the most targeted industry, followed by healthcare (73%) and government (43%).

Close to 60% of attacks involve lateral movement, or where the attacker travels from its initial victim machine to other machines in a targeted organization. PowerShell is one of the most popular tools for moving about the victim's network: 100% of IR pros say they've seen the Microsoft Windows automation and configuration management tool employed by attackers, and 84% see Windows Management Interface (WMI) as a key tool weaponized by attackers.

This so-called "living off the land" approach of running legitimate tools to remain under the radar is classic behavior of persistent hacker teams such as nation-states. Some 54% of IR pros say legit operating system applications like these are being abused by attackers. In addition, 16% have spotted attackers running Dropbox to assist in their movements.

"The uptick of WMI is concerning," notes Kellermann, as well as the use of process-hollowing and unsigned digital certificates. "It speaks to the level of sophistication [being used] to colonize that infrastructure."

Meanwhile, 36% say victim organizations are mainly hacked for the purpose of reaching their supply chain members (think customers and partners).

A key technique for defending against attackers who are burrowing in for the long haul is to quietly investigate and hunt them so they don't have time to switch gears and retool their attack, according to Kellermann. "The number one thing we need to evolve in as defenders is to become more quiet and clandestine in how we hunt," he says.

That means, for example, not immediately shutting off a C2 you discover if you can further study its activity with deception or other advanced techniques, he says.

According to Carbon Black's report, "Deciding when to reveal oneself is critical, as counter-incident response measures as destructive attacks are becoming the norm."

Related Content:

 

 

 

Black Hat USA returns to Las Vegas with hands-on technical Trainings, cutting-edge Briefings, Arsenal open-source tool demonstrations, top-tier security solutions and service providers in the Business Hall. Click for information on the conference and to register.

Kelly Jackson Higgins is Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
97% of Americans Can't Ace a Basic Security Test
Steve Zurier, Contributing Writer,  5/20/2019
TeamViewer Admits Breach from 2016
Dark Reading Staff 5/20/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: I told you we should worry abit more about vendor lock-in.
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
The transition from DevOps to SecDevOps is combining with the move toward cloud computing to create new challenges - and new opportunities - for the information security team. Download this report, to learn about the new best practices for secure application development.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-7068
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have an use after free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .
CVE-2019-7069
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have a type confusion vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .
CVE-2019-7070
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have an use after free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .
CVE-2019-7071
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to information disclosure.
CVE-2019-7072
PUBLISHED: 2019-05-24
Adobe Acrobat and Reader versions 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2019.010.20069 and earlier, 2017.011.30113 and earlier version, and 2015.006.30464 and earlier have an use after free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution .