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.

Comments
7 Tips To Improve 'Signal-to-Noise' In The SOC
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
Marilyn Cohodas
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
4/22/2014 | 12:43:17 PM
Lowering the noise level
Thanks for sharing you wisdom with the Dark Reading community Joshua. In your experience, what do you think are the biggest mistakes SOCs make in loweirng the noise level?
jg@npulsetech.com
[email protected],
User Rank: Apprentice
4/22/2014 | 2:07:52 PM
Re: Lowering the noise level
Excellent question, Marilyn, and thank you.  In my experience, organizations too often take an "all or nothing" approach to managing the noise level.  For example, an organization may say "we get too many alerts from source X, so we are just going to ignore or turn off all alerts from source X."  I think a better approach would be "let's think about what business, operational, and security needs we can address through alerts from source X and tune source X delicately to address those needs."  Additionally, organizations will sometimes emote or intuit noise reduction.  Phrases like "this feels like it's less actionable" or "I think this is always a false positive" can be dangerous.  The best source for educated decisions is the data.  The data do not lie and form the basis for good security decision making (and the tips provided in the article of course).
Marilyn Cohodas
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
4/23/2014 | 9:45:40 AM
Re: Lowering the noise level -- gut feelings
Phrases like "this feels like it's less actionable" or "I think this is always a false positive" can be dangerous.

How do you quantify those "gut feelings." And is there no place for them in the SOC?
jg@npulsetech.com
[email protected],
User Rank: Apprentice
4/23/2014 | 9:58:54 AM
Re: Lowering the noise level -- gut feelings
Another excellent question Marilyn, thank you.  Gut feelings, or put another way, intuition, can certainly catalyze and inspire investigation and analysis.  Not every feeling or intuition is going to lead in a productive direction of course, and only experience can really help determine what may be a promising intuition vs. what may not be a good use of resources.  For example, it is reasonable to say "I don't think we have any legitimate business traffic to any .ce.ms domains."  Following this hypothesis, the organization should seek the ground truth that is contained in the data.  In my experience, what creates a dangerous feeling or intuition is when decisions are based solely on that feeling or intuition.  If decisions are made based upon investigation and analysis of the data catalyzed by those initial feelings or intuitions, then that can be a good thing in my opinion.


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Machine Learning, AI & Deep Learning Improve Cybersecurity
Machine intelligence is influencing all aspects of cybersecurity. Organizations are implementing AI-based security to analyze event data using ML models that identify attack patterns and increase automation. Before security teams can take advantage of AI and ML tools, they need to know what is possible. This report covers: -How to assess the vendor's AI/ML claims -Defining success criteria for AI/ML implementations -Challenges when implementing AI
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-42247
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
pfSense v2.5.2 was discovered to contain a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the browser.php component. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary web scripts or HTML via a crafted payload injected into a file name.
CVE-2022-41443
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
phpipam v1.5.0 was discovered to contain a header injection vulnerability via the component /admin/subnets/ripe-query.php.
CVE-2022-33882
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
Under certain conditions, an attacker could create an unintended sphere of control through a vulnerability present in file delete operation in Autodesk desktop app (ADA). An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to escalate privileges and execute arbitrary code.
CVE-2022-42306
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
An issue was discovered in Veritas NetBackup through 8.2 and related Veritas products. An attacker with local access can send a crafted packet to pbx_exchange during registration and cause a NULL pointer exception, effectively crashing the pbx_exchange process.
CVE-2022-42307
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
An issue was discovered in Veritas NetBackup through 10.0.0.1 and related Veritas products. The NetBackup Primary server is vulnerable to an XML External Entity (XXE) Injection attack through the DiscoveryService service.