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
Cyber Threat Analysis: A Call for Clarity
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
Joe Stanganelli
0%
100%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
5/23/2015 | 11:08:10 PM
Respectful Disagreement
I disagree, respectfully.

I'm not convinced we're particularly overhyping cyber threats; I think we were *under*-hyping them for a really long time (although there have been points where they were overhyped, especially in the late '90s, when people believed that any teenager with a modem was a dangerous criminal who could do ANYTHING).  What's more, I think both private sector and public sector attitudes alike to cyber security until recently demonstrate, in their lackadaisical nature, just how under-hyped cyber threats have been.

As for calling these data breaches "attacks"...  An attack, strictly speaking, is merely an aggressive action against an entity.  I see no problem with calling things what they actually are.
andregironda
0%
100%
andregironda,
User Rank: Strategist
5/22/2015 | 3:38:09 PM
Cyber COMs
Agree that we need to drive the conversation further and create tools and techniques that dig deeper. This should include technical attribution (e.g., those annoying and cheap DFIR and NSM IOCs) for current-running, active campaigns but also must include warning intelligence indicators (i.e., I&W).

We lack strategic thinkers and we fear strategic planning. The nature of cyber risk is understood by such a select few, it makes it difficult to open the conversation to both the global audience at the state level as well as at the Global 2k level. Someone just needs to drive a social science as complete as economics for information risk. We need to go way beyond what FAIR delivers to small markets today -- it needs to become heavily academic.

The cyber crime common operating picture can likely be explained using modern criminal studies theories. However, there are other moving pieces: as you mention, cyber espionage -- but I would add areas of cyber warfare and/or cyber terrorism which could include cyber sabotage and kinetic cyber.

I spoke recently on cyber common operating models, and I plan to iterate on my approach in order to make it more accessible. The model includes these four COPs: crime, espionage, sabotage, and kinetic cyber. There are other factors or variables to include and solve, but this is a purposeful simplification.

Nothing prevents TAXII (sub STIX, sub MAEC, etc) from communicating I&W indicators along with IOCs. The systems we are implementing today support the technology needs and can likely scale them. We are missing the analysts who can start writing and sharing I&W indicators. We are missing the process (N.B., it's close to standard tradecraft, though) and the governance.

The NIST CSF mentions predictive indicators. I could argue about word choice there, but we don't see a clear direction or implementation either way. I have yet to scope the problem using modern tools, but would likely start with SA-Splice for Splunk or STIXtego. I don't know enough Palantir to make something like this grow wings. Some of the research from RecordedFuture, SiloBreaker, Kapow, RiskIQ, and Packet Ninjas is moving in this direction, but it's very early stage in the game.
<<   <   Page 2 / 2


Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
Data breaches and regulations have forced organizations to pay closer attention to the security incident response function. However, security leaders may be overestimating their ability to detect and respond to security incidents. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-17954
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-03
A Least Privilege Violation vulnerability in crowbar of SUSE OpenStack Cloud 7, SUSE OpenStack Cloud 8, SUSE OpenStack Cloud 9, SUSE OpenStack Cloud Crowbar 8, SUSE OpenStack Cloud Crowbar 9 allows root users on any crowbar managed node to cause become root on any other node. This issue affects: SUS...
CVE-2019-18904
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-03
A Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability in rmt of SUSE Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15-ESPOS, SUSE Linux Enterprise High Performance Computing 15-LTSS, SUSE Linux Enterprise Module for Public Cloud 15-SP1, SUSE Linux Enterprise Module for Server Applications 15, SUSE Linux E...
CVE-2019-19914
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-03
** 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-2020-5283
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-03
ViewVC before versions 1.1.28 and 1.2.1 has a XSS vulnerability in CVS show_subdir_lastmod support. The impact of this vulnerability is mitigated by the need for an attacker to have commit privileges to a CVS repository exposed by an otherwise trusted ViewVC instance that also has the `show_subdir_l...
CVE-2020-11498
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-02
Slack Nebula through 1.1.0 contains a relative path vulnerability that allows a low-privileged attacker to execute code in the context of the root user via tun_darwin.go or tun_windows.go. A user can also use Nebula to execute arbitrary code in the user's own context, e.g., for user-level persistenc...