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
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
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.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
5/26/2015 | 1:32:27 PM
Re: Cyber COMs
I agree in general. What we are missing is not lack of strategic thinker it is just not applying strategic thinking to the things we do. What drives the market is the cost, quality and time. Not rally strategic thinking and that is where we need to create more focus.
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.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
5/26/2015 | 1:37:25 PM
Re: Respectful Disagreement
I do not have any evidence to prove but we may be. If not, one thing for sure there is now an industry built for security, lost for people are being now employed in this industry and banks, insurance companies are part of it. I know one of my friends recently insured his company against cyber-attacks.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
5/28/2015 | 10:56:51 PM
Re: Respectful Disagreement
Seems perfectly reasonable to me -- particularly in the wake of the Gartner study that found that the vast majority of businesses cease to exist two years after a major data loss.
Paladium
50%
50%
Paladium,
User Rank: Moderator
5/29/2015 | 5:39:02 AM
Re: Respectful Disagreement
I agree with Joe on this but from a slightly different take.  The article is another in a long string of nice fluffy articles.  Another in a long string of "noise" that is not really helping with the reality we call Security Operations (SecOps).  Far too many security firms and researchers trying to gin up their brand or latest idea are clouding the waters, adding an intense amount of noise that's masking that basic security problem we see virtually every week in the news.

Security basics are just that.  A foundation on which to build FROM, after which you can begin building in specialized security solutions for the unique business you're in.  But without those basics in place first, nothing else really matters.

Take for instance the large amount of vendor product noise out there right now.  Some SecOps Team somewhere is struggling to keep pace with their existing security-specific workload because they are still considered a Cost Center and do not have any extra staff laying around to look into the latest slice of bread security product.  Then along comes some Director or CISO, back from his latest conference, all ginned up on new, fantastical, "solve all your security woes" solutions.  He/she wants the SecOps team to look into widget X and get a trial going for widget Y. Both activities pull security analysts away from real world threat analysis and response.  You know... some of the key basics.

At some point that five man team gets whittled down 1-2 people guarding the gate.  The rest are doing trials, attending extra meetings for the boss, answering Internal Audits latest barrage of useless questions, and working with the Risk group in formulating the latest Risk deck for the upcoming board meeting.  Let's not forget the vacations, sick days, and similar activities that come with being human.  To hell with the basics!

Then along comes another article talking about how Secutiry needs to relook at how they classify or prioritize threats.  Joy.  Just what we needed.  More talking points with no actual solutions to existing BASIC problems.  Just more noise.

Despite the many breaches in the news there are still many, many Directors and CISO's who just don't get it, don't care, or have given up.  There backgrounds are in Risk Management or Audit and have no clear understanding of WHAT SecOps is, its needs, and how to keep the organization truly safe.  They just don't understand the BASICS.

...and they are just another breach waiting to happen.

 
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
5/29/2015 | 2:32:43 PM
Re: Respectful Disagreement
Well put, Palladium.

I recently attended the MIT Sloan CIO Symposium at the MIT campus, and during a cybersecurity panel session, one of the speakers hammered home the point that you could have the best security system in the world, but if you don't lock the doors and you leave your windows open, it's all for naught.

And yet, that's exactly what many companies are doing.
99sbradley
50%
50%
99sbradley,
User Rank: Apprentice
5/25/2015 | 12:33:57 AM
Tradecraft
I especially like the comment about devloping tradecraft to anticipate future threat environments, rather than simply describing and characterizing present (or past) ones.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
5/25/2015 | 10:09:57 PM
Re: Tradecraft
Indeed, I am aware of at least one cybersecurity firm that uses predictive analytics to analyze hacking patterns and determine what future cyber threats/hacks/exploits will be -- and then determines how to combat them.  Neat -- and important -- stuff.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
5/26/2015 | 1:39:54 PM
Re: Tradecraft
Sure. That is clear indicator that we will continue to be in a security aware industry and we will continue to spend a lot for money for it. Cybersecurity firms will grow into something that nobody would be able to control.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
5/26/2015 | 1:29:21 PM
A way forward
I like the article, thank you for sharing. A way move forward has to be about re-thinking and creating the systems with security in mind we use in our daily lives. We can not really respond today security problems with the systems designed 10-20 years ago. We need to start thinking strategies that protect us from the beginning to the end of system life cycle, trying to catch up with the threats is not the way to go anymore.
Joe Stanganelli
100%
0%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
5/28/2015 | 10:59:04 PM
Re: A way forward
More to the point, basics have to be employed first and foremost.  You have the most sophisticated security systems in the world, but if you're not taking basic precautions, they are all for naught.


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 10/27/2020
Are You One COVID-19 Test Away From a Cybersecurity Disaster?
Alan Brill, Senior Managing Director, Cyber Risk Practice, Kroll,  10/21/2020
Modern Day Insider Threat: Network Bugs That Are Stealing Your Data
David Pearson, Principal Threat Researcher,  10/21/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15238
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-27
Blueman is a GTK+ Bluetooth Manager. In Blueman before 2.1.4, the DhcpClient method of the D-Bus interface to blueman-mechanism is prone to an argument injection vulnerability. The impact highly depends on the system configuration. If Polkit-1 is disabled and for versions lower than 2.0.6, any lo...
CVE-2020-26156
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-27
** 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-2020-27853
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-27
Wire before 2020-10-16 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via a format string. This affects Wire AVS (Audio, Video, and Signaling) 5.3 through 6.x before 6.4, the Wire Secure Messenger application before 3.49.918 for Android, a...
CVE-2020-7755
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-27
All versions of package dat.gui are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via specifically crafted rgb and rgba values.
CVE-2020-11854
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-27
Arbitrary code execution vlnerability in Operation bridge Manager, Application Performance Management and Operations Bridge (containerized) vulnerability in Micro Focus products products Operation Bridge Manager, Operation Bridge (containerized) and Application Performance Management. The vulneravil...