Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-30333PUBLISHED: 2022-05-09RARLAB UnRAR before 6.12 on Linux and UNIX allows directory traversal to write to files during an extract (aka unpack) operation, as demonstrated by creating a ~/.ssh/authorized_keys file. NOTE: WinRAR and Android RAR are unaffected.
CVE-2022-23066PUBLISHED: 2022-05-09
In Solana rBPF versions 0.2.26 and 0.2.27 are affected by Incorrect Calculation which is caused by improper implementation of sdiv instruction. This can lead to the wrong execution path, resulting in huge loss in specific cases. For example, the result of a sdiv instruction may decide whether to tra...
CVE-2022-28463PUBLISHED: 2022-05-08ImageMagick 7.1.0-27 is vulnerable to Buffer Overflow.
CVE-2022-28470PUBLISHED: 2022-05-08marcador package in PyPI 0.1 through 0.13 included a code-execution backdoor.
CVE-2022-1620PUBLISHED: 2022-05-08NULL Pointer Dereference in function vim_regexec_string at regexp.c:2729 in GitHub repository vim/vim prior to 8.2.4901. NULL Pointer Dereference in function vim_regexec_string at regexp.c:2729 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) via a crafted input.
User Rank: Apprentice
11/19/2015 | 6:42:56 PM
As the author notes:
"Any ML system must attempt to separate and differentiate activity based either on pre-defined (i.e. trained learning) or self-learned classifications"
Thus, for a cybersecurity machine learning system to be effective, it must have some principled and structured method to differentiate appropriate and inappropriate access. And, moreover, the system must have the correct context to make such a decision.
The author makes the statement that ML systems struggle to do this:
"Unfortunately, ML systems are not good at describing why a particular activity is anomalous, and how it is related to others. So when the ML system delivers an alert, you still have to do the hard work of understanding whether it is a false positive or not, before trying to understand how the anomaly is related to other activity in the system."
I would point the author to a new line of machine learning algorithms for access auditing called Explanation-Based Auditing.
A detailed peer-reviewed publication can be found at vldb.org/pvldb/vol5/p001_danielfabbri_vldb2012.pdf.
The general idea is to learn why accesses to data occur (e.g., the doctor accessed a record because of an appointment with the patient). This can be modeled as a graph search between the person accessing the data and the data accessed. When such an "explanation" is found, the system can determine the reason for access, filtering it away from manual review.
Thus, as the previous comment states, such as system can remove a tremendous amount of false positives, allowing the privacy or security officer to focus on the unexplained and suspicious.