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
Machine Learning Is Cybersecuritys Latest Pipe Dream
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
dfabbri
dfabbri,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/19/2015 | 6:42:56 PM
Explanation-Based Auditing - A different type of machine learning method for cyber security
The author rightly comments that standard anomaly detection systems are difficult to apply to cyber security. Outlier detection may help identify large scale scraping, but individual and subtle inappropriate acts are hard to find (e.g., accessing an ex-girlfriend's medical record). 

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. 

 

 
gyp
gyp,
User Rank: Author
11/5/2015 | 4:01:36 PM
Experts vs. ML is false dichotomy
The role of ML in security is not and never was replacing the experts, rather to free them from doing tedious tasks and to give them efficient tools. You don't want you experts to manually go through tens of thousands of log lines or do manual data munging every time they need to investigate an incident. Actually, if they are true experts, they would be fed up with that quite fast. Build or buy is a valid question, whether an off-the-shelf product can truly find the problems in your scenario better than something custom-built could but discarding data science as part of security alltogether would be a mistake.
RyanSepe
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
10/31/2015 | 5:04:38 PM
Re: Experts>AI
Very much agree. There will most certainly need to be a human element in cybersecurity.

Unfortunately to improve AI is a catch 22 situation. You need the man power to put hours into benefitting the technology. But then that takes hours away from that persons security knowledge being taken being used in the workforce.
Whoopty
Whoopty,
User Rank: Ninja
10/30/2015 | 8:02:29 AM
Experts>AI
I have to agree with the idea to keep paying experts rather than relying just on AI. Although I think machine learning has the potential in the future to be a major tool used to combat security issues and can be used sparingly now for some uses, there really is no substitute for an intuitive security expert. 

Not only can they improvise on the fly and make jumps way further down the alphabet than a computer controlled system can, they can intuitively figure out how human hackers may think and can provision for them. That's something that will take AI much longer to figure out, as they'll never understand how we think quite like we do.


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.