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
Throw Out the Playbooks to Win at Incident Response
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
8/1/2017 | 3:25:58 PM
Re: Dynamic vs Disposal
Agree - it must be a dynamic, living document as the threat landscape is the same.  But, also, it must first EXIST and I would wager that the staff at Merck dearly wished they had one earlier in June!!!
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
8/1/2017 | 7:42:51 AM
Playbooks provide format
ONLY - and they need to be constantly revised and updated, like disaster recovery plans for business continuity.  I have seen copies of this document on business shelves from 3 years ago - OH, I think the business has changed somewhat since 2003, right?  Secondly, we are always 15 minutes behind the hackers.  They are forever ahead of us and so our plans have to be consistently updated.  Third, playbook should NOT be written in STONE forever.  The Royal Navy in the age of sail concentrated every single act and policy to FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS which could never EVER be deviated from.  Rigid.  Malware plans have to be flexible to encounter the New and Unexpected situations where no malware response has gone before.  
rkappam
50%
50%
rkappam,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/31/2017 | 2:08:06 PM
Re: Dynamic vs Disposal
Sounds interesting, but play book can be predicted by any IT Security experienced guy. Moreoever it would only give us how the incident would be handeled, which means we are talking about which already detected. Once you detect, we would some how remediate/ format/ getover it. 

Any smart hacker would try to hide himself, so he should try to focus on detection system company has it. Then he will make SOC busy with known attacks and slowly would try to get into network through non-detected place. 

I believe, rather looking at play book, person would focus on detection system. Or vulnerability in detection system. 

These information would be known by ex-employees of company. We should be more think about it. 

 
LMaida
50%
50%
LMaida,
User Rank: Author
7/28/2017 | 3:20:27 PM
Re: Dynamic vs Disposal
Yes, it's just dependent on how you define playbook and whether you believe they are inherently static/pre-configured. There's also an aspect of the level of human involvement in redefining the playbook vs software automation. 
InfosecCanuck
100%
0%
InfosecCanuck,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/28/2017 | 11:05:28 AM
Dynamic vs Disposal
I actually agree with almost everything here but I would tend to think a dynamic, evolving playbook would be the solution as opposed to throwing out the playbook. Organizations need to have some documented standard as to how they respond, no? Perhaps that was the point you were getting at and I missed it.


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 Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Concerns over supply chain vulnerabilities and attack visibility drove some significant changes in enterprise cybersecurity strategies over the past year. Dark Reading's 2021 Strategic Security Survey showed that many organizations are staying the course regarding the use of a mix of attack prevention and threat detection technologies and practices for dealing with cyber threats.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-21743
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-20
ZTE MF971R product has a CRLF injection vulnerability. An attacker could exploit the vulnerability to modify the HTTP response header information through a specially crafted HTTP request.
CVE-2021-21744
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-20
ZTE MF971R product has a configuration file control vulnerability. An attacker could use this vulnerability to modify the configuration parameters of the device, causing some security functions of the device to be disabled.
CVE-2021-21745
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-20
ZTE MF971R product has a Referer authentication bypass vulnerability. Without CSRF verification, an attackercould use this vulnerability to perform illegal authorization operations by sending a request to the user to click.
CVE-2021-21748
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-20
ZTE MF971R product has two stack-based buffer overflow vulnerabilities. An attacker could exploit the vulnerabilities to execute arbitrary code.
CVE-2021-21749
PUBLISHED: 2021-10-20
ZTE MF971R product has two stack-based buffer overflow vulnerabilities. An attacker could exploit the vulnerabilities to execute arbitrary code.