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
7 Old IT Things Every New InfoSec Pro Should Know
Joan Goodchild, Staff Editor,  4/20/2021
News
Cloud-Native Businesses Struggle With Security
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/6/2021
Commentary
Defending Against Web Scraping Attacks
Rob Simon, Principal Security Consultant at TrustedSec,  5/7/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Take me to your BISO 
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-30174
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
RiyaLab CloudISO event item is added, special characters in specific field of time management page are not properly filtered, which allow remote authenticated attackers can inject malicious JavaScript and carry out stored XSS (Stored Cross-site scripting) attacks.
CVE-2021-32544
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
Special characters of IGT search function in igt+ are not filtered in specific fields, which allow remote authenticated attackers can inject malicious JavaScript and carry out DOM-based XSS (Cross-site scripting) attacks.
CVE-2021-32563
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
An issue was discovered in Thunar before 4.16.7 and 4.17.x before 4.17.2. When called with a regular file as a command-line argument, it delegates to a different program (based on the file type) without user confirmation. This could be used to achieve code execution.
CVE-2020-23369
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-10
In YzmCMS 5.6, XSS was discovered in member/member_content/init.html via the SRC attribute of an IFRAME element because of using UEditor 1.4.3.3.
CVE-2020-23370
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-10
In YzmCMS 5.6, stored XSS exists via the common/static/plugin/ueditor/1.4.3.3/php/controller.php action parameter, which allows remote attackers to upload a swf file. The swf file can be injected with arbitrary web script or HTML.