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
When Every Attack Is a Zero Day
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
FabricGuy
100%
0%
FabricGuy,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/27/2019 | 9:10:11 PM
Re: Rational post.... Have you seen how Fortinet deals with this challenge?
I would love to tlak to you more about why the amount of virus/malware per week is not relevant when you do not have to create unique signatures for each variant.  Fortinet has patented technology that allows a core signature to match multiple variations where a typical A/V database has to contain a signature for every variant.  That large number of 1.8 million shrinks considerably down when you don't have to track each variation of the same family.
Saumitra Das
100%
0%
Saumitra Das,
User Rank: Author
4/26/2019 | 2:56:41 AM
Re: Rational post.... Have you seen how Fortinet deals with this challenge?
Yes I have seen how several techniques have been used to deal with this including more complicated hashing techniques, complex signatures applied on more involved static analysis involving emulation or unpacking (like CPRL). While these are very interesting ways to deal with these challenges, in my opinion, they do not scale to the current threat landscape where we see a high degree of automation and millions of threats every single day. As an example, despite advancements like CPRL, documentation online touts the following - 
  • 1.8 Million new and updated AV definitions per week
  • Hourly updates of the AV signature database

Clearly if signatures need hourly updates and millions new per week, the existing signatures are not able to generalize to the scale of attack creation in the threat landscape despite the innovation in the nature of signatures. If that was the case, one should not need to update signatures so often.

Additionally, sandboxing is proposed to handle the real "unknowns" which are not captured by traditional "one signature, one variant" technique or CPRL. But that product has several caveats like max file sizes and a conserve mode (to reduce file types analyzed when sandbox is loaded). If CPRL could handle all the variants, I would assume the sandbox should have very few unknowns to deal with and not have these caveat and throughput concerns. Ideally, if signatures could generalize so well, one should not even need a sandbox appliance since there would be so few true unknowns that a cloud sandbox would suffice.

My opinion is that while techniques like CPRL are a meaningful and necessary improvement over the "one signature, one variant" technique, the current threat landscape calls for a level of generalization to cover attacks that is at the same scale as that of the attackers. This is not just needed for new unkown variants but also to cover the existing known attacks. Fitting the known attack signatures into perimeter protection without degrading throughput is as much a problem as detecting new variants.  
FabricGuy
100%
0%
FabricGuy,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/25/2019 | 11:28:36 AM
Rational post.... Have you seen how Fortinet deals with this challenge?
Do a google search for "fortinet CPRL" - Compact Pattern Recognition Language


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
The State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
In this report learn how enterprises are building their incident response teams and processes, how they research potential compromises, how they respond to new breaches, and what tools and processes they use to remediate problems and improve their cyber defenses for the future.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-26564
PUBLISHED: 2021-07-31
ObjectPlanet Opinio before 7.15 allows XXE attacks via three steps: modify a .css file to have <!ENTITY content, create a .xml file for a generic survey template (containing a link to this .css file), and import this .xml file at the survey/admin/folderSurvey.do?action=viewImportSurvey['importFil...
CVE-2020-26565
PUBLISHED: 2021-07-31
ObjectPlanet Opinio before 7.14 allows Expression Language Injection via the admin/permissionList.do from parameter. This can be used to retrieve possibly sensitive serverInfo data.
CVE-2020-26806
PUBLISHED: 2021-07-31
admin/file.do in ObjectPlanet Opinio before 7.15 allows Unrestricted File Upload of executable JSP files, resulting in remote code execution, because filePath can have directory traversal and fileContent can be valid JSP code.
CVE-2021-33617
PUBLISHED: 2021-07-31
Zoho ManageEngine Password Manager Pro before 11.2 11200 allows login/AjaxResponse.jsp?RequestType=GetUserDomainName&userName= username enumeration, because the response (to a failed login request) is null only when the username is invalid.
CVE-2021-27491
PUBLISHED: 2021-07-30
Ypsomed mylife Cloud, mylife Mobile Application:Ypsomed mylife Cloud,All versions prior to 1.7.2,Ypsomed mylife App,All versions prior to 1.7.5,The Ypsomed mylife Cloud discloses password hashes during the registration process.