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.

Operations

5/16/2016
08:12 AM
Danelle Au
Danelle Au
Commentary
Connect Directly
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

CISO Playbook: Games Of War & Cyber Defenses

Limiting incident response planning to hypothetical table-top scenarios is far too risky in today's threat environment. But with cyberwar gaming, you can simulate the experience of a real attack.

War games are an important aspect of maintaining military readiness. In the Cold War-era, NATO and SEATO were seemingly always engaged in war games with a twofold purpose: preparation for potential real-world incidents and as a show-of-force to the West’s rivals in the USSR, Eastern Bloc, and Communist Asia.

Global threats have evolved since the collapse of the Iron Curtain, and war gaming has shifted focus to address new threats such as a belligerent North Korea and an increasingly unstable Middle East. But the underlying message behind war games remains the same: we’re ready, we’re able, and there will be dire consequences if you choose to tangle with us. The modern enterprise should take a page from this approach to apply cyberwar games to their network and data security strategies.

Similar to the hacker’s playbook concept, cyberwar gaming is an exercise that—properly done—will help an organization better understand its readiness for cyberwarfare. Unlike conceptual table-top scenarios, true enterprise war games involve actual attacks (typically conducted by red and blue teams) and require a real response. Properly executed, the lessons derived from enterprise war-gaming can be applied to the organization’s defense strategy and then tested again in a regular cycle in order to identify weaknesses, challenge security assumptions, identify and anticipate potential threats, and develop security incident response “muscle memory.”

But before an organization can begin, we must establish some parameters. First, cyberwar gaming is not pen testing, but a broad and sophisticated breach scenario that uses a real “playbook” and is performed in a production environment.

This approach was laid out in 2012 by McKinsey & Company in a paper on the enterprise’s use of cyberwar games entitled, Playing War Games to Prepare for a Cyberattack. According to McKinsey, the key to successful cyberwar gaming is to structure the scenario around an actual attack in which there is a specific means of attack and specific goal of the attack. Key players may know that an attack is coming, but they should not know the how or the why.

Designing a cyberwar game around an organization’s likely business scenario can simulate the experience of a real cyberattack. The attacker—Red Team—must have a specific goal in mind and must “think like a hacker,” innovating and deviously plotting the unexpected. After all, they only need to be right once to succeed.

In contrast, the defending Blue Team must be able to detect an attack in real-time, alert on an issue when it occurs, and recover in the event of a failure. The goal is to ensure that all divisions learn how to work together to better inform defense.

Limiting an organization’s readiness to hypothetical scenarios is far too risky in today’s threat environment. Lack of cyberwar game preparation will only magnify the possible damage once an attack does occur. As the Prussian Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke the Elder famously stated, “No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy.” It is therefore vital that an organization become adept at responding to a fast evolving attack scenario, including those with multiple vectors and different outcomes.

Moltke understood that no matter how well-prepared an organization is for the initial attack, the number of variable outcomes and responses resulting from that first contact are so vast that they cannot be accounted for. There’s simply no way to train for actual battlefield conditions. What can be accounted for is the ability of those involved to respond. The ability to react, pivot, and improvise under the pressure of an actual attack cannot be learned under the narrow scope of table-top scenarios. Such skills can only be tested and inured in the crucible of actual combat, as it were. Conversely, the lack of true readiness can only be understood and addressed when exposed under the same circumstances.

Cyberwar gaming fits well within the popular People, Process and Technology (PPT) approach to security by effectively training security and incident response teams under actual attack conditions, refining processes based on experience before a hostile event occurs, and validating the application of the technologies the organization has in place—while also identifying the need for additional tools and resources.

The data breach stakes continue to rise. Specialized attacks on industry sectors such as law and healthcare, the growing prevalence of ransomware and other forms of malware, the number of known vulnerabilities, ever more sophisticated methodologies and the complexity of today’s networks mean that, even with all of the tools and knowledge available to today’s CISO, hackers are a greater threat than ever before—especially for the unprepared. As cyberwar games gain popularity, the goal will be to automate many aspects of these breach scenarios in order to more efficiently scale the team and process.

Related Content:

 

Danelle is vice president of strategy at SafeBreach. She has more than 15 years of experience bringing new technologies to market. Prior to SafeBreach, Danelle led strategy and marketing at Adallom, a cloud security company acquired by Microsoft. She was also responsible for ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
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
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
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-16632
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-15
A XSS Vulnerability in /uploads/dede/action_search.php in DedeCMS V5.7 SP2 allows an authenticated user to execute remote arbitrary code via the keyword parameter.
CVE-2021-32073
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-15
DedeCMS V5.7 SP2 contains a CSRF vulnerability that allows a remote attacker to send a malicious request to to the web manager allowing remote code execution.
CVE-2021-33033
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-14
The Linux kernel before 5.11.14 has a use-after-free in cipso_v4_genopt in net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c because the CIPSO and CALIPSO refcounting for the DOI definitions is mishandled, aka CID-ad5d07f4a9cd. This leads to writing an arbitrary value.
CVE-2021-33034
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-14
In the Linux kernel before 5.12.4, net/bluetooth/hci_event.c has a use-after-free when destroying an hci_chan, aka CID-5c4c8c954409. This leads to writing an arbitrary value.
CVE-2019-25044
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-14
The block subsystem in the Linux kernel before 5.2 has a use-after-free that can lead to arbitrary code execution in the kernel context and privilege escalation, aka CID-c3e2219216c9. This is related to blk_mq_free_rqs and blk_cleanup_queue.