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.

Partner Perspectives  Connecting marketers to our tech communities.
7/14/2016
09:00 AM
Ned Miller
Ned Miller
Partner Perspectives
50%
50%

Context-Rich And Context-Aware Cybersecurity

An adaptive threat-prevention model is quickly replacing traditional, unintegrated architectures as security teams work to achieve a sustainable advantage against complex threats.

I was recently invited to discuss context-rich and context-aware security solutions with a group at the Department of Defense. I wanted to be crystal clear, so I started with the definition from the Gartner IT Glossary:

Context-aware security is the use of supplemental information to improve security decisions at the time they are made, resulting in more accurate security decisions capable of supporting dynamic business and IT environments.

The most commonly cited context information types are environmental (such as location and time). However, context information valuable to information security exists throughout the IT stack, including IP, device, URL, and application reputation; business value context; and the threat context in which the decision is made.

I took this as an opportunity to raise the awareness of what is needed to improve our nation’s cybersecurity efficacy and efficiency: the leverage of connected architectures, threat-intelligence data, orchestration, and automation.

More to the point, timely protection and response in the face of advanced targeted attacks are major challenges for security teams across every sector. Most organizations rely on a multivendor, siloed security infrastructure, where products do not communicate with one another. A shortage of trained security staff and a lack of automated processes result in inefficiencies and protection gaps. Existing security infrastructures typically do not have any integration between the inspection, intelligence gathering, analytics, and enforcement components. These form the technology underpinnings of cybersecurity best practices known as the detect, protect, and correct process of incident response

Integration Advantage 

Integration improves effectiveness. The active sharing of data and accelerated cross-control processes makes it possible for each security control to leverage the strengths and experiences of the other security tools. An adaptive threat-prevention model is quickly replacing traditional, unintegrated architectures as security teams work to achieve a sustainable advantage against complex threats. Instead of treating each malware interaction as a standalone event, adaptive threat prevention integrates processes and data through an efficient messaging layer. This approach reinforces levels of inspection and analysis, which are informed by expanded forms of intelligence. It also connects end-to-end components to generate and consume as much actionable intelligence as possible from each contact and process. 

The shift to adaptive threat prevention helps overcome the all-too-common functional fences that impede detection, response, and any chance of improved prevention. Silos of data and point products complicate operations and increase risk. For example, the information each security control generates and the context of each situation are poorly captured and seldom shared within an organization, let alone among a larger community of trust. A firewall may block a payload coming from an untrusted domain because it knows about communications, not malware. It will permit the same payload if it comes through a trusted domain. Similarly, anti-malware could block unknown payloads received from known bad addresses if it is enabled to look within the payload to examine IP addresses. 

Unintegrated security functions like these keep organizations in firefighting mode, always reacting and pouring human resources into every breach. Process inefficiency exhausts scarce investigative resources and lengthens the timeline during which data and networks are exposed to determined attackers. The length of time from breach to detection has a direct correlation to the extent of damage. These islands of security products, data sets, and operations provide sophisticated attackers with ample space and white noise that they can use to their advantage while their malicious code enters, hides, and persists within and throughout an organization. Without context, actions and events have no meaning.

Ned Miller, a 30+ year technology industry veteran, is the Chief Technology Strategist for the Intel Security Public Sector division. Mr. Miller is responsible for working with industry and government thought leaders and worldwide public sector customers to ensure that ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
jayaram_aditya
50%
50%
jayaram_aditya,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/18/2016 | 8:07:40 AM
COntextual awareness
Contextual awareness is key to any system that is in the business of predicting events and occurences and it is the same in the case of cybersecurity and cyber thwarting potential hacks . Great post
Stop Defending Everything
Kevin Kurzawa, Senior Information Security Auditor,  2/12/2020
Small Business Security: 5 Tips on How and Where to Start
Mike Puglia, Chief Strategy Officer at Kaseya,  2/13/2020
5 Common Errors That Allow Attackers to Go Undetected
Matt Middleton-Leal, General Manager and Chief Security Strategist, Netwrix,  2/12/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-20477
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-19
PyYAML 5.1 through 5.1.2 has insufficient restrictions on the load and load_all functions because of a class deserialization issue, e.g., Popen is a class in the subprocess module. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2017-18342.
CVE-2019-20478
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-19
In ruamel.yaml through 0.16.7, the load method allows remote code execution if the application calls this method with an untrusted argument. In other words, this issue affects developers who are unaware of the need to use methods such as safe_load in these use cases.
CVE-2011-2054
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-19
A vulnerability in the Cisco ASA that could allow a remote attacker to successfully authenticate using the Cisco AnyConnect VPN client if the Secondary Authentication type is LDAP and the password is left blank, providing the primary credentials are correct. The vulnerabilities is due to improper in...
CVE-2015-0749
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-19
A vulnerability in Cisco Unified Communications Manager could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack on the affected software. The vulnerabilities is due to improper input validation of certain parameters passed to the affected software. An attacker ...
CVE-2015-9543
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-19
An issue was discovered in OpenStack Nova before 18.2.4, 19.x before 19.1.0, and 20.x before 20.1.0. It can leak consoleauth tokens into log files. An attacker with read access to the service's logs may obtain tokens used for console access. All Nova setups using novncproxy are affected. This is rel...