Partner Perspectives  Connecting marketers to our tech communities.
SPONSORED BY
10/11/2017
01:30 PM
Aviram Zrahia
Aviram Zrahia
Partner Perspectives
50%
50%

Can Machine Learning Outsmart Malware?

Using machine learning in the cybersecurity domain is a growing trend with many advantages, but it also has its risks.

Fighting malware is a modern arms race. Not only has malware evolved to be more evasive and harder to detect, but their vast numbers make it even more difficult to handle. As a result, detecting a malware has become a big data problem which requires the help of self-learning machines to scale the knowledge of analysts, handle the complexity beyond human capabilities, and improve the accuracy of threat detection.

There are number of approaches to this problem; choosing the right algorithm to serve the security engine’s purpose is not an easy task. In this article, we will refer to machine learning (ML) as an application of artificial intelligence (AI) where computers learn without being explicitly programmed. We will look into some use cases and challenges, starting with an interesting question: why do we see this growing trend now? The answer has to do with lower costs and increased availability of private and public cloud technology for collecting, storing and analyzing big data in real time, and the academic research progress in ML and related algorithms such as Deep Neural Networks (DNN).

Putting together a successful ML cybersecurity implementation is a multidisciplinary task, which requires coding capabilities, as well as cyber domain expertise, and deep math/statistics knowledge, originally described by Drew Conway in his data science Venn diagram. ML models can be used to classify malicious files (including ransomwares), analyze abnormal user and network behavior, perform advanced event analytics, identify encrypted malware traffic, synthesize threat intelligence feeds, and fuse in-direct telemetry signals with security events in cloud deployments.

Implementing a complete solution requires embedding the selected ML algorithm into a three-stage workflow of operation. First, the ML engine performs analysis, usually enhanced with other detection technologies to deliver open and integrated defense in depth. Then, enforcement is performed across the entire network preferably in an automatic and unified way. And finally, Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) is shared and received with other systems and entities, to further enrich and add context to the next analysis task -- feedback.

Cyber Defense Challenges and Machine Learning

A ML model is only as good as the content from the data sources that feed it (better known as: garbage in, garbage out). Similarly, performing analysis without domain expertise and context can be misleading, and measuring the engine’s performance/accuracy is tricky.

Another challenge is that attackers also use machines for different attack phases, as described by Intel Security in their 2017 threat predictions report. But the most interesting challenge is the risk of attackers actually manipulating ML defense engines. A visible example, as described by Dave Gershgorn in Popular Science last year,  was presented by Google’s researchers who manipulated road signs to deceive a driverless car, using black-box attack principles that can be leveraged also in the cyber domain to fool the machine.

Machines are taking over many aspects of our lives (Did anyone say autonomous cars?), but given the pros and cons described, should we let the machines take over our defense systems? The answer is yes and no. On the one hand, machines can outsmart human capabilities on certain aspects of scale and complexity. On the other hand, they can be manipulated, but so can humans. The debate is ongoing But based on the buzz in the market it's clear that machines are already transforming the way we perform cyber defense.

Aviram Zrahia is a cybersecurity consulting engineer at Juniper Networks, and a research fellow in the Blavatnik Interdisciplinary Cyber Research Center (ICRC) at Tel-Aviv University. His primary research interest is cyber threat intelligence sharing, where he uses technology ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
High Stress Levels Impacting CISOs Physically, Mentally
Jai Vijayan, Freelance writer,  2/14/2019
Valentine's Emails Laced with Gandcrab Ransomware
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  2/14/2019
Making the Case for a Cybersecurity Moon Shot
Adam Shostack, Consultant, Entrepreneur, Technologist, Game Designer,  2/19/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-8980
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
A memory leak in the kernel_read_file function in fs/exec.c in the Linux kernel through 4.20.11 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) by triggering vfs_read failures.
CVE-2019-8979
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
Koseven through 3.3.9, and Kohana through 3.3.6, has SQL Injection when the order_by() parameter can be controlled.
CVE-2013-7469
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
Seafile through 6.2.11 always uses the same Initialization Vector (IV) with Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) Mode to encrypt private data, making it easier to conduct chosen-plaintext attacks or dictionary attacks.
CVE-2018-20146
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
An issue was discovered in Liquidware ProfileUnity before 6.8.0 with Liquidware FlexApp before 6.8.0. A local user could obtain administrator rights, as demonstrated by use of PowerShell.
CVE-2019-5727
PUBLISHED: 2019-02-21
Splunk Web in Splunk Enterprise 6.5.x before 6.5.5, 6.4.x before 6.4.9, 6.3.x before 6.3.12, 6.2.x before 6.2.14, 6.1.x before 6.1.14, and 6.0.x before 6.0.15 and Splunk Light before 6.6.0 has Persistent XSS, aka SPL-138827.