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.
SPONSORED BY
11/17/2016
09:50 AM
Malwarebytes Labs
Malwarebytes Labs
Partner Perspectives
50%
50%

Active Defense Framework Can Help Businesses Defend Against Cyberattacks

New report provides a framework that lets private sector entities defend themselves while at the same time protect individual liberties and privacy, and mitigate the risk of collateral damage.

George Washington University’s Center for Cyber and Homeland Security (CCHS), a “think and do” tank responsible for carrying out research and analysis on homeland security, counterterrorism, and cybersecurity issues, has released a new report called Into the Gray Zone: The Private Sector and Active Defense Against Cyber Threats.

The authors of this report — experts in the fields of technology, privacy, security, law, and business —argue that although the U.S. government has a role to play in cybersecurity, it still lacks the resources needed to fully protect the private sector. Given that, they said, private sector entities must take responsibility for protecting themselves.

The report provides a framework that businesses can use in order to defend their assets while also ensuring that their actions are embedded within policy and a legal framework. The authors also maintain that businesses’ and their clients’ privacy and civil liberties should not be infringed while mitigating technical risks.

A Push For Active Defense

The proposed framework is all about active defense, the umbrella term the authors use to mean “a spectrum of proactive cybersecurity measures.” Active defense is generally split into two groups. The first covers “the technical interactions between a defender and an attacker,” and the second describes “operations that enable defenders to collect intelligence on threat actors and indicators on the Internet as well as other policy tools (e.g. sanctions, indictments, trade remedies) that can modify the behavior of the malicious actors.”

The report stresses that active defense doesn’t mean hacking back at enemy entities and that the two terms must never be interchanged.

The paper is a dive into the gray zone in an attempt to find answers to the general questions that call for nuanced discussions on active defense, such as:

  • What measures fall within the scope of active defense and what are the benefits and risks of each?
  • What measures may be appropriate to use by certain actors and under what circumstances?
  • What is the role of the federal government in developing a framework and set of norms that can inform such action?
  • How should policy and law be updated to support private sector active defense in a way that is consistent with both our values and interests, and that can evolve as new technologies are developed?
  • Most importantly, how do we move beyond the current policy stalemate of inaction vs. hacking back and develop appropriate and risk-driven policies for active defense?

The paper also outlines the advantages of the active defense framework for the private sector, which are that it:

  • Maximizes the effect of the private sector’s ability to defend its assets and data
  • Uses the combined technical and nontechnical tools needed to counter cyberthreats;
  • Attempts to balance the need for the private sector’s defense measures with other considerations like protection of individual liberties, privacy, and the risks of collateral damage.

Information Security Is Everyone’s Responsibility

Although much is said about what private businesses should do to protect themselves in cyberspace, the report’s authors are quick to mention that the proposed active defense framework extends to the public as well. Thus, there is a call for both the public and private sectors to work together in addressing cybersecurity threats.

CCHS is not the only group to call out the public to take their own security seriously. Increasingly security experts and advocates have been backing the notion that information security is everyone’s responsibility, and it has become the driving force to further educate users and start awareness campaigns.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 10/23/2020
7 Tips for Choosing Security Metrics That Matter
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer,  10/19/2020
Russian Military Officers Unmasked, Indicted for High-Profile Cyberattack Campaigns
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  10/19/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-24847
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-23
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability is identified in FruityWifi through 2.4. Due to a lack of CSRF protection in page_config_adv.php, an unauthenticated attacker can lure the victim to visit his website by social engineering or another attack vector. Due to this issue, an unauthenticat...
CVE-2020-24848
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-23
FruityWifi through 2.4 has an unsafe Sudo configuration [(ALL : ALL) NOPASSWD: ALL]. This allows an attacker to perform a system-level (root) local privilege escalation, allowing an attacker to gain complete persistent access to the local system.
CVE-2020-5990
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-23
NVIDIA GeForce Experience, all versions prior to 3.20.5.70, contains a vulnerability in the ShadowPlay component which may lead to local privilege escalation, code execution, denial of service or information disclosure.
CVE-2020-25483
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-23
An arbitrary command execution vulnerability exists in the fopen() function of file writes of UCMS v1.4.8, where an attacker can gain access to the server.
CVE-2020-5977
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-23
NVIDIA GeForce Experience, all versions prior to 3.20.5.70, contains a vulnerability in NVIDIA Web Helper NodeJS Web Server in which an uncontrolled search path is used to load a node module, which may lead to code execution, denial of service, escalation of privileges, and information disclosure.