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.

Perimeter

3/8/2013
10:55 AM
Wendy Nather
Wendy Nather
Commentary
50%
50%

Cerberus, White Courtesy Phone, Please

Why you need two opposing styles of monitoring

Remember what I wrote last time about the danger of assumptions and bias in security monitoring? Well, forget what I said.

No, not really. But there’s another way to look at it. The purposes of monitoring can be many and varied; one of the big ones, of course, is catching the intruder. When most people think of monitoring, they think of this one, and a whole industry has been growing that focuses on deep expertise in this area: attacker methods, indicators of compromise, attribution, and fast response. Take a regular SIEM, layer some catching-the-intruder expertise on top in the form of customized tools, people, and analytics, and you have a more specialized monitoring system.

But monitoring isn’t just about the sexy targeted attacks. If you are the Society for the Preservation of Historic Sites, then you don’t care about the APT, nor does the APT care about you. Why would you still need to monitor?

First off, there’s the automated intrusion, which simply looks for the equivalent of a stick propping the door open. If they get in, and you happen to have something of value to steal or use, they’ll take advantage of that opportunity. No matter how small and non-sexy your organization might be, you should be monitoring for this kind of activity.

There are also general malware attacks, which can rely on phishing, incautious browsing, and good old viruses to work (yes, they’re still out there). Targeted and automated attacks often involve dropping some kind of malware, so there is a whole raftload of companies that specialize in detecting malware (or insulating the system from it). Since this can happen to anybody, you need this kind of monitoring.

What about external attacks that don’t involve malware? We’re getting expertise for those, too, in the form of behavioral analysis and anti-fraud detection. Using a compromised account can look exactly like normal business activity; the only difference is that it’s the wrong person using the account. Conversely, you can have the right person using the account, but he is using it to do the wrong things (such as accessing confidential documents, running his own business off the company PC, or approving and cashing checks for nonexistent purchase orders).

When you start to look at behavior, though, you have to understand a lot more about the application and business layers in order to monitor effectively. Many monitoring systems put together a lot of data to try to figure out whether someone is the wrong person based on network-level or OS-level activity, but for fine-grained detection, you need data from past usage of the application. Has the user ever used the application in this manner? Should anyone be using it this way? Are the requests too close together to be coming from a human’s hands on the keyboard, or are they for pages in an order that doesn’t make sense in the business logic?

This is where even more specialized expertise is popping up in the form of products or add-ons for healthcare, e-commerce, energy, and manufacturing. When you are looking for the "wrong person doing the right things," the "wrong person doing the wrong things," or "the right person doing the wrong things," your system needs to understand more about what "wrong" is.

So sometimes it is important to put bias into your monitoring -- or at least a defined perspective, so that you’re managing the risks that are most pertinent to you. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take a step back every now and again to see what you might be missing. Yeah, I never said this stuff was easy.

Wendy Nather is Research Director of the Enterprise Security Practice at the independent analyst firm 451 Research. You can find her on Twitter as @451wendy.

Wendy Nather is Research Director of the Enterprise Security Practice at independent analyst firm 451 Research. With over 30 years of IT experience, she has worked both in financial services and in the public sector, both in the US and in Europe. Wendy's coverage areas ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Commentary
Cyberattacks Are Tailored to Employees ... Why Isn't Security Training?
Tim Sadler, CEO and co-founder of Tessian,  6/17/2021
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
7 Powerful Cybersecurity Skills the Energy Sector Needs Most
Pam Baker, Contributing Writer,  6/22/2021
News
Microsoft Disrupts Large-Scale BEC Campaign Across Web Services
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  6/15/2021
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
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-2021-34390
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Trusty TLK contains a vulnerability in the NVIDIA TLK kernel function where a lack of checks allows the exploitation of an integer overflow on the size parameter of the tz_map_shared_mem function.
CVE-2021-34391
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Trusty TLK contains a vulnerability in the NVIDIA TLK kernel�s tz_handle_trusted_app_smc function where a lack of integer overflow checks on the req_off and param_ofs variables leads to memory corruption of critical kernel structures.
CVE-2021-34392
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Trusty TLK contains a vulnerability in the NVIDIA TLK kernel where an integer overflow in the tz_map_shared_mem function can bypass boundary checks, which might lead to denial of service.
CVE-2021-34393
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Trusty contains a vulnerability in TSEC TA which deserializes the incoming messages even though the TSEC TA does not expose any command. This vulnerability might allow an attacker to exploit the deserializer to impact code execution, causing information disclosure.
CVE-2021-34394
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-22
Trusty contains a vulnerability in all TAs whose deserializer does not reject messages with multiple occurrences of the same parameter. The deserialization of untrusted data might allow an attacker to exploit the deserializer to impact code execution.