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

It's Time to Dump The 'Insider Threat'

Blaming the "insider threat" merely hides your real security risks

When my fine editor (Tim Wilson) asked me to write a series of posts on this site, the conversation when something like this:

Tim: Hey, Rich, can you help contribute to our Insider Threat site? We'd love you to do a series of posts over the next few months.

Me: Sure. By "Insider Threat" do you mean "internal data security?"

Tim: Yep.

Me: OK, but I really hate that term. Can we call it something else?

Tim: It's one of our most popular sites. No.

Me: OK, but can I rant on how stupid a term it is?

Tim: Sure. If it makes you feel better.

I've never been a fan of the term "insider threat" because I think it actually distracts us from properly characterizing and focusing on the problem. For many years, it meant a rogue internal user, and that's still how many people use it. But the problem is that for every Bradley Manning (Wikileaks), there might be hundreds of Albert Gonzaleses trying to crack your perimeter.

Thus, I find it far more useful to more precisely characterize the threats we are dealing with:

>> Rogue employees: trusted individuals who exceed their authority for personal gain or to deliberately damage the organization.

>> Accidental disclosures: trusted individuals who accidentally damage the organization through inadvertent misuse of data.

>> Risky business process: a potential leak due to a business process that is either poorly secured or against policy (but for legitimate business reasons).

>> External attacker on the inside: an external attacker who has penetrated the organization and is operating internally. This threat actor might have compromised a trusted account and appear like an internal user.

Although we use some of the same overlapping technologies, the implementation details can widely vary when we address all four of these threats. That's why I prefer using an overall term like "data protection" (or information-centric security) than the nebulous "insider threat."

For example, when dealing with potential rogue employees, you tend to rely more on monitoring technologies over time. You don't want to interfere with legitimate business activities, so we use policies in tools like DLP to track mishandling of sensitive information. And how the employee extracts the data also tends to follow a pattern. They aren't necessarily technically proficient and will often rely on USB storage, CD/DVD, or private email to extract data. They usually know the data they want before the attack.

No, I don't have numbers to back this up (I wish I did), but that's what I most often hear from folks who have to deal with these incidents.

An external attacker will exhibit some of the same behavior, but is likely more technically proficient, will target different data (often, but not always), might leave signs of "hunting around," will access a different set of systems, and tends to use different extraction techniques.

I'm not saying you will use this info to build out some super complex set of correlating rules, but where you drop in your security for each risk is probably going to be different. For example, USB monitoring/blocking, Web filtering, and Web/email DLP will stop a lot of rogue employees. For an external attacker, you might find file-activity monitoring and egress filtering more effective.

"Insider threat" doesn't make much sense because when you start trying to address your risks, a bunch of different ones all involve something going on inside your perimeter. To really tackle them, you need to break them apart, prioritize, and use both different security tools or different settings on the same tools.

I feel better now.

Rich Mogull is founder of Securosis LLC and a former security industry analyst for Gartner Inc. Rich has twenty years experience in information security, physical security, and risk management. He specializes in cloud security, data security, application security, emerging security technologies, and security management. He is also the principle course designer of the ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Zero-Factor Authentication: Owning Our Data
Nick Selby, Chief Security Officer at Paxos Trust Company,  2/19/2020
44% of Security Threats Start in the Cloud
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  2/19/2020
Ransomware Damage Hit $11.5B in 2019
Dark Reading Staff 2/20/2020
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
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-5243
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-21
uap-core before 0.7.3 is vulnerable to a denial of service attack when processing crafted User-Agent strings. Some regexes are vulnerable to regular expression denial of service (REDoS) due to overlapping capture groups. This allows remote attackers to overload a server by setting the User-Agent hea...
CVE-2019-14688
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
Trend Micro has repackaged installers for several Trend Micro products that were found to utilize a version of an install package that had a DLL hijack vulnerability that could be exploited during a new product installation. The vulnerability was found to ONLY be exploitable during an initial produc...
CVE-2019-19694
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
The Trend Micro Security 2019 (15.0.0.1163 and below) consumer family of products is vulnerable to a denial of service (DoS) attack in which a malicious actor could manipulate a key file at a certain time during the system startup process to disable the product's malware protection functions or the ...
CVE-2020-5242
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
openHAB before 2.5.2 allow a remote attacker to use REST calls to install the EXEC binding or EXEC transformation service and execute arbitrary commands on the system with the privileges of the user running openHAB. Starting with version 2.5.2 all commands need to be whitelisted in a local file whic...
CVE-2020-8601
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-20
Trend Micro Vulnerability Protection 2.0 is affected by a vulnerability that could allow an attack to use the product installer to load other DLL files located in the same directory.