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.

Threat Intelligence

1/5/2017
02:30 PM
Terry Sweeney
Terry Sweeney
Slideshows
Connect Directly
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

7 Ways To Fine-Tune Your Threat Intelligence Model

The nature of security threats is too dynamic for set-and-forget. Here are some ways to shake off that complacency.
Previous
1 of 8
Next

We look at threat intelligence as the active, selective gathering of multiple threads: The latest malware variants, a new twist on ransomware, some nefarious innovation on social engineering, DDoS stratagems, to name a few.  These services are as different from old-school security feeds as sprinkler systems are from fire hydrants. Security feeds vacuum up (and disperse) everything in their wake; threat intel is, well, more intelligent, not to mention curated and customizable.

One of Dark Reading's columnists summed up the difference more succinctly: There's data, and then there's information – in the case of threat intel, it's specific data that allows users to gauge exposure and risk, then act accordingly. Business, government and non-profits see the value of threat intel; global service revenue is forecast to top $5.8 billion by 2020, according to Markets and Markets.

But the set-and-forget mentality is an occupational hazard in all of IT; seasoned infosec professionals understand the security landscape changes too quickly to relax for very long. So here are some flash points to help guard against complacency with threat intel, and maybe even raise your organization's security IQ.

What's worked for you and your organization? What's overblown marketing hype? We know you won't be shy about letting us know in the comments section… let us hear from you.

 

Terry Sweeney is a Los Angeles-based writer and editor who has covered technology, networking, and security for more than 20 years. He was part of the team that started Dark Reading and has been a contributor to The Washington Post, Crain's New York Business, Red Herring, ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Previous
1 of 8
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
michaelfillin
50%
50%
michaelfillin,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/5/2017 | 4:37:49 PM
$5.8 billion
$5.8 billion, really ? Can't trust that
RetiredUser
50%
50%
RetiredUser,
User Rank: Ninja
1/5/2017 | 11:04:41 PM
Re: $5.8 billion
Michael, I think that makes sense if you look at the breakdown.  Keep in mind that this is a wide-ranging examination and as we in the tech world know, costs are in every nook and cranny.

The scope of the report looks at the whole threat intelligence security market and covers all the solutions below:
  • Security Information And Event Management (SIEM)
  • Log Management
  • Identity and Access Management (IAM)
  • Security and Vulnerability Management (SVM)
  • Risk Management
  • Incident Forensics

That's already quite a bit of annual $$ right there per solution.  Then the service breakdown below is also considered. 
  • Managed Services
    • Advance Threat Monitoring
    • Security Intelligence Feeds
  • Professional Services
    • Consulting Services
    • Training and Support

Considering the projection covers SMBs and Large Enterprises, all the major verticals and the North America, European, Asia-Pacific, Middle East & Africa, and Latin America markets, I actually wonder if the $$ assessment won't be found wanting by that time.

I understand your intitial doubt, but I work for a company that just spent about $25M on technology over the last couple years, not including budget for Security to secure that tech.  That's one major company in one major vertical in Tech.

I think the numbers are starting to look pretty solid with the scope in mind, and knowing the threat activity that is out there now and what we've seen in the past. 
cemal.dikmen
50%
50%
cemal.dikmen,
User Rank: Author
1/15/2017 | 8:11:20 AM
Question
lack of suitable technologies (525%). Did you mean 52%???
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 10/23/2020
Modern Day Insider Threat: Network Bugs That Are Stealing Your Data
David Pearson, Principal Threat Researcher,  10/21/2020
Are You One COVID-19 Test Away From a Cybersecurity Disaster?
Alan Brill, Senior Managing Director, Cyber Risk Practice, Kroll,  10/21/2020
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
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-21269
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-27
checkpath in OpenRC through 0.42.1 might allow local users to take ownership of arbitrary files because a non-terminal path component can be a symlink.
CVE-2020-27743
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-26
libtac in pam_tacplus through 1.5.1 lacks a check for a failure of RAND_bytes()/RAND_pseudo_bytes(). This could lead to use of a non-random/predictable session_id.
CVE-2020-1915
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-26
An out-of-bounds read in the JavaScript Interpreter in Facebook Hermes prior to commit 8cb935cd3b2321c46aa6b7ed8454d95c75a7fca0 allows attackers to cause a denial of service attack or possible further memory corruption via crafted JavaScript. Note that this is only exploitable if the application usi...
CVE-2020-26878
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-26
Ruckus through 1.5.1.0.21 is affected by remote command injection. An authenticated user can submit a query to the API (/service/v1/createUser endpoint), injecting arbitrary commands that will be executed as root user via web.py.
CVE-2020-26879
PUBLISHED: 2020-10-26
Ruckus vRioT through 1.5.1.0.21 has an API backdoor that is hardcoded into validate_token.py. An unauthenticated attacker can interact with the service API by using a backdoor value as the Authorization header.