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

Image Source: Pixabay

Image Source: Pixabay

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

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%???
Where Businesses Waste Endpoint Security Budgets
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/15/2019
US Mayors Commit to Just Saying No to Ransomware
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/16/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Now this is the worst micromanagment I've seen.
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-17210
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-20
An issue was discovered in PrinterOn Central Print Services (CPS) through 4.1.4. The core components that create and launch a print job do not perform complete verification of the session cookie that is supplied to them. As a result, an attacker with guest/pseudo-guest level permissions can bypass t...
CVE-2019-12934
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-20
An issue was discovered in the wp-code-highlightjs plugin through 0.6.2 for WordPress. wp-admin/options-general.php?page=wp-code-highlight-js allows CSRF, as demonstrated by an XSS payload in the hljs_additional_css parameter.
CVE-2019-9229
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-20
An issue was discovered on AudioCodes Mediant 500L-MSBR, 500-MBSR, M800B-MSBR and 800C-MSBR devices with firmware versions F7.20A to F7.20A.251. An internal interface exposed to the link-local address 169.254.254.253 allows attackers in the local network to access multiple quagga VTYs. Attackers can...
CVE-2019-12815
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-19
An arbitrary file copy vulnerability in mod_copy in ProFTPD up to 1.3.5b allows for remote code execution and information disclosure without authentication, a related issue to CVE-2015-3306.
CVE-2019-13569
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-19
A SQL injection vulnerability exists in the Icegram Email Subscribers & Newsletters plugin through 4.1.7 for WordPress. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability would allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary SQL commands on the affected system.