Threat Intelligence

5/11/2017
10:30 AM
Derek Manky
Derek Manky
Commentary
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

Artificial Intelligence: Cybersecurity Friend or Foe?

The next generation of situation-aware malware will use AI to behave like a human attacker: performing reconnaissance, identifying targets, choosing methods of attack, and intelligently evading detection.

Second of a two-part series.

Just as organizations can use artificial intelligence to enhance their security posture, cybercriminals may begin to use it to build smarter malware. This is precisely why a security fabric approach is needed — security solutions for network, endpoint, application, data center, cloud and access working together as an integrated and collaborative whole — combined with actionable intelligence to hold a strong position on autonomous security and automated defense.

In the future, we will have attacker/defender AI scenarios play out. At first, they will employ simple mechanics. Later, they will play out as intricate scenarios with millions of data points to analyze and address. However, at the end of the day, there is only one output: whether a compromise occurred or not.

Threats are getting smarter and are increasingly able to operate autonomously. In the coming year, we expect to see malware designed with adaptive, success-based learning to improve the success and efficacy of attacks. This new generation of malware will be situation-aware, meaning that it will understand the environment it is in and make calculated decisions about what to do next. In many ways, malware will begin to behave like a human attacker: performing reconnaissance, identifying targets, choosing methods of attack, and intelligently evading detection.

This next generation of malware uses code that is a precursor to artificial intelligence, replacing traditional “if not this, then that” code logic with more complex decision-making trees. Autonomous malware operates much like branch prediction technology, which is designed to guess which branch of a decision tree a transaction will take before it is executed. A branch predictor keeps track of whether or not a branch is taken, so when it encounters a conditional jump that it has seen before, it makes a prediction so that over time, the software becomes more efficient.

Autonomous malware, as with intelligent defensive solutions, is guided by the collection and analysis of offensive intelligence, such as types of devices deployed in a network segment, traffic flow, applications being used, transaction details, or time of day transactions occur. The longer a threat can persist inside a host, it will be that much better able to operate independently, blend into its environment, select tools based on the platform it is targeting and, eventually, take counter-measures based on the security tools in place.

A New Threat: Transformers
We as an industry also will see the growth of cross-platform autonomous malware designed to operate on and between a variety of mobile devices. These cross-platform tools, or “transformers,” include a variety of exploit and payload tools that can operate across different environments. This new variant of autonomous malware includes a learning component that gathers offensive intelligence about where it has been deployed, including the platform on which it has been loaded, then selects, assembles and executes an attack against its target using the appropriate payload.

Transformer malware is being used to target cross-platform applications with the goal of infecting and spreading across multiple platforms, thereby expanding the threat surface and making detection and resolution more difficult. Once a vulnerable target has been identified, these tools can also cause code failure and then exploit that vulnerability to inject code, collect data and persist undetected.

The Big Picture
Autonomous malware, including transformers that are designed to proactively spread between platforms, can have a devastating effect on our increasing reliance on connected devices to automate and perform everyday tasks. Efforts to analyze data for competitive business insights will be hampered. Overcoming these challenges will require highly integrated and intelligent security technologies that can see across platforms, correlate threat intelligence and automatically synchronize a coordinated response. Artificial intelligence and machine learning will prove invaluable in this role, ultimately enabling the vision of Intent-Based Network Security (IBNS) that can automatically translate business requirements and apply them to the entire infrastructure.

In part one of the series, Extreme Makeover: AI & Network Cybersecurity, Derek describes how artificial intellegience and machine learning are playing a vital role in the way security professionals consume and analyze data.

Related Content:

 

Derek Manky formulates security strategy with more than 15 years of cyber security experience behind him. His ultimate goal to make a positive impact in the global war on cybercrime. Manky provides thought leadership to industry, and has presented research and strategy ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Want Your Daughter to Succeed in Cyber? Call Her John
John De Santis, CEO, HyTrust,  5/16/2018
New Mexico Man Sentenced on DDoS, Gun Charges
Dark Reading Staff 5/18/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
[Strategic Security Report] Navigating the Threat Intelligence Maze
[Strategic Security Report] Navigating the Threat Intelligence Maze
Most enterprises are using threat intel services, but many are still figuring out how to use the data they're collecting. In this Dark Reading survey we give you a look at what they're doing today - and where they hope to go.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-11354
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, the IEEE 1905.1a dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-ieee1905.c by making a certain correction to string handling.
CVE-2018-11355
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, the RTCP dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-rtcp.c by avoiding a buffer overflow for packet status chunks.
CVE-2018-11356
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the DNS dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-dns.c by avoiding a NULL pointer dereference for an empty name in an SRV record.
CVE-2018-11357
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the LTP dissector and other dissectors could consume excessive memory. This was addressed in epan/tvbuff.c by rejecting negative lengths.
CVE-2018-11358
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the Q.931 dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-q931.c by avoiding a use-after-free after a malformed packet prevented certain cleanup.