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

3/20/2017
02:30 PM
Kyle Wilhoit
Kyle Wilhoit
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Getting Beyond the Buzz & Hype of Threat Hunting

When harnessed properly, threat hunting can be one of the most useful techniques for finding attackers in your network. But it won't happen overnight.

The terms “threat intelligence” and “threat hunting” have become the next big thing in information security over the last few years. While many researchers (including myself) still view these buzzwords unfavorably, the reality is that – when done correctly - the concepts, processes, and strategies are critical to the security of an organization.

According to recent "report card" research from DomainTools, over 40% of survey respondents said their organization currently uses some sort of threat intelligence platform. This demonstrates that the field is growing - and with a heavy focus on threat hunting. The report card examined the maturity of information security departments across the globe, and gauged their success in implementing hunt capabilities in both small and large organizations. 

But What Is Threat Hunting, Really?
It’s important to remember that threat intelligence is merely threat data with contextualized analysis to help analysts understand the threats to their organization. Threat intelligence isn’t as easy as merely paying for an API or web portal to access specific threat data. Performing proper threat analysis requires skilled analysts, vetted information and data, timely information, and multiple data sources.

Often over-used and misunderstood, threat hunting is the process of proactively searching through networks and host data to detect and possibly help eliminate miscreants from networks and hosts. Performing one hunt can be different from another, and hunts vary from analyst to analyst. Many good hunters define their ability to hunt as an art versus a science. Many hunters rely on gut feel in conjunction with proper security analysis platforms, therefore combining the art and science of hunting. Unfortunately, hunting is often seen as hugely beneficial, but difficult to implement.

A-Hunting We Will Go: Threat Hunting Maturity
In our research, we found that threat hunting is emerging as a top tactic among many organizations. Of the respondents, more than one quarter (26%) indicated they spend 26 hours or more per week hunting threats in the network. A large majority (78%) of respondents using hunt capabilities find value in hunting – specifically drilling down on forensic clues from emails, such as domain name, IP address, or email address, which ideally leads to information that makes the organization more secure. Many of these organizations then take the information they find to proactively block on their proxies/egress firewalls and other defensive technology. Some of those same organizations will actually share out indicators of attack (IOA) or indicators of compromise (IOC) to like industries.

It Takes Time to Get it Right
Standing up a threat hunting capability doesn’t need to be difficult, but it needs to be right. The speed of adoption of a hunt program is one of the biggest and most prevalent issues I’ve witnessed within organizations attempting to stand up a hunting program. It takes time to implement and properly run a threat hunt team or capability! One of the most important things an organization should consider at the outset is
the Threat Hunting Maturity Model from SQRRL.

By following this maturity model as a foundation for your own hunt capability, you can work your way through the four levels it takes to grow hunt capability organically – helping reduce the pains commonly associated with a developing hunt program. In addition to the maturity model process, it’s also important for organizations to have proper automation technology in place for when they achieve maturity.

Related Content:

 

Kyle Wilhoit is an internationally recognized security researcher with more than a decade of experience leading research teams to deliver timely and organized threat intelligence to internal and external customers. In his current role as senior security researcher at ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
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-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...