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. 

Source: Defensive Approach Diagram from DomainTools Report Card Report
Source: Defensive Approach Diagram from DomainTools Report Card Report

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.

Source: SQRRL Threat Maturity Model
Source: SQRRL Threat Maturity Model

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
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
The Problem with Proprietary Testing: NSS Labs vs. CrowdStrike
Brian Monkman, Executive Director at NetSecOPEN,  7/19/2019
How Attackers Infiltrate the Supply Chain & What to Do About It
Shay Nahari, Head of Red-Team Services at CyberArk,  7/16/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
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-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
The Linux Foundation ONOS 1.15.0 and ealier is affected by: Improper Input Validation. The impact is: The attacker can remotely execute any commands by sending malicious http request to the controller. The component is: Method runJavaCompiler in YangLiveCompilerManager.java. The attack vector is: ne...
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
Frog CMS 1.1 is affected by: Cross Site Scripting (XSS). The impact is: Cookie stealing, Alert pop-up on page, Redirecting to another phishing site, Executing browser exploits. The component is: Snippets.
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
Ilias 5.3 before 5.3.12; 5.2 before 5.2.21 is affected by: Cross Site Scripting (XSS) - CWE-79 Type 2: Stored XSS (or Persistent). The impact is: Execute code in the victim's browser. The component is: Assessment / TestQuestionPool. The attack vector is: Cloze Test Text gap (attacker) / Corrections ...
CVE-2019-9959
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
The JPXStream::init function in Poppler 0.78.0 and earlier doesn't check for negative values of stream length, leading to an Integer Overflow, thereby making it possible to allocate a large memory chunk on the heap, with a size controlled by an attacker, as demonstrated by pdftocairo.
CVE-2019-4236
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
A IBM Spectrum Protect 7.l client backup or archive operation running for an HP-UX VxFS object is silently skipping Access Control List (ACL) entries from backup or archive if there are more than twelve ACL entries associated with the object in total. As a result, it could allow a local attacker to ...