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

2/27/2017
08:00 AM
Blake Moore
Blake Moore
Commentary
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

In Cybersecurity, Language Is a Source of Misunderstandings

To successfully fight threats across industries, we must all use the same terminology.

Have you ever traveled to a place where you didn't speak the local language and attempted to ask for help? Or have you attempted to say something in another dialect but it came out meaning something entirely different?

Language is the key to communication and a critical component in effective public-private information sharing in the cyber domain. Unfortunately — although some international organizations have attempted to document them — there are no common definitions for cyber terms globally across government, business, and academia. When you throw in industry buzzwords and marketing jargon around cybersecurity, it can become nearly impossible for organizations to speak quickly and efficiently with each other about security.

To fully engage in cross-industry dialogue within the context of cybersecurity, we must speak the same language. We can't outmaneuver threats without it.

Defining the Term "Cyber Attack"
There are at least 16 different definitions of the term "cyber attack" globally, all of which span a fairly large spectrum. Most of them, at least mention something about denying, disrupting, destroying, or degrading information systems. Using this premise, Sony, Ukrenergo, Dyn, and Saudi Aramco experienced cyber attacks. However, the events that took place at OPM, Target, and Banner Health were not—although they were reported as such. So, what do we call what happened? A host of other security-related terms might be applied, including data exfiltration, privacy breach, data breach, intrusion, cyber incident, and cyber compromise. In some cases, it may be a combination of several of these.

But even these terms have a variety of definitions. In the newly released Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations, authored by 19 international law experts, an example of this is cited on page 418: "…the Experts noted general agreement that cyber operations that merely cause inconvenience or irritation to the civilian population do not rise to the level of attack, although they cautioned that the scope of the term 'inconvenience' is unsettled."

So why does this all matter? When there are multiple media that all label an event with terms of varying definition, we negatively affect our ability as security professionals to characterize and respond appropriately. As an industry, the lack of defined terms is helping the hackers win. Mismatched terminology can introduce unnecessary fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and affect the potential for government authorities to assist a breach victim, alter the public's perception of the situation, or cause adversaries to push forward to achieve their objectives.

The Quest for Standard Terminology
There is a fairly recent concept that warrants particular attention to ensure government, industry, and academia are speaking the same language, especially in light of the global movement toward a more proactive security posture: active defense.

Active defense is a term that captures a spectrum of proactive cybersecurity measures that fall between traditional passive defense and offense, according to the George Washington University Center for Cyber & Homeland Security. There is a plethora of detail on this concept in a recent GWU report, but at its essence, active defense identifies a list of 11 techniques that private entities can employ to interdict cyber exploitations and attacks in a "gray zone." This zone falls between passive defense, which typically features basic internal security controls, and offensive cyber, which features more proactive activities security organizations can undertake, such as "hacking back."

These gray-zone active defense techniques range from information-sharing to denial and deception to botnet takedowns and rescue missions for recovering assets (the latter requiring close government cooperation). At the heart of this concept is the ability for the public and private sectors to partner on the planning and execution of these techniques.

Advancing toward a more universal spoken and written language in cyber will take time. But there are positive developments taking place. Some helpful concepts are gaining adoption and helping security professionals define their activities for their colleagues, industry peers, partners, and customers. The concepts below fall within the low-risk spectrum of active defense and can be executed given a shared technical language (e.g., shared semantic models):

  • Active Response: According to SANS, active response is a mechanism that provides the intrusion-detection systems with the capability to respond to an attack when it has been detected.
  • Adaptive Response: Adaptive response describes enablement of end-to-end context and automated response across multivendor environments. Because most security technologies aren't designed to work with each other, using frameworks like adaptive response gives vendors to the ability to detect threats faster through analytics, and collaborate on a response. This defense strategy for multilayered, heterogeneous security architectures enables faster decision-making and more cohesive responses to threats.
  • Adaptive Security: Adaptive security is the ability to adapt and respond to a rapidly changing threat landscape by recognizing behavior rather than root files or code. The rise of technologies focusing on user and behavior analytics are a good example of adaptive security in action.

Though that's a short list, these terms represent a step in the right direction for the industry. But we have a long way to go. Without a common language in cybersecurity, we can't achieve intelligent information-sharing both within a single organization or between the complex web of vendors and solutions in today's market. Lack of defined key terms is blocking the industry from effectively implementing anything beyond passive defensive mechanisms. 

We must continue to strive toward establishing a common global cybersecurity language that spans government, industry, and academia: this is our center of gravity. Until we make progress, this is a deficiency that will remain a vulnerability that our common adversaries exploit to outpace and outmaneuver us. 

Related Content:

 

Blake Moore is a cyber threat intelligence and operations expert with over 16 years of experience across public and private sectors. Mr. Moore is currently the Senior Director of Operations and Chief of Staff for cybersecurity markets at Splunk, where he leads operations and ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Matt_Carlson
50%
50%
Matt_Carlson,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/6/2017 | 1:54:23 AM
Re: Words matter, but ACTIONS matter more
You would think that when it comes to the language of coding that everything would be easily understood. But of course, there will always be some misunderstanding here and there if people don't put notes in their coding! Happens a number of times even with SEO coding too. It's really important that whatever you do that has anything to do with digital media is clearly outlined for people to understand what you're doing.
orenfalkowitz
100%
0%
orenfalkowitz,
User Rank: Strategist
2/27/2017 | 7:49:28 PM
Words matter, but ACTIONS matter more
I agree that there is a language problem in the cybersecurity industry. Security professionals are too focused on nuances and the minutia in security incident distinctions rather than meanignful distinctions in outcomes.

Take for example "phishing".  It is the root cause in 97% of all cybersecurity incidents but I worry that there are so many words being used to describe phishing that users are confused. And further, focusing on the payloads and effects like ransomware don't help user focus on the important problems they should be dolving. After all 99% of ransomware is delivered via phishing.  

Focusing on terminology is important, but it's an excercise that is best left to military strategists.  Companys and individuals need to focus their cybersecurity approach on actions at a point where the outcomes are chagned and actions that can be measured. 
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/3/2020
Pen Testers Who Got Arrested Doing Their Jobs Tell All
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  8/5/2020
New 'Nanodegree' Program Provides Hands-On Cybersecurity Training
Nicole Ferraro, Contributing Writer,  8/3/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
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
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15820
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-08
In JetBrains YouTrack before 2020.2.6881, the markdown parser could disclose hidden file existence.
CVE-2020-15821
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-08
In JetBrains YouTrack before 2020.2.6881, a user without permission is able to create an article draft.
CVE-2020-15823
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-08
JetBrains YouTrack before 2020.2.8873 is vulnerable to SSRF in the Workflow component.
CVE-2020-15824
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-08
In JetBrains Kotlin before 1.4.0, there is a script-cache privilege escalation vulnerability due to kotlin-main-kts cached scripts in the system temp directory, which is shared by all users by default.
CVE-2020-15825
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-08
In JetBrains TeamCity before 2020.1, users with the Modify Group permission can elevate other users' privileges.