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

6/14/2019
10:30 AM
Joshua Goldfarb
Joshua Goldfarb
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Sensory Overload: Filtering Out Cybersecurity's Noise

No organization can prioritize and mitigate hundreds of risks effectively. The secret lies in carefully filtering out the risks, policies, and processes that waste precious time and resources.

In security, what we don't look at, don't listen to, don't evaluate, and don't act upon may actually be more important than what we do. This may sound counterintuitive at first, but I assure you that it is not. The truth is that too often the cybersecurity noise level — all the data points constantly bombarding us — creates a sensory overload that impedes our ability to think clearly and act. Here are 10 places where you can start to filter out the noise.

1. Risk: Risk is everywhere you look in life, and security is no different. When looking to assess, prioritize, and mitigate risk, security leaders are bombarded by one potential risk after another. No organization can prioritize and mitigate hundreds of risks effectively. The secret lies in focusing on the risks you don't consider, rather than the ones you do. Think about which risks will cause the greatest impact and damage to the business. Those are the ones you need to prioritize. The rest will have to wait for another time.

2. Threat landscape: Security vendors love to talk about the threat landscape. Scare tactics around the capabilities of nation-state and criminal attackers abound. Unfortunately, this chatter seldom comes with a mapping to what's relevant to the organization hearing it. Are there real threats to information security out there? Absolutely. Are they all relevant to your business? No. Understanding which threats are the most pertinent to you is the first step toward filtering out all that noise.

3. Intelligence: Every security organization wants to stay on top of what's coming next. In theory, tailored intelligence is a great way to accomplish this. In practice, however, intelligence is more broad-brush strokes than tailored. Is some of what you're reading relevant to your business? Possibly. But don't expect to take one-size-fits-all intelligence and use it to reduce risk.

4. Policy: I've seen many different policies over the course of my career, some better than others. There are many topics that need to be covered in any policy, but wherever possible, focus on the minimal set of points necessary. Otherwise, the policy runs the risk of becoming so cumbersome and complex that no one ends up following it. If you want your users to abide by your policies, help them do so by filtering out the noise ahead of time. Don't make them struggle to piece together the relevant parts of a lengthy, verbose policy.

5. Process: A good security process is extremely valuable. Regardless of the task at hand, process brings order to the chaos and minimizes the redundancy, inefficiency, and human error resulting from lack of process. On the other hand, a bad security process can have exactly the opposite effect. Processes should help and improve the security function. In order to do so, they need to be precise, accurate, and efficient. If they aren't, they should be improved by filtering out the noise and boiling them down to their essence.

6. Item du jour: It's far too easy to get distracted by every new security fad that comes our way. Once in a while, an item du jour becomes something that needs to be on our radar. But most of the time, fads come and go and seldom improve our security posture. Worse, they can pull us away from the important activities that do.

7. Logging: Many of us don't know exactly what logs and event data we will or will not need when crunch time comes. As a result, we collect everything we can get our hands on. We fill up our available storage, shortening retention and impeding performance, although we may never need 80% of what we're collecting. When it comes to logs and event data, noise is the rule, rather than the exception. Filtering out the noise and reducing collection and retention to that which is necessary for security operations and incident response goes a long way toward helping a program grow and mature.

8. Alerting: If you aren't familiar with the term "alert cannon," you should be. Most security organizations contend with noisy, imprecise rule logic that produces an exorbitant number of false positives. The result is a cannon of alerts that can bury even the largest security teams in noise. Developing precise, high fidelity, low noise alerting designed to incisively root out activity indicative of the prioritized risks is the right way to filter out all of that unhelpful noise.

9. Incidents: With noisy alerting comes a huge volume of incidents immediately opened and closed as false positives. While this may seem innocuous enough, it has two main negative effects. First, the time security team members sink into dealing with these ghost incidents is far too precious to be spent on such a valueless activity. Second, when looking to compute and report metrics on the state of security operations, these ghost incidents dominate and skew the numbers. That makes it difficult to see past the noise and into any meaningful information.

10. Vendor fatigue: The information security market may just be one of the most crowded, confusing, and noisiest markets out there. I'm not expecting the situation to improve any time soon. As a result, security teams must filter the noise streaming at them continuously from their vendors. How? While there is no one way to eliminate or even reduce this noise, there are steps an organization can take to help make sense of it all. That journey begins by prioritizing the risks to the business and mapping out a plan to mitigate them. Only then can gaps in the security posture be identified. With a finite and concrete list of gaps, a security organization can seek out the right people, process, and technology to fill those gaps, rather than trying to sift through a barrage of incoming sales pitches.

Related Content:

Josh (Twitter: @ananalytical) is an experienced information security leader who works with enterprises to mature and improve their enterprise security programs.  Previously, Josh served as VP, CTO - Emerging Technologies at FireEye and as Chief Security Officer for ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
angila
50%
50%
angila,
User Rank: Apprentice
6/21/2019 | 3:19:20 AM
ecdssc
a good one I like it very much. best i ever read
Florida Town Pays $600K to Ransomware Operators
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  6/20/2019
Pledges to Not Pay Ransomware Hit Reality
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  6/21/2019
AWS CISO Talks Risk Reduction, Development, Recruitment
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  6/25/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
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-2019-10133
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
A flaw was found in Moodle before 3.7, 3.6.4, 3.5.6, 3.4.9 and 3.1.18. The form to upload cohorts contained a redirect field, which was not restricted to internal URLs.
CVE-2019-10134
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
A flaw was found in Moodle before 3.7, 3.6.4, 3.5.6, 3.4.9 and 3.1.18. The size of users' private file uploads via email were not correctly checked, so their quota allowance could be exceeded.
CVE-2019-10154
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
A flaw was found in Moodle before versions 3.7, 3.6.4. A web service fetching messages was not restricted to the current user's conversations.
CVE-2019-9039
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
The Couchbase Sync Gateway 2.1.2 in combination with a Couchbase Server is affected by a previously undisclosed N1QL-injection vulnerability in the REST API. An attacker with access to the public REST API can insert additional N1QL statements through the parameters ?startkey? and ?endkey? of the ?_a...
CVE-2018-20846
PUBLISHED: 2019-06-26
Out-of-bounds accesses in the functions pi_next_lrcp, pi_next_rlcp, pi_next_rpcl, pi_next_pcrl, pi_next_rpcl, and pi_next_cprl in openmj2/pi.c in OpenJPEG through 2.3.0 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash).