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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

3/23/2015
10:45 AM
Joshua Goldfarb
Joshua Goldfarb
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

Context: Finding The Story Inside Your Security Operations Program

What's missing in today's chaotic, alert-driven incident response queue is the idea of a narrative that provides a detailed understanding of how an attack actually unfolds.

Decision-making is a regular part of our lives. Most of us probably don’t give much thought to how many decisions we make on a daily basis. Although we may not be aware of it, particularly for smaller decisions, each decision involves considering multiple data points. Granted, there will always be some decisions that we make emotionally or irrationally. But for logical decisions, let’s take a step back and consider what happens during the decision-making process.

For logical decisions, the decision-maker will typically understand the decision that needs to be made, develop criteria, gather supporting data, and then evaluate the supporting data per the criteria. This probably sounds like a familiar process, but what does this have to do with information security? That is a great question, and it is one that I would like to discuss further.

In the security operations and incident response realm, organizations typically manage their workflow out of a unified work queue. Into this work queue may stream different types of information, the most common type being alerts. The volume of alerts heading into this work queue is typically extremely high, the noise level is quite high, and the signal is quite low. The end result of this alert-driven work queue can be quite chaotic. Why is this an issue, and why am I calling attention to this here? It goes back to the goal of that unified work queue.

The goal of a security operations and incident response work queue should be to support decision-making. Let’s put aside, for the moment, the question of “Where do I begin?” when looking at a somewhat overwhelming queue of alerts. Let’s think about this question: If I pick an alert out of the work queue, how do I know if it is a false positive or something that will land me in the headlines in six months’ time? The answer to that question is not trivial, and it’s one reason why detection rates are so low within many organizations.

What’s missing from the current-day work queue is the idea of a narrative. Each alert in the work queue is a snapshot, a moment in time, and a part of the overall story of what occurred. It’s a piece of the puzzle. Just as I cannot look at one piece of a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and understand what the fully assembled puzzle looks like, I also cannot look at one alert and understand exactly what happened within my organization.

In order to understand the complete picture, alerts in the work queue must be vetted, qualified, investigated, and enriched with additional contextual information. This contextual information includes supporting data from relevant corroborating data sources, intelligence, and an understanding of how the attack unfolded. In other words, the alert needs an accurate story built around it to properly support decision-making. It needs a narrative.

Typically, vetting, qualifying, investigating, and enriching is a very manual process that some organizations do better than others. As you can imagine, this presents quite a challenge to the typical resource-constrained organization. It is a challenge that keeps detection rates low and persistence times high. Long term, the paradigm must shift away from today’s alert-driven model and toward a narrative-driven model, which will improve detection rates and reduce persistence times. But presenting the analyst with a queue of pre-assembled narratives, rather than a queue of context-less alerts changes the nature of security operations and incident response.

The narrative-driven model creates a world in which analysts work through a queue of assembled puzzles and painted pictures that empower them to make better decisions. Similarly, a lack of context is one of the main reasons decision-making is so hard and why so many breaches fly under the radar. The narrative-driven world will be one that supports better decision-making, resulting in stronger signal, less noise, and fewer missed cues.

It may not surprise you that this is a topic I am quite passionate about. Having spent a long time on the operational side, I long felt the pain of inadequate decision support in the security operations and incident response realm. When I speak to professionals currently in operational roles, it’s clear to me that they feel this pain as well. From the discussions I’ve had, I believe that the security operations community is ready for a move from an alert-driven model to a narrative-driven model. In the end, it all boils down to the ability to make better decisions about what’s going on within our organizations. Better decisions, in turn, improve our overall security postures.

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
josh@idrra.com
50%
50%
[email protected],
User Rank: Apprentice
3/24/2015 | 11:00:24 AM
Re: Powerful Analysis
Yes, correct Marilyn.  Just like contributing to DarkReading. ;-)
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
3/24/2015 | 10:30:16 AM
Re: Powerful Analysis
Thanks, Josh. Like most things, I expect this is something that takes a little bit of practice, to get good at!
josh@idrra.com
50%
50%
[email protected],
User Rank: Apprentice
3/24/2015 | 10:24:13 AM
Re: Powerful Analysis
Thank you Marilyn for what is a great question.  In general, pitfalls that can impede or obstruct the narrative can vary widely, but a few common ones are:

* Lack of telemetry to support narrative-building

* Lack of intelligence/background contextual information regarding activity of interest

* Shortage of expertise require to design narrative-driven workflow

* Immature or unreliable methods for enrichment of data and addition of contextual information

The narrative would seem to be preferred over alerts for internal incidents (i.e., incidents within the organization).  Perhaps for external incidents (e.g., attacks on partners or third parties) where there is less control, less telemetry, and/or less influence, narratives wouldn't work so well.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
3/24/2015 | 10:09:04 AM
Re: Powerful Analysis
Josh, what are some of the common pitfalls to watch out for when applying a narrative approach to security operations programs? And when does it not make sense to use this strategy?
josh@idrra.com
50%
50%
[email protected],
User Rank: Apprentice
3/23/2015 | 9:08:00 PM
Re: Powerful Analysis
Thank you for your comments and question.  I think that after detection, one needs to move to analysis/forensics, and then on to response.  What's cool about the narrative approach is that it gets us much further down the road of analysis/forensics than alerts do.  When the puzzle is partially or wholly assembled for us, some of the analysis/forensics that needs to be done is also done for us.  Helps to save time and reduce human error.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
3/23/2015 | 2:32:50 PM
Powerful Analysis
Great article! This type of thinking can be very beneficial in all aspects of life when trying to analyze a situation. It's not only the discovery phase however that may be difficult for a security program but the execution phase of what is done with that knowledge.

Do you recommend employing the same principles? Or how would you recommend proceeding after the detection phase?
Why Cyber-Risk Is a C-Suite Issue
Marc Wilczek, Digital Strategist & CIO Advisor,  11/12/2019
DevSecOps: The Answer to the Cloud Security Skills Gap
Lamont Orange, Chief Information Security Officer at Netskope,  11/15/2019
Attackers' Costs Increasing as Businesses Focus on Security
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  11/15/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19040
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-17
KairosDB through 1.2.2 has XSS in view.html because of showErrorMessage in js/graph.js, as demonstrated by view.html?q= with a '"sampling":{"value":"<script>' substring.
CVE-2019-19041
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-17
An issue was discovered in Xorux Lpar2RRD 6.11 and Stor2RRD 2.61, as distributed in Xorux 2.41. They do not correctly verify the integrity of an upgrade package before processing it. As a result, official upgrade packages can be modified to inject an arbitrary Bash script that will be executed by th...
CVE-2019-19012
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-17
An integer overflow in the search_in_range function in regexec.c in Oniguruma 6.x before 6.9.4_rc2 leads to an out-of-bounds read, in which the offset of this read is under the control of an attacker. (This only affects the 32-bit compiled version). Remote attackers can cause a denial-of-service or ...
CVE-2019-19022
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-17
iTerm2 through 3.3.6 has potentially insufficient documentation about the presence of search history in com.googlecode.iterm2.plist, which might allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive information, as demonstrated by searching for the NoSyncSearchHistory string in .plist files within public Git r...
CVE-2019-19035
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-17
jhead 3.03 is affected by: heap-based buffer over-read. The impact is: Denial of service. The component is: ReadJpegSections and process_SOFn in jpgfile.c. The attack vector is: Open a specially crafted JPEG file.