Incident and Forensics Investigations Management
Security incidents and digital forensics investigations are complex events with many facets, all of which must be managed in parallel to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. When investigations are not managed and documented properly, processes fail, critical items are overlooked, inefficiencies develop, and key indicators are missed, all leading to increased potential risk and losses.
Investigation management can be broken down into a number of key components and it is important that an organization is able to carry out all of these elements collectively and seamlessly in order to properly handle and manage any incident they may potentially face.
This blog will briefly cover 9 key areas that I believe are the most important when it comes to incident and forensics management. Ensuring these are firmly in place within your security operations or CSIRT team will ensure more efficient and effective incident management when an incident does occur.
If you would like to learn more about each of the components in more detail and how DFLabs has incorporated them into its comprehensive and complete Security Orchestration, Automation and Response (SOAR) platform to enable organizations to improve their security program, you can download our in-depth white paper here.
Every investigation must be organized into a logical container, commonly referred to as a case or incident. This is necessary for several reasons. Most obviously, this container is used to identify the investigation and contain information such as observables, tasks, evidence, notes and other information associated with the investigation, discussed in greater detail in the subsequent sections. Many investigations contain sensitive information which should only be accessible by those with a legitimate need to know. These containers also serve to enforce a level of access control.
Observables and Findings
Investigations generate a large volume of data, from simple observables such as IP addresses, domain names and hash values, to more complex observables such as malware and attacker TTPs, as well as findings such as those made from log analysis, forensic examination and malware analysis. All this information must be recorded and shared with all appropriate stakeholders to ensure the most effective response to a security incident.
Data gathered from previous incidents can be an invaluable tool in responding more effectively to future security incidents. As individual data points are associated with each other, this information is transformed from simple data into actionable threat intelligence which can inform future decisions and responses.
Phase, Expectation and Task Management
Investigations generally progress through a series of phases, each of which will contain a series of management expectations and a set of tasks required to meet those expectations. As the complexity of an investigation increases the tracking of these phases, expectations and tasks become both more critical and more difficult to manage. Failing to properly track and manage investigation phases, expectations and tasks can lead to duplicated efforts, overlooked items and other inefficiencies which lead to an increase in both cost and time to successfully complete an investigation.
Evidence and Chain of Custody
Documenting evidence and tracking chain of custody can be a complex process during an investigation of any size. Documentation using older paper-based or spreadsheet systems does not scale to larger investigations, is prone to error and is time-consuming. Failing to maintain a full list of evidence or maintain chain of custody can result in lost evidence, duplication of efforts and inability to use critical evidence during legal processes.
Forensic Tool Integration
Security operations use a multitude of tools and technologies on a daily basis with different ones being utilized for varying types of investigations. Logging into several platforms individually to collect data is often a manual process and can be tiresome and painful, as well as extremely time-consuming, and time is always of the essence. It is critical that security tools are connected and integrated to improve efficiencies and to fuse intelligence seamlessly together so that all data can be analyzed and documented in a single location and immediately shared with relevant stakeholders.
Reporting and Management
Reporting and the management of reports is a vital function during any investigation. Once information is documented, it must be able to be accessed easily and in multiple formats appropriate for a wide variety of audiences. As the scale of an investigation grows, so does the number of individual reports which will be generated. This can result in many complexities, including sharing logistics, proper access controls and managing different versions of reports. To reduce the impact of these complexities, a single report management platform should be used to act as the authoritative source for all reports.
Activity Tracking and Auditing
Tracking actions taken during an investigation is important to ensure a consistent response, identify areas where process improvements are needed, and to prove that the actions taken were appropriate. Not only must actions be documented, but it is also crucial to ensure that the integrity of this documentation cannot be called into question later. However, documenting activity during an investigation can be time-consuming, taking analysts attention away from the tasks at hand, and is often an afterthought.
Investigative data can be extremely sensitive, and it is crucial that the confidentiality of such data be maintained at all times. Confidentiality must be maintained not only for those outside of the organization but also for those internal users who may not be authorized to access some or all of the incident information.
No matter the specific roles a team is tasked with, the team will require many different physical and logical internal assets to accomplish their tasks. This may include workstations, storage media, license dongles, software and other hardware. Regardless of the asset, an organization must be able to track that asset throughout its life, ensuring that they (and the money spent on them) do not go to waste. As the team grows, managing the tracking of these assets, who they are issued, their expiration dates and more can become a full-time task.
These core components combined enable security teams to work more efficiently throughout the entire investigative lifecycle, reducing both cost and risk posed by the wide variety of events facing organizations today. Providing a holistic view of the security landscape and the organization’s broad infrastructure allows for better use of existing tools and technologies to minimize the time team members must spend on the administrative portions of investigations, allowing them to focus on the more important tasks that will ultimately impact the outcome of the response.
SANS recently released their 2018 SOC Survey and many of their findings were of no surprise to anyone who has been responsible for maintaining their organization’s security posture. Many respondents reported a continued breakdown in communication between NOC and SOC operations, lack of dynamic asset discovery procedures, and event correlation continues to be a manual process even though SOC staffing is being worn thin by the surmounting responsibilities they have to take on.
Why Measuring SOC-cess Matters?
Anyone who has been a part of a security team knows these issues are an everyday battle, but those “common” issues were not what caught me off guard. The most shocking statistic I gathered from this survey is that only 54% of respondents reported that they are actively using metrics to measure their SOC’s success! I was taken aback by this finding and couldn’t help but wonder if all the other reported SOC deficiencies could be directly related to this missing link?
I have been in the security industry for close to ten years, most of which was spent as a SOC analyst and SIEM engineer for a large MSSP. It was my responsibility to be an extension of my client’s security arm and those clients ranged from large Fortune 500 companies to small family owned businesses. Each client was unique, what one found to be important, another thought of as noise. The diversity between each of these clients taught me early on how important it is to understand what their definition of success was so that I may help them to not only achieve their security goals but to assist them in staying ahead of today’s rapidly expanding threat landscape.
This diversity also taught me another valuable lesson: not all security programs are created equally. Naturally, my larger clients had a more mature security posture, they knew what they wanted and what it would take to get them there, and they had the funding to back it up. Unfortunately, some of my smaller clients were not as lucky. They were severely understaffed, their IT department was the Security department, they lacked adequate funding to stay ahead of the ever-growing security curve, and in many cases, the measurement of success resembled a game of whack a mole.
Does this sound familiar? If the answer is yes, you can rest assured that you are not alone. Even the most secure, highly funded organizations have struggled with these obstacles. However, I believe one of the biggest differences between these organizations and the organizations striving to be like them isn’t directly due to the lack of funds, but instead the metrics they are using to show value in what they are trying to accomplish.
Don’t get me wrong, funding is and always will be an obstacle that organizations, large or small, will have to overcome when trying to build and maintain a security program. But the larger and more dangerous obstacle is the one we are creating for ourselves by not measuring and monitoring our security strengths and weaknesses through a strong security metrics program.
This type of security program will be as different as the organization it aims to define. To truly understand what success looks like for you there are a few recommended tasks, that when completed, will give you a greater understanding of your environment and a strong foundation for your security metrics program.
How to enhance your security program
- Conduct a risk assessment
A risk assessment is meant to help identify what an organization should be protecting and why. A successful assessment should highlight an organization’s valuable assets and showcase how they may be attacked and what would be at stake if an attack is successful. Armed with the results of this assessment, organizations can not only begin to address their deficiencies but now have a solid set of metrics that they can use to measure their success as they move forward.
- Perform vulnerability assessments
Vulnerability assessments are another vital security tool which is designed to detect as many vulnerabilities as possible in an environment, and aid security teams in prioritizing and remediating the issues as they are uncovered. All organizations regardless of maturity will benefit from these types of assessments, but organizations with a low to medium security posture may benefit the most. The result of these assessments will help give greater definition to what an organization’s metrics should consist of and what steps are necessary for continued success.
- Adopt a security framework
Even if you are not held to a compliance standard, adopt a security framework anyway. I understand that choosing a framework to model form does not guarantee an organization’s safety, but it is proven that those organizations who adopt a standard have a higher security maturity and are more likely to identify, contain, and recover from an incident faster than those who do not follow security program’s best practices. These frameworks, in conjunction with the security assessments mentioned above, were built to give organizations a blueprint of how to best protect their environment and measure their successes.
I sincerely believe in the value of a rich metrics program and have seen first hand what it can do for an organization. With the level of sophistication in today’s cyber attacks and the environments they target, we can no longer afford to leave our security up to chance. It is my hope that when SANS publish their SOC Survey for 2019, that we have taken the steps necessary to change this statistic because I know as an industry we can do better.
If you want to read more about KPIs and the metrics that we suggest should be set, monitored and measured for a more efficient and effective security program, read our white paper titled “Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Security Operations and Incident Response”.
In security, information is power. Having actionable information available at the touch of a button can be the difference between stopping a threat in its tracks and becoming the victim of the next big breach. However, the many disparate security products deployed in most organizations make information sharing and integration difficult, if not impossible.
Lack of information sharing and integrations between security products leads to a time consuming and disjointed response to a security incident; an environment ripe for mistakes to be made.
Information sharing and security product integration and orchestration have always been at the core of the many values provided by DFLabs. By designing a solution that is OpenDXL compatible, DFLabs has provided joint DFLabs and McAfee customers with yet another way to streamline their security processes.
DFLabs IncMan SOAR and McAfee OpenDXL solve these specific challenges:
- How can I share security information between my security products?
- How can I quickly integrate my security products without the need for time-consuming custom integrations?
McAfee’s OpenDXL allows compatible security applications to seamlessly share security information without the need for complicated custom integrations. DFLabs IncMan OpenDXL implementation is now certified as McAfee compatible. All integrations between DFLabs IncMan platform and McAfee, including ePO, ATD and TIE, have been enhanced to include OpenDXL, significantly reducing the complexity gathering actionable enrichment information from these solutions.
OpenDXL lets developers join an adaptive system of interconnected services that communicate and share information to make real-time accurate security decisions. OpenDXL leverages the Data Exchange Layer (DXL), which many vendors and enterprises already utilize, and delivers a simple, open path for integrating security technologies regardless of vendor.
Together, this integration enables the ability to share information seamlessly between IncMan SOAR and McAfee products using OpenDXL, which leverages the power of OpenDXL for easy to use, feature rich integrations between products.
One of the most common and versatile use cases for OpenDXL within IncMan is integration with McAfee Threat Intelligence Exchange (TIE). McAfee TIE is a reputation broker which combines threat intelligence from imported global sources, such as McAfee Global Threat Intelligence (McAfee GTI) and third-party threat information (such as VirusTotal) with intelligence from local sources, including endpoints, gateways, and advanced analysis solutions. Using Data Exchange Layer (DXL), it instantly shares this collective intelligence across your security ecosystem, allowing security solutions to operate as one to enhance protection throughout the organization.
McAfee TIE makes it possible for administrators to easily tailor threat intelligence. Security administrators are empowered to assemble, override, augment, and tune the comprehensive intelligence information to customize protection for their environment and organization. This locally prioritized and tuned threat information provides instant response to any future encounters. Threat intelligence from McAfee TIE can be used to enrich indicators, such as file hashes, using IncMan’s R3 Rapid Response Runbooks to enable intelligent automated or manual decisions during the incident response process.
DFLabs IncMan also integrates with other McAfee tools. You can learn more about our integration with McAfee ATD and ePO in our previous blog posts.
When it comes to Security Orchestration, Automation and Response (SOAR), the use cases will vary depending on a number of factors, such as the enterprise-specific internal environment, the industry or vertical the enterprises serve and even the legal and regulatory compliance that need to be met.
In this blog post we will cover five of the most common use cases for a Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) solution and how by utilizing this technology, a security alert and potential incident can be quickly detected, responded to and resolved without having a major impact on the organization.
It is key to point out that a use case is only limited by the creativity of the organization itself. A Security Orchestration Automation and Response SOAR platform, such as IncMan SOAR from DFLabs, should be able to cater for any scenario and use case that is required.
Phishing emails have become one of the most critical issues faced by organizations over the past several years. Some of the most recent high-profile data breaches have resulted from carefully crafted phishing emails. Security Orchestration, Automation and Response (SOAR) is perfectly positioned to enable automatic triage and examination of suspected phishing emails by extracting artifacts from the email, then performing additional enrichment on these artifacts and if necessary, containing the malicious email and any malicious payloads.
Suspicious emails may be received via any one of the numerous email scanning solutions available today, or via a monitored email address provided to end users to submit suspicious emails to. Once the email is received, SOAR can extract artifacts, such as header information, email addresses, URLs and even attachments. What happens next will largely depend on the organizations’ individual technology integrations. The extracted information may be submitted to various threat reputation and intelligence services, SIEM, EDR or network appliance logs may be queried, and attachments may be detonated in a sandbox. Once the available information has been enriched, if determined to be malicious, automated or semi-automated containment actions may be taken, such as quarantining or deleting the phishing email, searching for and deleting other instance of the phishing email in other user’s accounts, blocking IP addresses or URLs, banning executables from running or quarantining the user’s workstation.
Regardless of the integrations used, utilizing SOAR to examine and respond to phishing emails can reduce the time to investigate these pervasive threats from hours to minutes, automatically containing the attack and minimizing risk to the organization.
The influx of detection technologies means that organizations are facing a constant barrage of alerts. Many of these alerts are generated due to traffic that one detection technology or another has deemed to be potentially malicious. This is usually based on some type of threat indicator, which may or may not be reliable. It is often left up to the organization to further triage and investigate each of these alerts to determine if they are a false positive or an actual potential security event.
Alerts regarding malicious traffic may be received by a SOAR directly, or after being ingested and forwarded by a SIEM. In either case, the advantage of using a SOAR to automate and orchestrate actions surrounding these types of events comes from the automatic enrichment, as well as potential containment of the detected indicators. Under normal circumstances, analysts would use whatever data enrichment tools are available, such as threat intelligence, reputation services, IT asset inventories and tools such as nslookup and whois. Analysts would then determine if the indicators appeared to be malicious, at which point containment and further investigation would begin. Using SOAR technology, it is simple to codify a process such as this into an automated workflow, automatically performing data enrichment as soon as the alert is received. A SOAR solution can also automate the process of searching for additional instances of the same indicator across the organization, alerting analysts to any additionally detected occurrences. Automated or semi-automated containment is also possible; for example, blocking an IP address or URL via the firewall or proxy, or isolating a host pending further investigation.
Alerts regarding potentially malicious traffic are common-place and often sit in the queue for some time before they are investigated. While most are false positives or low priority, any one of these could be the only indicator of a potentially serious data breach. Security Orchestration, Automation and Response (SOAR) Technology allows immediate triage and response to each of these alerts almost instantaneously, automating the mundane, repeatable processes while allowing analysts to focus on the most significant alerts.
Security Orchestration Automation and Response was not intended to be a vulnerability management platform and will never replace the robust vulnerability management systems available today. However, there are some aspects of a good vulnerability management program that a SOAR platform can streamline. In larger enterprises, vulnerability management is often a task performed outside the security team. This can lead to potential risk as the security team may not be aware of vulnerabilities that exist within the infrastructure.
A SOAR solution can be used to ensure that the security team is made aware of any new vulnerabilities within the organization. This allows the security team to proactively examine the vulnerable host, when appropriate, to ensure that there is no evidence of exploitation, place any appropriate additional safeguards in place, and subject the host to increased monitoring until the vulnerability has been mitigated.
Beyond notifying the security team, a Security Orchestration, Automation and Response SOAR solution may also be used to further enrich vulnerability and host information. For example, a SOAR solution could be used to query a database of vulnerabilities to gather additional information on the vulnerability, query Active Directory or CMDB for asset information, or query a SIEM or EDR for events. Based on vulnerability, host or event information, the case could be automatically upgraded or reassigned, or the host could even be temporarily isolated until appropriate mitigation tasks could be performed.
While suitable testing and deployment of patches are critical in an enterprise environment, existing vulnerabilities present an ongoing risk to the organization. It is crucial that the security team are aware of these risks and take the proper steps to ensure that the vulnerability has not and will not be exploited until it can be properly addressed. A Security Orchestration, Automation and Response (SOAR) solution can be utilized to ensure that the security team remains informed of all current vulnerabilities and can efficiently evaluate the possible risk of each vulnerability in order to take proper risk mitigation actions.
Managed Security Service Providers (MSSPs) face many of the same issues as Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) and Security Operations Centers (SOCs), but on a much larger scale. In addition to these shared challenges, MSSPs also face some unique issues which the SOAR technology can address. MSSPs must work within the confines of strict service level agreements (SLAs). Failing to meet these SLAs could result in loss of business, loss of reputation and even the potential for legal action. Automating and orchestrating actions with a Security Orchestration, Automation and Response SOAR solution allows MSSPs to work more efficiently, ensuring that all SLAs are met. In addition, MSSPs are constantly under pressure to prove to customers that these SLAs are being met, that they are taking appropriate, timely actions and that they are continuing to provide value to their customers. The advanced metrics and audit logs of a SOAR addresses these needs by providing a robust set of metrics suitable for both analysts and executives alike.
MSSPs must also find a method to manage each customers data securely and in a segregated manner. At the same time, MSSPs must also ensure that each customer is provided access to their data to ensure transparency and to allow seamless teamwork between the MSSP and the customer’s internal teams. Security Orchestration, Automation and Response (SOAR) accomplishes these tasks by providing individual tenants for each customer, physically segregating each customers data to ensure confidentiality while allowing the MSSP access across customer tenants for ease of use.
Although not strictly an orchestration and automation function, case management is an important part of the incident response process and is another function that SOAR can help streamline. Many organizations struggle with managing the vast amounts of disparate information that is gathered during a security incident. Spreadsheets and shared documents are simply not sufficient for managing a complex cyber incident.
Not only does SOAR maintain all information and enriched data gathered from automated and orchestrated activities, it also maintains a detailed audit log of all actions taken during the response. A full-featured SOAR solution should also allow for detailed task management, allowing incident managers to create, assign and monitor tasks assigned to all analysts taking part in the response. In addition, a full-featured SOAR should also allow users to track assets involved in the incident and maintain a detailed chain of custody for all physical and logical evidence.
A Security Orchestration, Automation and Response (SOAR) with full case management functionality will help ensure the smooth and efficient handling of an incident from identification through remediation, providing responders will the information they need right at their fingertips and allowing them to focus on the task at hand.
If you would like to see a SOAR solution in action and discuss your specific use cases, request a live demo today.
Each year SANS conducts a global Security Operations Center – SOC survey to identify the latest trends, recommendations and best practices to enable organizations to successfully build, manage, maintain and mature their SOCs. With the continual increase in volume and sophistication of cyber attacks it is crucial that SOCs are performing as effectively and efficiently as possible to respond to all security alerts and potential incidents, as well as providing a clear benefit and ROI to the organization’s current security program.
This week SANS released the results of their 2018 survey and what they defined as “SOC-cess”! This blog will cover a quick snapshot of the report highlights and we will delve deeper into some of the results in future posts.
SANS 2018 SOC Survey Highlights
Regardless of whether you are a security analyst, a SOC manager or a C-level executive, I am sure there will be some key learning points and takeaways for you, with some of the results resonating with you and your organization. So, how does your SOC stack up against the 2018 survey results?
Here are the key findings.
- Only half of SOCs (54%) use any form of metrics to measure their performance
- There is a lack of coordination between SOCs and NOCs (only 30% had a positive connection)
- Asset discovery and inventory tool satisfaction was rated the lowest of all technologies
- The most meaningful event correlation is still primarily carried out manually
- Over half of respondents (54%) did not consider their SOC a security provider to their business
- The most common architecture is a single central SOC (39%)
- Nearly a third of SOCs are staffed by 2-5 people (31%) and just over a third by 6-25 people (36%)
- Top shortcomings to SOC performance included:
- – Shortage of skilled staff (62%)
- – Inadequate automation and orchestration (53%)
- – Too many unintegrated tools (48%)
What do these results actually mean? I am sure they can be interpreted in many ways. For me some results were not surprising, such as the shortage of skilled labor is the number one shortfall affecting SOC performance. However, some were quite startling, in particular surrounding the number of SOCs that do not use any form of metrics to measure performance – results indicating nearly half.
With the growing number of threats also comes a growing number of challenges, and today it just isn’t possible for SOC analysts to manually carry out everything that is needed to run the SOC effectively. Investment in technology seems to be a must to help improve efficiencies, but it needs to be the right technology for the organization. The survey results show a clear need for SOCs to invest further in tools such as automation and orchestration, which was identified as the second most common shortfall affecting performance at 53%.
Defining and Measuring SOC-cess
What is “SOC-cess” and how can we determine what an efficient and effective SOC is? SANS definition of SOC-cess is as follows.
“SOC success requires the SOC to take proactive steps to reduce risk in making systems more resilient, as well as using reactive steps to detect, contain and eliminate adversary actions. The response activities of SOC represent the reactive side of operations.”
I am sure it can be defined and is defined in a multitude of ways across different organizations, but metrics will always be a key factor. Of those SOCs surveyed, the top three metrics measured included:
- Number of incidents handled
- Average time from detection to containment to the eradication of an incident
- Number incidents closed in a single shift
Without these metrics, there is nothing to compare to or benchmark against to measure the overall performance and capabilities of the SOC and it will be difficult for management to justify any additional investment in additional tools or resources if the effectiveness and return on investment can’t be calculated or quantified. Therefore, measuring metrics should be a number one priority for any SOC to determine its success, not only by the 54% of SOCs that currently do so.
Summary of Findings
Overall the SANS 2018 SOC survey results indicated that there was somewhat limited satisfaction with current SOC performance with an absence of a clear vision and route to excellence. Also, survey respondents felt that their SOCs were not fulfilling expectations and many areas could still be improved, although there was an overall consensus of the key capabilities that they felt must be present within a SOC.
Compared to last year’s survey, the results showed a minor improvement; however, there are still many challenges facing today’s SOCs and the teams operating within them which need to be overcome.
There are though a number of things that can help to drive improvements and these include better recruitment and internal talent development, improved metrics to ensure the SOC is providing value to the organization, a deeper understanding of the overall environment that is being defended and better orchestration both with the NOC and SOC, using orchestration tools to drive consistency.
Overall, the existence of a functional and mature SOC is a critical factor in an organization’s security program to adequately protect the business from the ever-evolving threat landscape and SOCs will need to continue to work on improving what they already have in place.
How Can DFLabs Help?
A Security Orchestration, Automation and Response (SOAR) platform, such as that offered by DFLabs can not only help to tackle the orchestration and automation shortfalls as mentioned above, but can also help to tackle a number of other common SOC challenges and pain points, including the shortage of skilled workforce, the integration of tools, as well as measuring SOC performance metrics.
Ask DFLabs today how we can help you to transform your SOC with SOAR technology and request a live demo of IncMan SOAR in action to see more.
Enterprise networks are complex environments, with numerous components often under the control of teams outside the security team. During an incident, it is critical that respondents understand the network topology and have the most current network policy and device information available to them. Network documentation is often incomplete and out-of-date; security teams need a way to quickly and efficiently gather actionable network intelligence to effectively respond to a security incident.
This blog will cover some of the current challenges faced by security operations teams and how they can harness the vast amounts of network intelligence available, such as device, policy and path information, using Tufin as a case study. By integrating with Tufin Orchestration Suite, DFLab’s IncMan SOAR platform can utilize its R3 Rapid Response Runbooks to enable the collection of actionable network intelligence, along with its automation, orchestration, and measurement power to respond faster and more efficiently to security incidents.
There are three specific challenges that are common within any security operations center and analysts need to be able to find an effective and efficient way to solve them and obtain the information they need as quickly as possible.
- How can I get a current list of network devices?
- How can I get a current list of rules and policies?
- How can I determine the network path from source to destination?
The DFLabs and Tufin Solution
Tufin Orchestration Suite takes a policy-centric approach to security to provide visibility across heterogeneous and hybrid IT environments, enable end-to-end change automation for network and application connectivity and orchestrate a unified policy baseline across the next generation network. The result is that organizations can make changes in minutes, reduce the attack surface and provide continuous compliance with internal and external/industry regulations. The ultimate effect is greater business continuity, improved agility and reduced exposure to cyber security risk and non-compliance.
Tufin Orchestration Suite together with DFLabs IncMan SOAR platform provides joint customers with an automated means to gather actionable network intelligence, a task which would otherwise need to be performed manually, taking up valuable analyst time when every minute counts. This results in an overall decrease in the mean time to respond (MTTR) to a computer security incident, saving the organization both time and potential financial and reputation loss.
It provides a list of current network devices based on any number of criteria, a list of current rules and policies for any number of devices and is able to simulate network traffic from source to destination, including path and associated rules. Here is a use case in action to see exactly how!
Network traffic between a workstation and a domain controller has been identified as potentially malicious by the organization’s UBA platform. The UBA platform generated an alert which was forwarded to IncMan SOAR, causing an incident to be automatically generated. Based on the IncMan Incident Template, the following R3 Runbook was automatically assigned and executed to gather additional network intelligence.
The information gathering begins by simulating the network path between the source address and destination address of the potentially malicious network traffic. This information is gathered by two separate Enrichment actions, one which will display this information in a table format, and another which will display the same information in a graphic network path which can be exported and shared or added to reports.
As with information from any other IncMan Enrichment action, each network device on the path between the source address and the destination address is stored within an array which can be used by subsequent actions.
After the path information has been retrieved, an additional Enrichment action is used to retrieve information about each device along the path. This includes information such as device vendor, model, name and IP addresses.
Following the acquisition of the device information, two additional Enrichment actions are utilized to gather additional network intelligence. The first action will retrieve all rules for each network device along the path. Detailed information on each matching rule will be displayed for the analyst, allowing the analyst to assess why the traffic was permitted or denied, what additional traffic may be permitted from the source to the destination, and what rule changes may be appropriate. The second action will retrieve all policies for each network device along the path. Similar to the previous rule information, this information will allow the analyst to assess the configured network policies and determine what, if any, policy changes should be made to contain the potential threat.
Harnessing the power of Tufin Orchestration Suite, along with the additional orchestration, automation and response features of DFLab’s IncMan SOAR platform, organizations can elevate their incident response process, leading to faster and more effective response and reduced risk across the entire organization.
To see the integration in action, request a demo of our IncMan SOAR platform today.
DFLabs is going to announce its new No-Script Automation Tool (NAT) At Black Hat USA on August 8th, 2018 in Las Vegas. DFLabs’ No-Script Automation Tool (NAT) is a new free tool that helps incident responders collect live forensic data. In this blog post, we will discuss the details about the NAT tool.
Why has live data acquisition become an increasingly important task?
When responding to a potential security incident, it is often standard practice to perform some level of live data acquisition on potentially compromised hosts. In some cases, this is due to the need to acquire volatile data, such as running processes, open files, network connections and other memory artifacts. In other cases, it is simply not possible to take the host offline to perform traditional dead-box forensics. No matter the reason, live data acquisition has become an increasingly important task.
Performing live data acquisitions presents some unique challenges not present with traditional dead-box forensics. Chief among these challenges is ensuring that any live response tools are run in a repeatable, documented and secure manner. These challenges are most often solved by placing live response tools on a USB drive which can be attached to the target host and script their execution (usually via a batch script on Windows hosts) to guarantee that each tool is run in the correct manner.
While batch scripting does address many of the challenges of live data acquisition, it has several shortcomings. Many live data acquisition tools are specific to a certain OS or CPU architecture. Attempting to make logic choices within a batch script regarding OS and CPU architecture is unreliable at best, and significantly increases the complexity of the batch script. The only other option is to have a separate batch script for each OS group and CPU architecture, which does not scale well.
Running live data acquisition tools via a batch script can also create security concerns. Unless each tool and its associated commands are manually examined before each execution, it is possible that either the tools themselves or their commands have been modified, whether accidentally or maliciously. This could lead to unintended results when executing the batch script, or even further compromise of the host.
What is The No-Script Automation Tool (NAT)?
The No-Script Automation Tool (NAT) is a free command line tool from DFLabs designed to solve the complexity and management issues surrounding scripting multiple tools via batch scripts for Windows systems. No-Script Automation Tool (NAT) allows users to run sets of pre-defined and pre-verified tools based on the user-specified input, predefined commands and system properties such as architecture and Windows version.
How the No-Script Automation Tool (NAT) works?
As with previous methods, NAT is placed on a USB drive along with any live data acquisition tools. However, that is where the similarities end. Live data acquisition tools are organized into directories based on their category (process information, network information, file information, etc.) and then by OS range and CPU architecture if required. If specific command line arguments are required for a certain tool, one or more set of arguments can be defined by placing a text file in the same directory as the tool.
Once the drive is configured with the appropriate directory structure, tools, and commands, the NAT tool allows users to create an integrity file which will hash the contents of both the tools and the commands and store this information in a password protected file on the drive. Once the integrity file is created, NAT will require the user to enter the password or specifically choose to bypass the integrity check. If the correct password is entered, NAT will compare the hash of each tool and command to the known-good values and alert the user if any mismatches are detected.
During execution, NAT records a detailed log of each tool that is executed. By default, NAT will write the output of each tool to a folder named for the hostname it is executed on, in the root of the drive it is executed from. Users have the option to change the output directory when NAT is run. Upon completion, the output from each tool is hashed and this information is also recorded in the log to ensure data integrity.
Download the No-Script Automation Tool (NAT) from DFLabs here.
DFLabs is excited to announce the latest release of its award-winning and industry-leading Security Orchestration, Automation and Response (SOAR) platform, IncMan SOAR Version 4.4. We are constantly listening to customer and industry feedback, and IncMan v4.4 includes many new features which come directly from our users.
Security teams across the industry are plagued with false positive alerts and DFLabs is continually seeking innovative ways to improve the efficiency of the incident handling process. Traditionally, each alert generates an incident, which must be investigated by an analyst to determine the veracity of the alert. This process can lead to an overwhelming number of incidents, sometimes created because of false positive alerts.
Automated START Triage Capability – one of the most exciting features of IncMan v4.4
One of the most exciting features of IncMan v4.4 is the new automated Triage capability called START (Simple Triage And Rapid Treatment) Triage. IncMan’s START Triage allows alerts to be sent to IncMan via the API to be triaged before being converted to an incident. The Triage event queue, separate from the Incident queue, can be worked by Tier 1 analysts to determine which events warrant further investigation as an incident, and which events can be discarded as false positives. The Triage event function is able to harness the full automation and orchestration power of IncMan’s R3 Rapid Response Runbooks to enrich event information, allowing the analyst to quickly make a determination regarding the reliability of the alert and take quick, decisive action.
The flexibility and customizability of the new automated START Triage allow it to adapt to almost any use case. Some use cases include network alerts, endpoint alerts, transaction fraud alerts and threat intelligence alerts. START Triage is already being used by a major European bank to eliminate manual first line assessments of suspected fraudulent online transactions in one of the first applications of SOAR technology to financial fraud investigations.
DFLabs IncMan SOAR v 4.4 introduces a variety of new bidirectional integrations
IncMan v 4.4 includes many new bidirectional integrations from a variety of product categories including SIEM, network defense, endpoint protection and threat intelligence, chosen to broaden the orchestration and automation capabilities of our customers. These new bidirectional integrations include:
- ArcSight ESM
- ArcSight Logger
- Carbon Black Protection
- Check Point Firewall
- FireEye HX
- IBM X-Force Exchange
Flexible R3 Rapid Response Runbooks for any situation
IncMan v4.4 includes several enhancements designed to make our R3 Rapid Response Runbooks even more flexible. R3 Runbooks can now be used to call other R3 Runbooks. For example, a phishing R3 Runbook which detects a malicious attachment can now automatically call the appropriate malware R3 Runbook, eliminating the need to create processes within multiple runbooks. R3 Runbooks now also have the ability to update any attribute of an incident, such as priority, type, assigned analysts or any custom attributes, ensuring that the incident information is automatically updated as needed.
IncMan v4.4 features improvements to our automatic observables harvesting capabilities. Unstructured data added to free text areas of IncMan will automatically be searched for the presence of any observables, such as email addresses, IP addresses or domains. Any observables detected within this unstructured data will be automatically added to the appropriate observables section within IncMan, allowing users to perform any of the many enrichment, containment or custom actions on this data.
These are just some of the highlights of our latest IncMan release; IncMan SOAR Version 4.4 includes many other enhancements designed to streamline your orchestration, automation and response process.
See IncMan SOAR v4.4 in action
If you would like to see a demo of our latest release you can see it first hand at the upcoming Black Hat USA conference at our booth #IC2329 on August 8-9, schedule a time for a chat with one of our cybersecurity experts here, or alternatively you can request a live demo online.
Stay tuned to our website for additional updates, feature highlights and demos of our latest release.
The escalation in the cyber threat environment, a growing attack surface, increased regulatory cyber security requirements and a shortfall in skilled cyber security professionals have converged to create a nexus of forces that is challenging enterprises to manage their threat management and their overall security posture to succeed in business in the 21st century. Machine learning and security automation are key critical capabilities to surmount these challenges and will enable organizations to thrive amidst adversity.
Security operations teams struggle to gain visibility of threats and rapidly respond to incidents due to the sheer number of different security technologies they must maintain and manage and the resulting flood of cyber alerts. Challenges they face include but are not limited to:
- How can I aggregate and correlate disparate security sources to increase my visibility of threats and effectively investigate alerts and incidents?
- How can I prioritize my response to security incidents at volume and at scale across a growing attack surface?
- How can I rapidly respond to security incidents with limited resources to contain the damage and limit legal exposure?
McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator (McAfee ePO) is the most advanced, extensible, and scalable centralized security management software in the industry. Unifying security management through an open platform, McAfee ePO makes risk and compliance management simpler and more successful for organizations of all sizes. As the foundation of McAfee Security Management Platform, McAfee ePO enables customers to connect industry-leading security solutions to their enterprise infrastructure to increase visibility, gain efficiencies, and strengthen protection.
Aggregating these alerts into a single pane of glass to prioritize what is critical and needs immediate attention, requires a platform that can consolidate disparate technologies and alerts, and provides a cohesive and comprehensive capability set to orchestrate incident response efforts.
By integrating with McAfee ePO, DFLabs IncMan SOAR platform extends these capabilities to McAfee customers, enabling them to execute full lifecycle incident response management.
DFLabs IncMan R3 Rapid Response Runbooks automate and orchestrate end to end threat containment by integrating with McAfee ePO. Security Operations teams can enrich security incidents with asset context and quarantine compromised systems based conditional and logical decision paths that can be fully and semi-automated, acting as a force multiplier, reducing the time from threat discovery to containment, and increasing operational efficiency. DFLabs’ machine learning driven Automated Responder Knowledge guides security analysts in identifying the most effective course of action using McAfee ePO.
DFLabs SOAR and McAfee ePO Use Case in Action
An alert based on a malicious file detected by AV has automatically generated an Incident within IncMan. This alert is automatically categorized as a Malware incident within IncMan based on the organizations’ policies, which initiates the organization’s Malware Alert runbook, shown below.
IncMan automatically queries the hash value provided by the organization’s AV solution against VirusTotal. If VirusTotal indicates that five or more AV vendors have identified the hash value as malicious, IncMan will us an Enrichment action to automatically query McAfee ePO for the host information and send this information to the appropriate analysts.
Next, using a Containment action, IncMan will automatically tag the host which generated the AV alert with the tag “quarantine” in McAfee ePO. Finally, IncMan will notify the appropriate analysts that the host has been appropriately tagged in IncMan.
The automated workflow of IncMan’s R3 Runbooks means that an incident will have been automatically generated, and these enrichment and containment actions through the Quick Integration Connector with McAfee ePO will have already been committed before an analyst is even aware that an incident has occurred.
Harnessing the power of McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator, along with the additional Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response of DFLab’s IncMan SOAR platform, organizations can elevate their incident response process, leading to faster and more effective incident response and reduced risk across the entire organization.