Let me start by saying that total prevention is not attainable with today’s technology. Whether through negligence or ignorance, any data stored on a network is subject to unauthorized access by 3rd parties. Instead, we must combine Prevention with Detect and Respond. We know we are going to get breached, so we must focus on the how we deal with that.
One significant activity that can improve cyber incident response and enable the timely mitigation of threats is the transfer of knowledge after an incident as part of a formalized “Lessons Learned” phase of the incident response life cycle. Integrating successful processes and procedures from previously successful incident response activities can play a critical role in determining whether a business will suffer in terms of operational integrity, reputation and legal liability. A publicized security breach will lower customer confidence in the services offered by an organization as well as call into question the safety of their sensitive 3rd party information. This impacts a business credibility and translates directly into lost revenue.
In regulated industries, increased regulatory scrutiny is an additional consequence of a breach. This involves evaluating if the tools and procedures used in responding to security threats were sufficient. Integrating lessons learned into existing and future incident response playbooks ensures that the proper technologies and processes are deployed, and avoids accusations of gross negligence, expensive and time-consuming investigations and regulatory demands.
Procedural improvements can be incorporated into incident workflows via incident playbooks and ensure that all stages of the incident response process have been acknowledged and addressed. It also ensures that required security measures and procedures are documented and relevant stakeholders informed of their roles in case of an incident.
This process can be augmented through machine learning. Applying machine learning to this problem requires that all relevant data associated with incidents are analyzed and automatically applied to future incidents. DFLabs recently released DF-ARK machine learning capability to do precisely this. Our patent-pending Automated Responder Knowledge (DF-ARK) module applies machine learning to historical responses to threats and recommends relevant runbooks and paths of action to manage and mitigate them. DF-ARK requires sufficient training data – it begins with no knowledge, but learns from the experience and actions of your security team, becoming more effective over time. DF-ARK implements supervised case-based reasoning machine learning.
It also involves combining automated workflows and manual procedures to keep a human in the loop. This can be constantly improved by applying new observations and data, to fine tune existing methods and procedures identified in the lessons learned phase.
IncMan offers the R3 Rapid Response Runbook engine and Dual Mode playbooks to facilitate this. R3 Runbooks are created using a visual editor and support granular, stateful and conditional workflows to orchestrate and automate incident response activities such as incident triage, stakeholder notification, data and context enrichment and threat containment. Dual Mode Playbooks support manual, semi-automated and automated actions, meaning that users can automate the action without automating the decision.
Adding all of this together, here are 5 best practices for increasing the effectiveness of incident response via lessons learned:
- Encourage feedback from responders at every level. First, second and third line SOC operators and incident handlers each have a unique perspective that must be incorporated into future response playbooks.
- Review all relevant documentation to ensure compliance. This includes organizational policies or regulatory mandates to ensure any disparities are addressed in future playbooks.
- Chronicle any unanticipated or unusual events to extend procedures to mitigate similar occurrences in the future
- Annotate enhancements to existing processes that were identified during the incident response cycle.
- Designate a business unit or individual to be responsible for making necessary changes to existing playbooks, processes or procedures and to distribute these to stakeholders.
Capitalizing on lessons learned during incident response provides immediate and long-term benefits that contribute crucial time savings necessary to successfully mitigate future threats. Deploying a platform designed to facilitate the rapid inclusion of identified improvements to the incident workflow, such as DFLabs’ IncMan, can not only reduce the time it takes to fully investigate an incident but also reduces the overheads required to do so. If you want more information please contact us at DFLabs for a no obligation demonstration of exactly how we can improve your response time, workflows and remediation activities.
A collaborative environment between IT and security groups is critical. The number of cyber security incidents currently impacting networks and customers is increasing exponentially and mitigating security incidents and risks is more complex than ever before. Timely and effective communication are keys to improved collaboration between all parties involved in the cyber incident response process. One of the simplest and most effective methods to improve communication between all relevant IT and security groups is to deploy a common, shared platform where stakeholders can review and analyze incidents across the entire cyber landscape. A cross-departmental platform enables them to focus on correlating cyber incidents and risks with contextual information relevant to their role and responsibilities plays a significant part in organizational success in this regard.
Incorporating knowledge transfer between disparate business entities often separated both geographically and functionally is essential to facilitate a better understanding of the current IT and security challenges. The preferred method to provide this collaborative environment is via electronic based communication mediums and devices. To tie all of these channels together, an organization should consider deploying a cyber incident response platform, and the platform must be able to integrate these technologies, be it SMS, email or other messaging medium, to cover the broadest range of communication channels to transmit critical information to stake holders.
Another successful strategy that focuses on effectively communicating timely, critical information to relevant stakeholders is via the creation of an incident notification group. IncMan supports the creation of groups of Watchers that are appraised of incidents and activities automatically via SMS, email or an integrated communications system. A Watcher group can ensure that information is properly communicated to the appropriate stakeholder(s). This provides differing stakeholders with the capability of monitoring incidents that may impact business continuity. Additionally, IncMan has integrated communications capabilities comply with industry best practices which recommend having a separate, secure and hardened communications channel if email or other internal communication channels are compromised. This independent messaging capability also provides additional benefits such as asymmetric encryption capabilities.
Leveraging a dedicated solution that can orchestrate the communications to stakeholders standardizes the process of cyber incident response and mitigation and is the key to ensuring a more effective response. If you would like more information or a free no obligation demonstration of how IncMan from DFLabs can more effectively automate and orchestrate your incidents please contact us at [email protected]
In incident response, protecting against a targeted attack is like slaying the hydra. For those not familiar with what a hydra is, it is a multi-headed serpent from Greek mythology, that grows two new heads for every head you chop off. A determined attacker will try again and again until they succeed, targeting different attack vectors and using a variety of tactics, techniques, and procedures.
The Snowden and Shadowbroker leaks really drove this home, giving partial insight into the toolkit of nation state actors. What really stuck out to me was the sheer variety of utilities, frameworks, and techniques to infiltrate and gain persistence in a target. Without the leak, would it be possible to reliably determine that all of those hacking tools belonged to a single entity? Would a large organization with thousands of alerts and hundreds of incidents every day be able to identify that these different attacks belonged to a single, concerted effort to breach their defenses, or would they come to the conclusion that these were all separate, unrelated attempts?
Our colleagues in the Threat Intelligence and Forensic analysis industries have a much better chance to correlate these tools and their footprint in the wild – they may discover that some of these tools share a command and control infrastructure for example. A few did have at least an outline of the threat actor, but judging by the spate of advisories and reports that were released after the leaks, not very many actually appear to have achieved this to a great degree. The majority were only able to piece the puzzle together once equipped with a concise list of Indicators of Compromise (IoC) and TTP’s to begin hunting with.
“How does this affect me? We are not important enough to attract the attention of a nation state actor”
Some readers may now be thinking, “How does this affect me? We are not important enough to attract the attention of a nation state actor”. I would urge caution in placing too much faith in that belief.
On the one hand, for businesses in some countries the risk of economic espionage by-nation state hacking has decreased. As I wrote on Securityweek in July, China has signed agreements with the USA, Canada, Australia, Germany and the UK limiting hacking for the purpose of stealing trade secrets and economic espionage. However, this does not affect hacking for national security purposes, and it will have little impact on privately conducted hacking. These are also bilateral agreements, and none exist in other nations, for example, Russia or North Korea. For militarily and economically weaker nation states, offensive cyber security is a cheap, asymmetric method of gaining a competitive or strategic advantage. As we have seen, offensive cyber activity can target civilian entities for political rather than economic reasons, and hackers are increasingly targeting the weakest link in the supply chain. This means that the potential probability of being targeted is today based more on your customer, partner, and supply chain network, and not just on what your organization does in detail. Security through obscurity has never been a true replacement for actual security, but it has lost its effectiveness as targeted attacks have moved beyond only focusing on the most prominent and obvious victims. It has become much easier to suffer from collateral damage.
Cyber criminals are becoming more organized and professional
On the other hand, cyber criminals are becoming more organized and professional, with individual threat actors selling their services to a wide customer base. A single small group of hackers like LulzSec may have a limited toolbox and selection of TTP’s, but professional cybercrime groups have access to numerous hackers, supporting services and purpose-built solutions. If they are targeting an organization directly and are persistent and not opportunistic, it will be as difficult to discern that a single concerted attack by one determined threat actor is taking place.
What this means in practical reality for any organization that may become the target of a sophisticated threat actor, is that you have to be on constant alert. Identifying, responding to and containing a threat is not a process to be stepped through with a final resolution step – instead, cyber security incident response is an ongoing, continuous and cyclical process. Advanced and persistent attacks unfold in stages and waves, and like a war consist of a series of skirmishes and battles that continue until one side loses the will to carry on the conflict or succeeds in their objectives. Like trying to slay the hydra, each incident that you resolve means that the attacker will change their approach and that the next attempt may be more difficult to spot. Two new heads have grown instead of one.
To tackle this requires that we cultivate a perpetual state of alertness in our SOC and CSIRT
To tackle this requires that we cultivate a perpetual state of alertness in our SOC and CSIRT – but we must do this without creating a perpetual state of alarm. The former means that your team of analysts is always aware and alert, looking at individual incidents as potentially just one hostile act of many that together could constitute a concerted effort to exfiltrate your most valuable data, disrupt your operational capacity, or abuse your organization to do this to your partners or customers. In the latter case, your analysts will suffer from alert fatigue, a lack of true visibility of threats, and a lack of energy and time to be able to see the bigger picture.
The hydra will have too many heads to defeat.
In the Greek legend of Heracles, the titular hero eventually defeats the Hydra by cauterizing each decapitated stump with fire to prevent any new heads from forming. Treating an incident in isolation is the Security Incident Response equivalent of chopping off the head of the hydra without burning the stump. Applied to our problem, burning the stump means that we have to conduct the response to each incident thoroughly and effectively, and continue the process well beyond containment.
We must invest more time in hunting and investigating, and we have to correlate and analyze the relationship between disparate incidents. We must use threat intelligence more strategically to derive situational awareness, and not just tactically as a machine-readable list of IoC’s. This also requires gathering sufficient forensic evidence and context data about an incident and related assets and entities during the incident response process, so that we can conduct post event analysis and continuous threat assessment after containment and mitigation have been carried out. This way we can better anticipate the level of threat that we are exposed to, and make more informed decisions about where to focus our resources, add mitigating controls and improve our defenses. In Incident Response “burning the stump” means making it more difficult for threat actors to succeed in the future by presenting them with a hardened attack surface, reducing their reside time in our infrastructure, and reducing the time we need to discover and contain them. To do this we need to learn from every incident we manage.
Interested to know what 412 IT professionals and cyber security professionals think on the latest Security Analytics and Operations trends?
Preparing for cybersecurity incidents and responding to them can be a significant burden for any organization. On a daily basis, most security teams will commonly deal with numerous cybersecurity events, many of which will trigger some number of resource-taxing and time-consuming tasks such as gathering and vetting information, analyzing data, and generating incident reports.
It is for this reason that every tool, every solution, and every procedure that can help ease that burden is often more than welcome. Implementing Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) is one of the essential steps towards ensuring a more streamlined and effective incident response process, one that allows security professionals to focus on the more substantial and high-value activities, such as in-depth investigations and implementing improvements in the overall incident response program.
Coordinating Incident Response
Standard operating procedures are aimed at helping CSIRTs to follow the most effective possible workflow when dealing with cyber security events. A typical SOP should contain a list of specific actions that that security professionals need to take whenever their organization faces a particular cyber incident. It ensures that all employees within an organization know their responsibility and what activities they need to take in the event of a cyber attack. For instance, an SOP might note at what point in the incident the CSIRT member is responsible for reporting data breaches to the Information Security Officer and where to submit incident reports in the aftermath of a breach. Further, the SOP might also state how to assign an incident severity level and where to distribute a list of recommendations or specific instructions on how to address a particular threat.
Another important aspect of a SOP is that it should ensure that all workflows and actions taken during incident response are in compliance with regulations that the organization is required by law to adhere to.
Orchestrate and Automate the Process
In order to be worthwhile and effective, cyber security teams and resources from an organization must adhere to SOPs and realize benefits from doing so. Some of the actions recommended or required by a SOP in a given situation may take up a large portion of the time and effort of a security team, so adopting a solution that can orchestrate and automate some of those tasks can go a long way towards realizing those benefits by saving time and cutting costs.
Security automation and orchestration platforms can programmatically handle some of those time-consuming manual tasks, such as generating and sending reports, thereby help drastically reduce reaction times. They can also help quickly determine the severity of an incident and the impact it has on an organization, freeing security resources to focus on the containment, eradication and recovery activities the sop standard operation procedure requires.
In summation, security automation and orchestration platforms are a crucial tool for ensuring a proper implementation of standard operating procedures as a key piece of the cyber incident response puzzle.
I can remember sometime around late 2001 or early 2002, GREPing Snort logs for that needle in a haystack until I thought I was going to go blind. I further recall around the same time cheering the release of the Analysis Console for Intrusion Databases (ACID) tool which helped to organize the information into something that I could start using to correlate events by way of analysis of traffic patterns.
Skip ahead and the issues we faced while correlating data subtly changed from a one-off analysis to a lack of standardization for the alert formats that were available in the EDR marketplace. Each vendor was producing significant amounts of what was arguably critical information, but unfortunately all in their own proprietary format. This rendered log analysis and information tools constantly behind the 8-ball when trying to ingest all of these critical pieces of disparate event information.
We have since evolved to the point that log file information sharing can be easily facilitated through a number of industry standards, i.e., RFC 6872. Unfortunately, with the advent of the Internet of Things (IoT), we have also created new challenges that must be addressed in order to make the most effective use of data during event correlation. Specifically, how do we quickly correlate and review:
a. Large amounts of data;
b. Data delivered from a number of different resources (IoT);
c. Data which may be trickling in over an extended period of time and,
d. Data segments that, when evaluated separately, will not give insight into the “Big Picture”
How can we now ingest these large amounts of data from disparate devices and rapidly draw conclusions that allow us to make educated decisions during the incident response life cycle? I can envision success coming through the intersection of 4 coordinated activities, all facilitated through event automation:
1. Event filtering – This consists of discarding events that are deemed to be irrelevant by the event correlator. This is also important when we seek to avoid alarm fatigue due to a proliferation of nuisance alarms.
2. Event aggregation – This is a technique where a collection of many similar events (not necessarily identical) are combined into an aggregate that represents the underlying event data.
3. Event Masking – This consists of ignoring events pertaining to systems that are downstream of a failed system.
4. Root cause analysis – This is the last and quite possibly the most complex step of event correlation. Through root cause analysis, we can visualize data juxtapositions to identify similarities or matches between events to detect, determine whether some events can be explained by others, or identify causational factors between security events.
The results of these 4 event activities will promote the identification and correlation of similar cyber security incidents, events and epidemiologies.
According to psychology experts, up to 90% of information is transmitted to the human brain visually. Taking that into consideration, when we are seeking to construct an associational link between large amounts of data we, therefore, must be able to process the information utilizing a visual model. DFLabs IncMan™ provides a feature rich correlation engine that is able to extrapolate information from cyber incidents in order to present the analyst with a contextualized representation of current and historical cyber incident data.
As we can see from the correlation graph above, IncMan has helped simplify and speed up a comprehensive response to identifying the original infection point of entry into the network and then visual representing the network nodes that were subsequently affected, denoted by their associational links.
The ability to ingest large amounts of data and conduct associational link analysis and correlation, while critical, does not have to be overly complicated, provided of course that you have the right tools. If you’re interested in seeing additional capabilities available to simplify your cyber incident response processes, please contact us for a demo at [email protected]
I frequently marvel at the solutions our customers implement in order to walk the fine line where security operations and IT governance converge. The capability to simultaneously engage the needs of IT service management and cyber security requirements frequently requires a creative approach to effectively align business objectives, priorities and a variety of risk postures. One common denominator I have observed is that the most effective cyber security plans address these 4 points of effective security and IT management policy:
1. Create the right policy
This involves a collaborative approach that leverages the stakeholders from not only the IT and Security Operations groups but Legal, HR and Operations as well to ensure that their needs are also being addressed. Policies are only as good as our ability to monitor and enforce. A policy that detrimentally affects the ability of any one organization to perform their duties will quickly be discarded, opening the door to a domino effect of security issues. Additionally, this collaboration should address organizational dynamics including core services, internal customers and, when applicable, external or business partners that may require access.
2. Perform a risk assessment and analysis
Industry requirements aside, performing a cyber security risk assessment and analysis is critical to building processes that address our most vulnerable systems and processes. We can subsequently formulate a corrective action plan that addresses not only current needs but anticipates future requirements. As part of a greater Business Continuity Planning program, a risk assessment provides the insight to avoid security and governance concerns before they truly become “issues”. An example of this is the development of your Disaster Recovery Plan. Determining the critical systems and the need for warm and cold site requirements as the result of a detailed risk analysis will save your teams hours of work when trying to rebuild critical system data.
3. Define appropriate procedures
If actionable processes and procedures are the lifeblood of effective security operations and governance alignment, then a platform to ensure that these policies are available to the appropriate stakeholders in the form of actions that are vetted, repeatable and defensible should be considered the heart. Security orchestration and automation products, while typically focusing on security operations, can provide this needed heart to IT governance requirements as well. DFLabs IncMan™ provides our customers with over 100 Playbooks that outline the appropriate procedures for a broad range of incidents, delivered in a format that can be easily followed or edited as requirements change and evolve. This gives the user maximum flexibility to ensure the needs of all stakeholders are addressed consistently and with minimum delay during incident response activities when the time is often of the essence.
4. Focus on staffing
Staffing is a common issue on several fronts. Locating and retaining experienced staff is only part of the problem. Facilitating a knowledge transfer between experienced and inexperienced staff is also problematic and frequently results is a small group of individuals that handle the majority of the demanding cases. The good news is that more evolved organizations have recognized the value of utilizing the previously mentioned Playbooks. IncMan Playbooks provide a roadmap designed by the experienced staff members to guide the inexperienced members during the response process. This effectively provides these organizations with a force multiplier by not only reducing incident dwell time but providing the necessary knowledge transfer as well.
If you want more information about how DFLabs IncMan can help align your security and IT service management processes please contact us [email protected] for a no obligation demonstration.
One of my favorite sports, American football, uses a term which has always fascinated me. This term is ‘situational football’ and its whole concept is to react according to the scenario in which you find yourself. American football clubs split their squads into essentially three teams.
–Attack, which is the offensive team and the guys that typically score points.
–Defense, which is the opposite team tasked with stopping the attacking team from scoring points.
–Special teams, which is an often overlooked team. This team can be part of the defense or offense and is typically used for every other play that is not defined as an offensive or defensive setting.
Now, you may be wondering why I am talking about sports in a cyber security blog?!
Well, I always like to relate cyber security industry to other industries and to try to think outside of the box when discussing some of our approaches. That said, I’m going to make a beeline for this idea and start relating this to our thinking:
–Attack, or Red teams, can have a positive impact on your response strategy. Relating your response plans and playbooks directly to common attack methods is advisable and should be used in conjunction with the relevant compliance standards. The actions taken in response to specific attack vectors will usually have a higher success rate than a generic catch-all cyber incident response plans. I would take a lot more comfort knowing I have playbooks designed for a specific threat vector than I would be hoping that one of my generic playbooks would cover it.
–Defense, or Blue Teams, are already a big part of response plans, and ongoing refinement of these plans should coincide with every incident lessons learned. A successful response should still have lessons to consider!
Special Teams are a mix of Red and Blue, of offense and defense. They are best positioned to engage in ‘situational football’ and to enable you to define your approach with more than one mindset, even, in some cases, conflicting mindsets. Using this combined approach will ensure an attackers methodology when searching for enrichment information during incident identification, and the pragmatism of a defender during containment and eradication activities. Having a defined response to each phase of IR is important, but engaging special teams and having the ability to refactor your playbooks on the fly is a key capability when orchestrating an effective cyber security incident response to a dynamic incident.
Unique situations can present themselves at every moment of the game. Our playbook features allow you to make your defense attack-minded by feeding in all the information gathered from your playbooks and allowing you to not be restricted by baseline actions alone. We want your defense to run actions at every point and to allow you to call an audible in any situation that presents itself. The freedom to apply this mindset will drive your incident response teams above and beyond what they see in front of them.
At DFLabs, we not only create playbooks specific to compliance standards and cyber security incident response standards, we also enable you to create and to actively amend your own custom playbooks. Our flexibility ensures that your playbooks can be built on the experience of your Red and Blue teams, in line with adversarial thinking specific to your organization or industry, and to the satisfaction of your corporate, industry and regulatory policies.
Contact us to find out more at [email protected]
The WannaCry ransomware attack sent shockwaves through businesses and governments all around the globe by bringing day-to-day activities in hospitals, banks, telecommunication operators, and local and state agencies to a grinding halt. Undoubtedly, this attack put a big spotlight on ransomware, highlighting it as a powerful, dangerous, and potentially life-threatening attack methodology exploited by cyber criminals as a means for quickly making significant financial gain. Recently, however, another method has emerged as an increasingly common tool for cyber extortion, one that is expected to gain much more traction in the near future.
The emerging threat in question is doxing and involves attackers obtaining confidential, proprietary, sensitive, or private information via social media or hacking, and threatening to publicly share that information if ransom is not paid. There have been a few notable doxing events in recent years involving hacker attempts to extort large corporations, with Walt Disney Pictures emerging as the latest victim. In another high profile case involving cyber extortion, hackers are today threatening to release a stolen upcoming blockbuster film, in advance of its premiere, unless they receive a pirate-like ransom of bitcoins in return. With doxing becoming a go-to modus operandi for an increasing number of cyber criminals, organizations seeking to safeguard their proprietary information need to become more aware of the threat doxing represents and implement solutions to protect against these extortion attacks.
Improve the Ability to Identify Doxing Attacks Quickly
Beyond implementing layered preventative and detective security controls, efforts for defending against doxing attacks should include devising a proper cyber incident response plan, preferably one established within the framework of a cyber-security automation and orchestration platform. Through the adoption of such a platform, organizations would address the first and most important part of the process for tackling doxing threats – being prepared to quickly and effectively respond to the attack.
A cyber incident response platform provides organizations with automation and orchestration capabilities through integration with existing security infrastructure and structured response playbooks. This level of preparedness vastly improves their ability to detect, track, and recover from doxing attacks. By providing a consistent and repeatable response strategy, a better prepared organization can reduce or even completely avoid the potentially substantial and damaging impact of a successful extortion attempt.
This platform allows cyber-security teams to detect, predict, and track breaches in their organizations’ computer systems, and to respond quickly and inline by leveraging integrations with existing security infrastructure. The inline response reduces overall reaction times and allows for quick containment and eradication of the threat.
The platform dramatically accelerates the incident triage and response process to improve efficiency, and can even integrate with an organization’s forensic systems, allowing for fast and efficient gathering of digital evidence to help identify attackers and support subsequent law enforcement efforts.
By leveraging the full capabilities of a cyber-security automation and orchestration platform, organizations would be able to more quickly determine the scope and impact of extortion attacks, respond accordingly, and provide authorities with the information necessary to accelerate their investigation. Collectively, leveraging these capabilities would ensure an increased chance for resolving and recovering from the incident without succumbing to ransom demands.
According to an October 2016 Fortune Tech article by Jonathan Vanian, entitled Here’s How Much Businesses Worldwide Will Spend on Cybersecurity by 2020, organizations will be spending approximately $73.3 billion in 2016 on network security with a projected 36% increase totaling $101.6 billion in 2020. Stake holders know all too well that the pennies you save today may equate to dollars in lost revenue and fines tomorrow following a significant breach or personal information leak. Finding the balance between risk and ROI is the type of thing that keeps CISO’s and CTO’s sleepless at nights.
This becomes even more critical for multinational corporations as we approach the May 25, 2018 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) implementation date. Post GDPR implementation, failing to protect the data of EU citizens could result not only in lost reputation and accompanying revenue, but hefty fines totaling more than some information security budgets.
This brings into sharp focus the need to make the best use of the resources we have while ensuring that we invest in the strategies that provide us the best return. Striking a balance between technology and personnel allows us to leverage each one in a coordinated effort that makes each one a force multiplier for the other.
One of the true pleasures I get here at DFLabs is speaking to our customers, listening to their pain points and discussing how they are dealing with them both on a strategic and tactical level. It never ceases to amaze me how creative the solutions are and I’ve been blown away more than once by some truly outside of the box thinking on their part.
ESG Research recently published a whitepaper entitled Next Generation Cyber Security Analytics and Operations Survey where in one of the (many) takeaways is that the top 5 challenges for security analytics and operations consist of:
- Total cost of operations
- Volume of alerts don’t allow time for strategy and process improvement
- Time to remediate incidents
- Lack of tools and processes to operationalize threat intelligence
- Lack of staff and/or skill set to properly address each task associated with an alert
These 5 pain points come as no surprise and while there is certainly no “silver bullet” there are some steps we can take to lessen the severity and improve our cyber incident response position significantly.
Total Cost of Operations
Addressing the total cost of operations can be the biggest factor in building a solid security analytics and operations capability. The key here is to leverage the resources you currently possess to their maximum potential, be it personnel, processes or technological solutions. Automation and incident orchestration allows the blending of human to machine or machine to machine activities in a real-time incident response. This not only makes the best use of existing resources, but provides you the much-needed insight to determine where your funds are best spent going forward.
Volume of alerts don’t allow time for strategy and process improvement
In the whitepaper entitled Automation as a Force Multiplier in Cyber Incident Response I address the alert fatigue phenomenon and discuss ways to address it within your organization. The strategy discussed, including automatically addressing lesser priority or “nuisance” alerts will provide your operations team with additional time for strategizing and process evaluation.
Time to Remediate Incidents
We are certainly familiar with the term dwell time as it applies to InfoSec. One of the 5 focus areas outlined in Joshua Douglas’ paper entitled Cyber Dwell Time and Lateral Movement is granulated visibility and correlated intelligence. This requires a centralized orchestration platform for incident review and processing that provides not only automated response, but the ability to leverage intelligence feeds to orchestrate that response. Given this capability, that single pane of glass now becomes a fully functional orchestration and automation platform. Now we can see correlated data across multiple systems incidents providing us the capability to locate, contain and remediate incidents faster than we thought possible and reduce dwell time exponentially.
Lack of tools and processes to operationalize threat intelligence
The ability to integrate threat intelligence feeds into existing incidents to enrich the data or alternately to create incidents based on threat intelligence to proactively seek out these threats is integral to your security analytics and operations capabilities. This could be a centralized mechanism in your strategic response and an integral part of your orchestration and automation platform. The ability to coordinate this activity is referred to as Supervised Active Intelligence (SAI)™ and provides the ability to scale the response using the most appropriate methods based on fact-based and intelligence driven data. This coordination should enhance your existing infrastructure making use of your current (and future) security tools.
Lack of staff and/or skillset to properly address each task associated with an alert
Of all the pain points in security analytics and operations, this is the one I hear about most frequently. The ability to leverage the knowledge veterans possess to help grow less experienced team members is an age-old issue. Fortunately, this may be the easiest to solve given the capabilities and amount of data we have available and the process by which we can communicate these practices. Orchestration and automation platforms must include not only a Knowledge Base capable of educating new team members of the latest in IR techniques, but incident workflows (commonly called “Playbooks”) that provide the incident responder on his first day the same structured response utilized by the organizations veterans. This workflow doesn’t require the veteran to be present as the tactics, techniques and procedures have already been laid out to guide less experienced employees.
We’ve seen that there are some significant pain points when developing a structured security analytics and operations capability. However I hope you’ve also seen that each of those points can be addressed via orchestration and automation directed toward prioritizing the improvement of your existing resources, with an eye toward the future.
Small businesses may not be the first thing that comes to people’s minds when talking about prime targets for cyber attackers. This is because government agencies, corporations, along with organizations and companies that are part of a country’s critical infrastructure are much more coveted targets, due to the high reward potential associated with them – both in terms of financial gains and retrieving confidential information. However, data breaches and other types of cyber incidents have recently become a common occurrence for many small businesses. Hackers are increasingly trying to gain access to the emails and acquire personal and other confidential information of their employees that are in charge of handling the companies’ finances.
One of the reasons why small businesses are seeing a rise in cyber attacks and data breaches is that cyber criminals have become increasingly aware of the fact that hacking into a small business’ computer network is fairly easy, in part due to the low cyber-security awareness of their employees. Additionally, the cyber defense programs and solutions that small businesses utilize are weak or even non-existent, thus making them easy prey despite not having a particularly high financial reward potential for cyber criminals. Lastly, small businesses have adapted to cloud services to conduct a large portion of their operations, and most cloud providers offer data encryption, making them extremely vulnerable to cyber threats.
What Criminals Are After
In most cases, the typical cyber attack on a small business’ computer network aims to retrieve a company’s financial information, employee records, customer records, as well as customer credit or debit card information, which they could later use to steal company funds, commit financial fraud, identity theft, or extortion.
The most common types of cyber security events faced by small businesses include phishing, SQL injections, malware, ransomware, DDoS attacks, and web-based attacks. The first line of defense against these attacks are a company’s employees. They need to go through cyber-security training to be able to recognize and detect a cyber threat – with statistics showing that a large part of data breaches are related to employee inattention.
Security Automation Is the Next Line of Defense
While cyber-security training for employees is something that every company needs to provide in this age of constant threat of cyber attacks, that alone is not enough to protect businesses against all potential cyber security incidents. Raising employee cyber-security awareness should be followed up by implementing appropriate solutions aimed at detecting, tracking, and eradicating cyber security incidents. In that regard, small businesses could use a security automation and orchestration platform, which can greatly reduce their reaction time following a cyber incident, and prepare them for more timely detection and prevention of future attacks.
Such a platform can help you protect customer and employee information, as well as valuable financial information, since it is capable of assessing the scope of the incident, identifying the affected device or devices, and containing the damage, by providing complete reports on the damages occurred, in addition to providing specialized rules and strategies that allow cyber-security professionals to react much more quickly and effectively to eradicate the incident. These types of platforms are the most straightforward and effective solution for small businesses’ concerns regarding cyber threats, which they are only going to see more of in the near future.