Network-based Malware Detection: The Impact of the Cloud

Is it that time already? Yep, it’s time to wrap up our series on Network-based Malware Detection. We started with the need to block malware more effectively on the perimeter, particularly because you know you have users who are not the sharpest tools in the shed. Then we discussed the different techniques involved in detecting malware. Finally we tackled location, assessing critically whether the traditional endpoint protection model has outlived its usefulness. So far we have made the case for considering gateway-based malware detection as one of the next key capabilities needed on your perimeter. Now it’s about wading through the hyperbole and evaluating the strengths and weakness of each approach. AV on the Box To provide a full view of all the alternatives we need to start with the status quo, which is a traditional AV engine (typically OEMed from an endpoint AV vendor) on your gateway. Yes, this is basically what lower-end UTM devices do. This approach focuses on detecting malware within the content stream (think email/web filtering), and (just like traditional AV approaches) it isn’t very effective for detecting modern malware. AV doesn’t work very well on your endpoint, and alas it’s not much better on perimeter gateways. Sandboxing on the Box The latest iteration, beyond running a traditional AV engine on the box, involves executing malware in a protected sandbox on the perimeter device and observing what it does. Depending on the behavior of the file – whether it does bad things – it can be blocked in real time. Virtualizing victim devices on perimeter platforms to test malware at network speeds is a substantial advance. And we have seen these devices provide a measurable improvement in ability to block malware at the gateway. But of course this entails trade-offs. First of all, do you really want to be executing malware within your production network? Of course it is supposed to be an isolated environment, but it’s still a risk – even if a small one. The second trade-off is performance. You are limited to the performance of the perimeter device. Only so many virtual victims can be spun up on a given network device at a time, so at some point you will hit a scalability wall. You can throw bigger boxes at the problem but local analysis is inherently limiting. And remember that these are new and additional dedicated devices. For some organizations that isn’t a problem – they simply get a new box to solve a new problem. Others are more resistant to spending rack space on the perimeter on one more niche device. Finally, this model provides no leverage. This approach requires you to execute every suspicious file locally, even if the malware has been sent to every company in the world. And because detecting malware is an inexact science, you will probably miss the first time something comes in, and suffer the consequences. You need a feedback loop to take advantage of what you learned during incident response / malware analysis (as described in the Malware Analysis Quant research) on the device. Shame on you if you do all the work to analyze the malware, but don’t make sure it cannot strike again. So to net this out, doing more sophisticated malware detection on the perimeter gateway represents a major advance, and has helped to detect a lot of the lower-hanging fruit missed by traditional AV. It is at a disadvantage against truly targeted unique malware, but then again nothing aside from unplugging from the Internet can really solve that problem. Leveraging the Cloud for Malware Detection We often point out there is rarely anything really new – just recycled ideas packaged a bit differently. We see this again with network-based malware detection, as we did for endpoint AV. When it became impractical to continue pushing a billion malware signatures to each protected endpoint, AV vendors started leveraging the cloud to track the reputation of individual file, determine if they are bad, and then tell endpoints to block them. The vendor’s AV cloud would analyze unknown files and make a determination of goodness or badness depending on what the file does. Of course that analysis isn’t real-time, so the first couple iterations of each new attack end poorly for the victims. But over time the malware is profiled, and then blocked when it shows up again. This concept also applies to detecting malware on the perimeter security gateway. A list of bad files can be cached on the devices, and new unrecognized files can be uploaded to the cloud service for analysis and an approve/block verdict. This addresses a number of the issues inherent to local analysis, as described above. You send the malware off to someone else’s cloud service rather than executing it locally. You have no performance limitations (assuming the network itself is reasonably fast) because the analysis isn’t on your hardware, and this capability adds little overhead to perimeter security gateways, which are likely already overburdened dealing with all these new application-aware policies. And you can take full advantage of the vendor’s cloud service, with its excellent leverage. If organization A sees a new malware file and the cloud service learns it’s bad, all subscribers to the cloud service can automatically block that malware and any recognizable cousins. So the larger the network, the less likely you are to see (and be infected by) the first specimen of any particular malware file – instead you can learn from other people’s misfortune and block the malware. So what’s the catch? It’s about the same as the latest generation of endpoint AV. The latency between when you see the attack and when specific malware files are known bad. That could be days at this point, but as the technology improves (and it will) the window will shrink to hours. But there will always be a window of exposure, since you aren’t actually analyzing the malware at the perimeter. And detection will never be perfect – malware writers already make it

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.