[New White Paper] Network-Based Malware Detection: Filling the Gaps of AV

We know it’s a shock, but your endpoint protection suite isn’t doing a good enough job of blocking malware attacks. So the industry has resorted additional layers of inspection, detection, and even protection to address its shortcomings. One place focus is turning, which is seeing considerable innovation, is the network. We see a new set of devices and enhancements to existing perimeter platforms, focused on detecting and blocking malware. A paragraph from Network-Based Malware Detection: Filling the Gaps of AV says it best: We have been doing anti-virus for years and it hasn’t worked. Malware detection moving forward is about really understanding what the files are doing, and then determining whether that behavior is bad. By leveraging the collective power of the network we can profile bad stuff much more quickly. With the advancement of network security technology we can start to analyze those files before they make their way onto our devices. Can we actually prevent an attack? Under the right circumstances, yes. We would like to thank Palo Alto Networks for sponsoring this research, and making sure you can read it for a remarkably fair price. You can download the paper directly: Network-Based Malware Detection: Filling the Gaps of AV The paper is based on several posts: Introduction Identifying Today’s Malware Where to Detect the Bad Stuff? The Impact of the Cloud Share:

Read Post

Friday Summary: February 10, 2012

They say it takes 10,000 hours of practice at a task to become an expert. This isn’t idle supposition, but something that’s been studied scientifically – if you believe in that sorts of things. (I’d like to provide a reference, but I’m in the process of becoming an expert at sitting in an Economy Class seat without wireless). 10,000 hours translates, roughly, to practicing something for 40 hours a week for around 5 years. Having racked up that many hours in a couple different fields, my personal experience tells me (if you believe that sorts of things) that the 10K threshold only opens up the first gate to a long path of mastery. I can’t remember exactly what year I became an analyst, but I think it was right around a decade ago. This would put me well past that first gate, but still with a lot of room to learn and grow in front of me. That’s assuming you consider analysis a skill – I see it as more a mashup of certain fundamental skills, with deep knowledge and experience of the topic you focus on. Some analysts think the fundamental tools of analysis apply anywhere, and it’s only a matter of picking up a few basics on any particular topic. You can recognize these folks, as they bounce from area to coverage area, without a real passion or dedication to any primary focus. While I do think a good analyst can apply the mechanics to multiple domains, being handy with a wrench doesn’t make a plumber a skilled car mechanic. You have to dig deep and rip apart the fundamentals to truly contribute to a field. In a bit of cognitive bias, I’m fascinated by the mechanics of analysis. Like medicine or carpentry, it’s not a field you can learn from a book or class – you really need to apprentice somewhere. One of the critical skills is the ability to change your position when presented with contradictory yet accurate evidence. Dogma is the antithesis of good analysis. Unfortunately I’d say over 90% of analysts take religious positions, and spend more time trying to make the world fit into their intellectual models than fixing their models to fit the world. When you are in a profession where you’re graded on “thought leadership”, it’s all too easy to interpret that as “say something controversial to get attention and plant a flag”. Admitting you were wrong – not merely misinterpreted – is hard. I sure as hell don’t like it, and my natural reaction is usually to double down on my position like anyone else. I don’t always pull my head out of my ass, but I really do try to admit when I get something wrong. Weirdly, a certain fraction of the population interprets that as a fault. Either I’m an idiot for saying something wrong in the first place, or unreliable for changing my mind – even in the face of conflicting evidence. The easiest way to tell whether an analyst sucks is to see how they react when the facts show them wrong. Or whether they use facts to back up their positions. I don’t claim to always get it right – I’m as human as everyone else, and often feel an emotional urge to defend my turf. This is a skill that takes constant practice – it’s handy for everyone, but critical for anyone who sells knowledge for a living. And I believe it takes a heck of a lot more than 10,000 hours to master. I’m at double that and not even close. On to the Summary: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Adrian’s DR post: A Response To NoSQL Security Concerns. Rich quoted by Bloomberg on the Symantec hack. Favorite Securosis Posts Mike Rothman: Understanding and Selecting a Database Security Platform: Defining DSP. Database security has evolved. Rich and Adrian start fleshing this out by describing how the Database Security Platform is a superset of DAM. Other Securosis Posts Incite 2/7/2012: The Couch. Implementing and Managing a Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Solution: Index of Posts. Understanding and Selecting a Database Security Platform: Defining DSP. Implementing DLP: Starting Your Integration. Implementing DLP: Integration Priorities and Components. Favorite Outside Posts Mike Rothman: Executive Breakfast Briefing with Former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff. Bejtlich lists 3 questions that you need to be asking yourself in this summary of an event they did with Secretary Chertoff. This seriously cuts to the heart of what security is supposed to be doing… Adrian Lane: Terrorism, SOPA And Zombies. Our Canadian brothers nailed this one. Cabal – cracks me up! Rich: Hoff gets all touchy-feely. Project Quant Posts Malware Analysis Quant: Monitoring for Reinfection. Malware Analysis Quant: Remediate. Malware Analysis Quant: Find Infected Devices. Malware Analysis Quant: Defining Rules. Malware Analysis Quant: The Malware Profile. Malware Analysis Quant: Dynamic Analysis. Malware Analysis Quant: Static Analysis. Malware Analysis Quant: Build Testbed. Research Reports and Presentations [New White Paper] Network-Based Malware Detection: Filling the Gaps of AV. Network-Based Malware Detection: Filling the Gaps of AV. Tokenization Guidance Analysis: Jan 2012. Tokenization Guidance. Applied Network Security Analysis: Moving from Data to Information. Security Management 2.0: Time to Replace Your SIEM? Fact-Based Network Security: Metrics and the Pursuit of Prioritization. Tokenization vs. Encryption: Options for Compliance. Top News and Posts Sorry, I didn’t have WiFi on my flights today and got home late, so I couldn’t compile a good list of stories. It doesn’t help that I’ve been slammed all week and haven’t read as much as usual. I suspect someone disclosed something, someone got hacked, and someone else tried to cover something up. That cover it? Oh – and there was a privacy violation by Google/Facebook/some social media service. Share:

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.