Securosis

Research

Evolving Endpoint Malware Detection: Control Lost

Today we start our latest blog series, which we are calling Evolving Endpoint Malware Detection: Dealing with Advanced and Targeted Attacks – a logical next step from much of the research we have already done around the evolution of malware and emerging controls to deal with it. We started a few years back by documenting Endpoint Security Fundamentals, and more recently looked at network-based approaches to detect malware at the perimeter. Finally we undertook the Herculean task of decomposing the processes involved in confirming an infection, analyzing the malware, and tracking its proliferation with our Malware Analysis Quant research. Since you were a wee lad in the security field, the importance of layered defense has been drummed into your head. No one control is sufficient. In fact, no set of controls are sufficient to stop the kinds of attacks we see every day. But by stacking as many complimentary controls as you can (without totally screwing up the user experience), you can make it hard enough for the attackers that they go elsewhere, looking for lower hanging fruit. Regardless of how good defense in depth sounds, the reality is that with the advent of increased mobility we need to continue protecting the endpoint, as we generally can’t control the location or network being used. Obviously no one would say our current endpoint protection approaches work particularly well, so it’s time to critically evaluate how to do it better. But that’s jumping ahead a bit. First let’s look at the changing requirements before we vilify existing endpoint security controls. Control Lost Sensitive corporate data has never been more accessible. Between PCs and smartphones and cloud-based services (Salesforce.com, Jive, Dropbox, etc.) designed to facilitate collaboration, you cannot assume any device – even those you own and control – isn’t accessing critical information. Just think about how your personal work environment has changed over the past couple years. You store data somewhere in the cloud. You access corporate data on all sorts of devices. You connect through a variety of networks, some ‘borrowed’ from friends or local coffee shops. We once had control of our computing environments, but that’s no longer the case. You can’t assume anything nowadays. The device could be owned by the employee and/or your CFO’s kid could surf anywhere on a corporate laptop. Folks connect through hotel networks and any other public avenues. Obviously this doesn’t mean you should (or can) just give up and stop worrying about controlling your internal networks. But you cannot assume your perimeter defenses, with their fancy egress filtering and content analysis, are in play. An just in case the lack of control over the infrastructure isn’t unsettling enough, you still need to consider the user factor. You know, the unfortunate tendency of employees to click pretty much anything that looks interesting. Potentially contracting all sorts of bad stuff, bringing it back into your corporate environment, and putting data at risk. Again, we have to fortify the endpoint to the greatest degree possible. Advancing Adversaries The attackers aren’t making things any easier. Today’s professional malware writers have gotten ahead of these trends by using advanced malware (remote access trojans [RATs] and other commercial malware techniques) to defeat traditional endpoint defenses. It is well established that traditional file-matching approaches (on both endpoints and mail & web gateways) no longer effectively detect these attacks – due to techniques such as polymorphism, malware droppers, and code obfuscation. Even better, you cannot expect to see an attack before it hits you. Whether it’s a rapidly morphing malware attack or a targeted attempt, yesterday’s generic sample gathering processes (honeynets, WildList, etc.) don’t help, because these malware files are unique and customized to the target. Vendors use the generic term “zero day” for malware you haven’t seen, but the sad reality is you haven’t seen anything important that’s being launched at you. It’s all new to you. When we said professional malware writers, we weren’t kidding. The bad guys now take an agile software approach to building their attacks. They have tools to develop and test the effectiveness of their malware, and are even able to determine whether existing malware protection tools will detect their attacks. Even coordinated with reputation systems and other mechanisms for detecting zero-day attacks, today’s solutions are just not effective enough. All this means security practitioners need new tactics for detecting and blocking malware which targets their users. Evolving Endpoint Malware Detection The good news is that endpoint security vendors realized their traditional approaches were about as viable as dodo birds a few years back. They have been developing their approaches – the resulting products have reduced footprints, require far less computing resources, and are generally decent at detecting simple attacks. But as we have described, simple attacks aren’t the ones to worry about. So in this series we will investigate how endpoint protection will evolve to better detect and hopefully block the current wave of attacks. We will start the next post by identifying the behavioral indicators of a malware attack. Like any poker player, every attack includes its own ‘tells’ that enable you to recognize bad stuff happening. Then we will describe and evaluate a number of different techniques to identify these ‘tells’ at different points along the attack chain. Finally we will wrap up with a candid discussion of the trade-offs involved in dealing with this advanced malware. You can stop these attacks, but the cure may be worse than the disease. So we will offer suggestions for how to find that equilibrium point between detection, response, and user impact. We would like to thank the folks at Trusteer for sponsoring this blog series. As we have mentioned before, you get to enjoy our work for a pretty good price because forward-thinking companies believe in educating the industry in a vendor-neutral and objective fashion. Share:

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.