Securosis

Menu

Research

New Paper: Network-based Malware Detection 2.0: Assessing Scale, Accuracy and Deployment

Mike Rothman July 18, 2013 No Comments

Detecting malware feels like a losing battle. Between advanced attacks, innovative attackers, and well-funded state-sponsored and organized crime adversaries, organizations need every advantage they can get to stop the onslaught. We first identified and documented Network-Based Malware Detection (NBMD) devices as a promising technology back in early 2012, and they have made a difference in detecting malware at the perimeter. Of course nothing is perfect, but every little bit helps. But nothing stays static in the security world so NBMD technology has evolved with the attacks it needs to detect. So we updated our research to account for changes in scalability, accuracy, and deployment: The market for detecting advanced malware on the network has seen rapid change over the 18 months since we wrote the first paper. Compounding the changes in attack tactics and control effectiveness, the competition for network-based malware protection has dramatically intensified, and every network security vendor either has introduced a network-based malware detection capability or will soon. This creates a confusing situation for security practitioners who mostly need to keep malware out of their networks, and are uninterested in vendor sniping and trash talking. Accelerating change and increasing confusion usually indicate it is time to wade in again and revisit findings to ensure you understand the current decision criteria – in this case of detecting malware on your network. So this paper updates our original research to make sure you have the latest insight for your buying decisions. The landing page is in our Research Library. You can also download Network-based Malware Detection 2.0: Assessing Scale, Accuracy and Deployment (PDF) directly. We would like to thank Palo Alto Networks for licensing the content in this paper. Obviously we wouldn’t be able to do the research we do, or offer it to you without cost, without companies supporting our research. Share:

Share:
Read Post

PCI Standards Flow Downhill

Adrian Lane July 18, 2013 No Comments

Payment gateways and payment processors have to pass PCI requirements just like merchants do. And they don’t like it any more than you do, as evidenced by recent post by Stephen Ames of Shift4. He is pissed about a new interpretation of PA-DSS, provided to his QSA outside the officially published guidance and standards, which places PA-DSS section 4.2.7 always in scope. From the post: However, my PA-QSA stated that PA-DSS Requirement 4.2.7 is now always in scope, regardless of whether or not there is a user database within the application. … I’ve searched the PA-DSS for a security requirement that aligns with PCI DSS 11.5 – File Integrity Monitoring – and there are none. I’m certain that most application vendors would not take responsibility for file integrity monitoring at merchant sites. And I’m unable to understand why the SSC is forcing that upon application vendors, when they don’t even have that requirement written into the PA-DSS. I searched the PCI FAQ database and found no reference to a reinterpretation of PA-DSS Requirement 4.2.7 requiring vendors to take responsibility for file integrity monitoring of their PA-DSS applications running in merchant environments. Once again, PA-DSS Requirement 4.2.7 aligns with DSS Requirement 10.2 and user access, not DSS Requirement 11.5. … and … “The SSC sends out compliance guidance to the assessor community.” … it now appears the PCI SSC has fallen back into its old ways of keeping participating organizations in the dark. While file activity monitoring – and database activity monitoring as well – are often used as compensating controls for PCI-DSS section 10.2, they are not prescribed in the standard. But rather than accept an ‘always-on’ requirement – and what policies would be appropriate without a database to monitor? – Mr. Ames is trying to engage the community to devise a rational policy for when to apply monitoring and when not to. But Stephen is not going to get a better response than “those assessors are drinking the PCI Kool-Aid”. No matter whether his arguments make sense or not. They cannot. Several assessors I know have received phone calls from the PCI Council after writing blog posts or comments that interpreted – or worse, ameliorated – PCI scripture. They were reminded that they must always frame the PCI standard in a positive light or forfeit their ability to remain an assessor. So no frank public discussion will take place. This sort of thing has been going on for a long time without signs of getting better. The PCI publishes the PCI standards, which are insulated from public critique by the mandatory requirements signed by assessors and participating organizations. So even the most knowledgable parties who advised the council can’t speak out because that would break their agreements! That’s why, when things like non-guidance guidance are published, there is little subsequent discussion. By design, information only flows in one direction: downhill. Share:

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

Research

view all

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

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.