Securosis

Research

Getting Logstalgic

Good tip here in a post from the Chief Monkey about a new open source log visualization tool called Logstalgia. It basically shows web access logs visualized as a pong game. So all of you folks in my age bracket will really appreciate it. Here is the description from the project page: Logstalgia is a website traffic visualization that replays or streams web-server access logs as a pong-like battle between the web server and an never ending torrent of requests. Requests appear as colored balls (the same color as the host) which travel across the screen to arrive at the requested location. Successful requests are hit by the paddle while unsuccessful ones (eg 404 – File Not Found) are missed and pass through. The paths of requests are summarized within the available space by identifying common path prefixes. Related paths are grouped together under headings. For instance, by default paths ending in png, gif or jpg are grouped under the heading Images. Paths that don’t match any of the specified groups are lumped together under a Miscellaneous section. So how do you use it? Basically figuring out if you have an issue is about seeing weird patterns. This pong looking visualization is definitely interesting. For example, if you are getting hammered by a small set of IP addresses, then that will be pretty easy to see using the tool. If your site is dropping a lot of traffic, then you’ll see that too. Check out the video. Not only does it have cool music, but your mind should be racing in terms of how you’d use the tool in your day to day troubleshooting. Does it provide a smoking gun? Nope. But it gives you a way to visualize sessions in an interesting way, and the price is right. Good tip Chief. Thanks. Share:

Share:
Read Post

Incite 5/1/2013: Trailblazing Equality

I recently took the Boy to see “42,” which I highly recommend for everyone. It’s truly a great (though presumably dramatized) story about Jackie Robinson and Branch Rickey as they tore down the color line in major league baseball. My stepfather knew Jackie Robinson pretty well and always says great things about him. It seems the movie downplayed the abuse he took, alone, as he worked to overcome stereotypes, bigotry, and intolerance to move toward the ideal of the US founding fathers that “all men are created equal”. But importantly the movie successfully conveyed the significance of his actions and the courage of the main players. As unlikely as it seemed in 1945 that we would have a black man playing in the major leagues, it must have felt similarly unlikely that we would have an openly gay man playing in the NBA (or any major league sport). Except that it’s not. Jason Collins emerged from his self-imposed dungeon after 12 years in the NBA and became the first NBA player to acknowledge that he’s gay. It turns out men of all creeds, colors, nationalities, and sexual orientations play professional sports. Who knew? This was a watershed moment in the drive toward equal rights. NFL writer Mike Freeman Tweeted that it was a great day in his life: “(I) get to see a true civil rights moment unfold instead of reading about it in a book.” Those interested in equality are ecstatic. Those wanting to maintain the status quo, not so much. I tend to not discuss my personal views on politics, religion, or any other hot topic publicly. The reality is that I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe. We can have a good, civil discussion about those views, but I’m unlikely to change my mind and you are unlikely to change yours. Most such discussions are a complete waste of time. I accept your right to believe what you want and I hope you accept mine. Unfortunately the world isn’t like that. There was a tremendous amount of support for Jason Collins from basketball players, other athletes, and even the president of the US. There was also a lot of bigotry, ignorance, and hatred spewed in his direction. But when he stepped out of the closet he knew that would be the case. He was ready. And he is laying the groundwork for other gay athletes to emerge from their darkness. As Jackie Robinson blazed the trail for athletes like Roy Campanella, Larry Doby, and Satchel Paige to play in the majors, Jason Collins will be the first of many professional athletes to embrace who they are and stop hiding. I think it’s great. Hats off to Jason Collins and all of the other courageous gay athletes that will become known in the months and years to come. Although you may disagree, which is cool. You are entitled to your own opinions. But to be clear, you can’t stop it. This genie is out of the bottle, and it’s not going back in. –Mike Photo credits: Sports Illustrated cover – May 6, 2013 Heavy Research We are back at work on a variety of blog series, so here is a list of the research currently underway. Remember you can get our Heavy Feed via RSS, where you can get all our content in its unabridged glory. And you can get all our research papers too. Defending Cloud Data/IaaS Encryption Encrypting Entire Volumes Protecting Volume Storage Understanding Encryption Systems How IaaS Storage Works IaaS Encryption Security Analytics with Big Data Introduction The CISO’s Guide to Advanced Attackers Verify the Alert Mining for Indicators Intelligence, the Crystal Ball of Security Sizing up the Adversary Newly Published Papers Email-based Threat Intelligence: To Catch a Phish Network-based Threat Intelligence: Searching for the Smoking Gun Understanding and Selecting a Key Management Solution Building an Early Warning System Implementing and Managing Patch and Configuration Management Incite 4 U The worst press release of the year: It kills me to do this, but this week I need to slam an “article” on Dark Reading that claims users don’t care about security. This is clearly a press release posted as if it were a news article, which deliberately confuses readers. As an occasional writer for DR (and huge supporter of the team there), it hurts to see such drivel intermingled with good content. Unfortunately many online publications now post press releases as articles in the ongoing battle to collect page views, which is a horrific practice that should be destroyed. Back to the press release, which has more hyperbole than the Encyclopedia of Hyperbole. It claims that users don’t care about security since they reuse passwords and don’t track the latest threats. That’s stupid. They reuse passwords because the alternatives don’t work for most average users. They don’t track threats or obsess about security because it isn’t their job. At least most FUD press releases make minor nods to reality – this one doesn’t even pretend. It reeks of desperation. Pathetic. – RM Stepping into the AV time machine: I know this OPSWAT post, Varied Antivirus Engine Detection of Two Malware Outbreaks is dated April 13, 2013 but it feels like 2003. It talks about the need to use multiple detection engines because anti-virus vendors add signatures for new attacks at different times. Wait. What? Evidently no one told these guys that blacklists are dead. But this seems to be a recurring theme – I recently got into it with another MSS, who told me how great it is that they can scan traffic with two different AV engines to catch advanced malware. I tried to delicately tell him that they wouldn’t catch much advanced malware with 15 AV engines, but they can certainly crush their throughput. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised – AV remains the primary control to fight attacks, even though it’s not good enough. Sigh. – MR Always the last to know: Wendy Nather had exactly the same thought I did on the the latest Verizon Data Breach Report, and hit the nail on the

Share:
Read Post

Security Funding via Tin Cup

Folks struggling to get funding to implement security programs are a hot button of mine. I know it’s hard. I know we are expected to protect stuff with tighter budgets and fewer resources. A cornerstone of our research is effective prioritization so you can focus on the things most important to your organization. I get all that. But most folks aren’t a lot more sophisticated than passing around a tin cup during the budgeting process and hoping they get sufficient funding. If you want any chance of success in security, you need to be able to get funding for your key projects. And passing a virtual tin cup doesn’t cut it. I recently saw an article on NetworkWorld that hits on these topics, 10 tips to secure funding for a security program, and figured it was another one of these lightweight slide shows meant to drive a bunch of page views. But when I started reading and almost immediately saw a discussion of ROI for getting security funding I was a bit chagrined. If you talk ROI you have very little chance of success. Although the author (Dominic Nessi) makes a good point: However, cyber security budget requests are more difficult to quantify. Security ROI is typically expressed by comparing security investments with the potential liability caused by security breaches. This is similar to calculating the financial benefit of insurance for physical assets, such as buildings and equipment. Insurance. Awesome. But it is what it is. It’s about risk – either minimizing or transferring your risk. Don’t even waste time thinking about eliminating risk. Dominic talks about putting a program framework in place and relating the goals of the security framework to the goals of the business. Yup. So read these 10 tips, and understand they aren’t really 10 tips – these are all basic things that go along with having a strong security program. But I’m not sure why getting a CISSP is important for getting funding. If you are looking at a certification to prove competence to your senior management you’re doing it wrong. But railing on certifications is another topic for another day. Photo credit: “Beggar girl” originally uploaded by Taifighta Share:

Share:
Read Post

Incite 4/24/2013: F Perfect

Perfect is my least favorite word in the English language. Nothing is perfect. There are always things that can be improved upon, no matter how good they are. And striving for perfection is an express train to disappointment and unhappiness. I’m a card-carrying disciple of “good enough”. It doesn’t need to be perfect to add value. So I don’t obsess about typos, misplaced pixels, or any other such nonsense. Which can irritate certain business partners [and editors] at times. But I’m not going to change it. If I do work (or anything else), I get it to a point where I’m happy with it and move on. That doesn’t mean I strive to be mediocre. Or that I accept subpar effort from myself or anyone else. I do my best. I focus on consistent effort, not super-human perfection. Some folks believe you need to push beyond your self-imposed mental limits to achieve truly great things. I get that. I have tried that. It made me unhappy because I found I had a high bar for what I expected to achieve. I have the hyper self-motivation gene. I didn’t need an external party to push me. What I needed was to get comfortable with good enough. In hindsight, it’s sad that I felt failure even in the face of significant accomplishment. That’s no way to go through life. At least not for me – you can do what you want. This is a hard lesson to teach your kids, especially when the bar is set by someone else. The Boss and I expect our kids to work hard and achieve to their level of ability. XX2 has a large personality. She is passionate and talented and has tremendous potential. We see that potential and so do her teachers. Unfortunately her teacher this year is a perfectionist who thinks all the kids should be perfect. A few months ago her teacher had beaten her down and we saw it. She stopped trying because she knew she couldn’t achieve the perfection her teacher expected. Her behavior and grades went down a little because she didn’t care anymore. It was time to intervene. So the Boss sat down with the teacher and they worked out a set of criteria that represents a good day for XX2. We thought some of the criteria were stupid but they were based on stuff that irritates the teacher. She gets check marks every day based on the criteria and we sign off daily. She gets a prize from the teacher at the end of the week if she got all positive check marks. Right, she needs to be perfect to get her prize from the teacher. Back to Square 1. Clearly we weren’t going to move the teacher off her perfection fixation. So we went around the teacher. We made it clear to XX2 that we don’t expect perfection. F Perfect. F that teacher too. We put an alternative incentive plan in place. If XX2 gets 5 of 6 checks every day for the week, she gets something from us. And her success criteria is now how she did in our eyes, not the teacher’s. Win! Of course we also talk about what she did that day and what she can do better the next day. We push her to be her best. But not to be perfect. To be human – perfectly imperfect – and we want her to be comfortable with that. –Mike Photo credits: 19. originally uploaded by silangel Heavy Research We are back at work on a variety of blog series, so here is a list of the research currently underway. Remember you can get our Heavy Feed via RSS, where you can get all our content in its unabridged glory. And you can get all our research papers too. Security Analytics with Big Data Introduction The CISO’s Guide to Advanced Attackers Verify the Alert Mining for Indicators Intelligence, the Crystal Ball of Security Sizing up the Adversary Newly Published Papers Email-based Threat Intelligence: To Catch a Phish Network-based Threat Intelligence: Searching for the Smoking Gun Understanding and Selecting a Key Management Solution Building an Early Warning System Implementing and Managing Patch and Configuration Management Incite 4 U You! Yes, you! You’re a target: Most folks who are compromised spend their days blissfully unaware. They figure who would be interested what they have? As this post on DealBook shows, every company with any kind of intellectual property is a target for these cyber attacks. DRINK! Yeah, the article gets a 15-yard penalty for excessive use of ‘cyber’. But their point is reasonable: start-up tech companies, who may think they know everything, have no specific mandate or requirement to do security. The authors put the impetus on investors to make sure the management team is challenged to ensure proper intellectual property protections are in place. But good luck with that. That’s like the blind asking the blind whether the moon is out. – MR Break the abuse cycle: It is well known that human behavior favors certainty over novelty. It varies based on our genes, but in general we like things to stay the same – it’s an inertia thing. That makes sense, considering that for many years changes signified impending death, so you might as well sprinkle a few red shirts with the explorer gene, but keep the rest of us safe at home (and no, I promise I didn’t learn all this watching The Croods with my kids). So it comes as no surprise that, almost 13 years on, Windows XP is still used in many organizations. To be honest, I think Gartner’s 10% estimate is low, especially if you count the entire retail and hospitality industry that runs their point of sale systems on XP. Really. Not only is it time to get off XP, because security support ends next year, but it is time to break the abuse cycle. We can’t afford to lock ourselves into 10+-year-old operating systems in today’s threat environment. We need to architect systems and operational processes (such as user training) to allow more frequent upgrades.

Share:
Read Post

Question everything, including the data

The good news about being in security is that you don’t have to look too far for criticism of your work. Most of the time it’s constructive criticism, so overall interaction with the security community makes your work markedly better. Which is why we live by the Totally Transparent Research process. It makes our work better. But when our pals at Verizon clogged up my Twitter timeline this morning with their annual DBIR masterpiece (you can also check out our guidance on the DBIR), they dragged my attention back to a post by Jericho from Attrition: “Threat Intelligence”, not always that intelligent, prompted by Symantec’s most recent security trends report. Jericho summed up the value of security trend reports as only he can, and explained why folks tend not to challenge them often. The reason? Security companies, professionals, and journalists are complacent. They are happy to get the numbers that help them. For some, it sells copy. For others, it gets security budget. Since it helps them, their motivation to question or challenge the data goes away. They never realize that their “threat intelligence” source is stale and serving up bad data. It’s not in the machine’s best interest to question the data. That’s why most folks (besides, me I guess) don’t poke at the vendor-sponsored survey data or other similar nonsense put forth as gospel in the security business. Anything that helps sell security is good, right? Well, no. Decisions based on faulty data tend to be faulty decisions. So Jericho presents a number of inconsistencies between Symantec’s vulnerability data and the OSVDB dataset he contributes to. It’s pretty compelling stuff. But we shouldn’t minimize either the effort involved in building these reports or the value they do provide. There is a lot of value in these threat and data breach reports, if the data is reasonably accurate. We’re security people. We question everything, so it’s reasonable to question the data you use to make the case for your existence. Photo credit: “Question” originally uploaded by ACU Library Share:

Share:
Read Post

The CISO’s Guide to Advanced Attackers: Verify the Alert

All the discussion so far in our CISO’s Guide to Advanced Attackers has been of preparation for the main event. The bell rings when an alert fires and it’s time for your incident response process to kick in. But as we have seen through our adversary analysis and intelligence gathering, “advanced attackers” present some unique challenges. In particular, they significant resources and time, which makes them difficult to deter – even if you successfully block one attack or stop a specific exfiltration, there will be more. A lot more. As usual we depend on process as the key to dealing with advanced attackers. But this class of adversaries requires you to put a premium on analyzing malware to isolate the root cause of the attack, looking for indicators to identify additional compromised devices, and then trying to piece together the bigger picture of the attack. React Faster and Better, CISO Style Let’s turn back the clock and review some of the Incident Response Fundamentals we introduced a few years ago. The process remains largely the same, but you are likely to need some of the data sources covered in React Faster and Better and some of the analysis techniques presented in the Malware Analysis Quant process maps to deal with advanced attackers’ tactics. If you weren’t worried enough about this, remember that your perceived success as CISO is directly correlated to your ability to respond effectively to incidents and keep your organization out of headlines. You don’t need a SIEM to do that correlation, by the way. During the Attack Once the alert sounds it is time to figure out whether the attack is legitimate, what it looks like, and the proper escalation path (if necessary). Here are the general steps in that effort: Gather information: For an investigator to make heads or tails of anything, your first tier needs to collect some information. Things like who triggered the alert and what systems and devices were involved. Were you notified by a third party (not a good sign)? Could you find an alert (perhaps one that was ignored) around the time period of the attack? You are trying to get a feel for whether this is an operational failure or something designed to evade your defenses. Escalate: Next you decide how far up the chain of command this needs to go. If there are critical systems involved (those on your list of things where compromise would be bad), then your spidey senses need to start tingling and you need the big guns involved. The escalation scenarios must be defined and agreed on ahead of time so your first tier responders know what to do and when. Size up: Once your second tier (or even third tier) responders are involved, the key is determining the scope of the situation. Was this a total compromise? Does extensive lateral movement indicate potential exfiltration? You need to know what you might be dealing with, and to assemble a list of the stuff you really need in order to investigate the incident. Initial Containment: Depending on your initial assessment of the situation you may need to quarantine devices, step up monitoring, or remove the device’s access to sensitive data. As with escalation, the initial set of containment actions should be documented in a playbook, with documented approval from all stakeholders, to ensure containment steps are not held up by bureaucracy. At this point you should have initial defenses in place and a feel for whether you are dealing with folks who know what they’re doing. If the attack doesn’t seem sophisticated or coordinated you can probably just wipe the machine and move on, hopefully using it as a teaching moment so the user doesn’t do something stupid again. Is it a risk to just wipe and move on? You bet! You lose any ability to seriously analyze the attack, but part of the CISO’s job is to allocate resources to the stuff that matters. Being able to tell the difference between an advanced attacker, an operational failure, and a stupid user error becomes a key determinant of success in the job, along with resource allocation. If there is a chance that you are dealing with an advanced attacker (or something else is pushing you to do a broader investigation), you will start working through a more detailed forensics process. That means quarantining the affected devices, taking forensic images, and working to determine the root cause of the attack. That requires you to dig into the malware and determine how the devices were compromised, then assess the extent of the damage. Digging for the Root (Cause) Malware analysis is a discipline all its own. We have documented the entire process in Malware Analysis Quant, but CISO types rarely fire up BackTrack or ship file up to malware sandboxes, so here is what you need to make sure the right stuff is happening to identify the root cause of a compromise. Build Testbed: It is rarely a good idea to analyze malware on production devices connected to production networks. So your first step is to build a testbed to analyze what you found. This is mostly a one-time effort but you will always be adding to the testbed, with the evolution of your attack surface. There are services that can do this as well, without the hardware investment. Static Analysis: The first actual analysis step is static analysis of the malware file to identify things like packers, compile dates, and functions used by the program. Dynamic Analysis: There are three aspects of what we call Dynamic Analysis: device analysis, network analysis, and proliferation analysis. To dig a layer deeper, first observe the impact of the malware on the specific device, dynamically analyzing the program to figure out what it actually does. Here you seek insight into memory usage, configuration, persistence, new executables, and anything else interesting associated with execution of the malware. This is managed by running the malware in a sandbox. Once you understand what the malware does to a device you can begin to figure out its communications paths. This includes command and control traffic, DNS tactics, exfiltration

Share:
Read Post

The CISO’s Guide to Advanced Attackers: Mining for Indicators

The key to dealing with advanced attackers is not closing off every window of vulnerability. As we have discussed throughout this series, advanced attackers will figure out a way to gain a foothold in your environment. Actually they will find multiple ways into your environment. So if you hope for any semblance of success, your goal cannot be to stop them – instead you need to work on shorteneing the window between compromise and detection. We have called that Reacting Faster and Better for years. 5 years to be exact, but who’s counting? The general concept is that you want to monitor your environment, gathering key security information that can either identify typical attack patterns as they are happening (yes, a SIEM-like capability), or more likely searching for indicators identified via intelligence activities. Collecting All the Security Data We say “all the security data” a bit tongue-in-cheek, but not too much. We have been saying Monitor Everything almost as long as we have been talking about Reacting Faster, because if you fail to collect data you won’t have an opportunity to get it later. Unfortunately most organizations don’t realize their security data collection leaves huge gaps until the high-priced forensics folks let you know they can’t truly isolate the attack, or the perpetrator, or the malware, or much of anything, because you just don’t have the data. Most folks only need to learn that lesson once. So the first order of business is to lay down a collection infrastructure to store all your security data. The good news is that you have likely been collecting security data for quite some time, and your existing investment and infrastructure should be directly useful for dealing with advanced attackers. This means existing log management system may be useful after all. But perhaps not – you might have tools that aren’t at all suited to helping you find advanced attackers in your midst. One step at a time – now let’s delve into the data you need to collect. Network Security Devices: Your firewalls and IPS devices generate huge logs of what’s blocked, what’s not, and which rules are effective. You will receive intelligence that typically involves port/protocol/destination combinations or application identifiers for next-generation firewalls, which can identify potential attack traffic. Configuration Data: One key area to mine for indicators is the configuration data from your devices. It enables you to look for very specific files and/or configurations that have been identified as indicators of compromise. Identity: Similarly information about logins, authentication failures, and other identity-related data is useful for matching against attack profiles from third-party threat intelligence providers. NetFlow: This is another data type commonly used in SIEM environments; it provides information on protocols, sources, and destinations for network traffic as it traverses devices. NetFlow records are similar to firewall logs but far smaller, making them more useful for high-speed networks. Flows can identify lateral movement by attackers, as well as large exfiltration file transfers. Network Packet Capture: The next frontier for security data collection is actually to capture all network traffic on key segments. Forensics folks have been doing this for years during investigations, but proactive continuous full packet capture – for the inevitable incident responses which haven’t even started yet – is still an early market. For more detail on how full packet capture impacts security operations check out our Network Security Analytics research. Application/Database Logs: Application and database logs are generally less relevant, unless they come from standard applications or components likely to be specifically targeted by attackers. But you might be able to discover unusual application and/or database transactions – which might represent bulk data removal, injection attempts, or efforts to attack your critical data. Vulnerability Scans: This is another information source with limited value, detailing which devices are vulnerable to specific attacks. They help eliminate devices from your search criteria to streamline search activities. Of course this isn’t an exhaustive list, and you are likely already capturing much of this data. That’s a good thing, but capturing and analyzing data within the context of a compliance audit is fundamentally different than trying to detect advanced attacker activity. We are sticking to the CISO view for this series so we won’t dig into the technical nuances of the collection infrastructure. But they must be built on a strong analytical foundation which provides a threat-centric view of the world rather than one a focused on compliance reporting. More advanced organizations may already have a Security Operations Center (SOC) leveraging a SIEM platform for more security-oriented correlation and forensics to pinpoint and investigate attacks. That’s a start, but you will likely require some kind of Big Data thing, which should be clear after we discuss what we need this detection platform to do. Attack Patterns FTW As much as we have talked about the futility of blocking every advanced attack, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t learn from both the past and the misfortune of others. We spent a time early in this process on sizing up the adversary for some insight into what is likely to be attacked, and perhaps even how. That enables you to look for those attack patterns within your security data – the promise of SIEM technology for years. The ultimate disconnect with SIEM was the hard truth that you needed to know what you were looking for. Far too many vendors forgot to mention that little requirement when selling you a bill of goods. Perhaps they expected attackers to post their plans on Facebook or something? But once you do the work to model the likely attacks on your key information, and then enumerate those attack patterns in your tool, you can get tremendous value. Just don’t expect it to be fully automated. The best case is that you receive an alert about a very likely attack because it’s something you were looking for. But the quickest way to get killed is to plan for the best case. So we also need to ensure we are ready for the worst case. That is advanced attackers using attacks you haven’t seen before, in ways you don’t expect. That’s when

Share:
Read Post

The CISO’s Guide to Advanced Attacks: Intelligence, the Crystal Ball of Security

As discussed in our first post in the CISO’s Guide to Advanced Attackers, the first step is to determine what kind of attack would have the greatest impact on your environment (most likely mission), so you can infer which kinds of adversaries you are likely to face. Armed with context on likely adversaries, we can move into the intelligence gathering phase. This involves learning everything we can about possible and likely adversaries, profiling probable behaviors, and determining which kinds of defenses and controls make sense to address the higher probabilities. As we mentioned when wrapping up the last post, at the end of the day these are all just educated guess. That’s why we keep using the word likely. But these guesses can be very useful for a head start on detect advanced attacks. When you are racing the clock with an adversary in your environment that head start can make the difference in whether key data is exfiltrated. Master the Basics But first there iss something we neglected in the introductory post, the importance of a strong set of security controls in place at the start of the process. Dealing with advanced attackers is not for unsophisticated or immature security organizations. The first order of business is to pick the low hanging fruit, and ensure you aren’t making it easy for attackers. What does that mean? You need to master the basics and have good security practices implemented. We will not go into detail here – you can check out our research library for chapter and verse on security practices. Before you can address advanced attacks, you need to have already hardened key devices, implemented a strong hygiene (patch and configuration management) program, and properly segmented your network to make it difficult for attackers to get at important data. We can laugh about the futility of traditional endpoint protection, but you still need some measure of protection on key devices with access to sensitive data. For the rest of this series we will assume (and yes, we know the hazards of assuming anything) that you are ready to deal with an advanced attacker – meaning you have a relatively mature security program in place with proper control sets. If you can’t make that kind of statement, go do that now, and you can resume reading this paper once you’re done. Profiling the Adversary For better or worse, the industry seems to believe that intelligence = “threat intelligence.” And the many organizations not doing much to shorten the detection cycle for advanced attacks can get away with this generalization. But threat intelligence is a subset of intelligence – to really understand your adversaries you need to go deeper than learning the indicators of compromise found in their last attack. That means you will want to learn what they do, how they do it, where they live, what they like to do, where they were trained, the tools they use, the attacks they have undertaken, the nuances of their attack code, and their motives. Yes, that is a big list, and not many organizations are in a position to gather this kind of real intelligence on adversaries. You can check out some of the publicly available information in the APT1 report, which provide unprecedented detail about these apparently state-sponsored Chinese hackers to get a feel for the depth of intelligence needed to seriously combat advanced attackers. In light of the reality of limited resources and even more limited intelligence expertise, you are likely to buy this kind of intelligence or get it from buddies who have more resources and expertise. You can gather a lot of intelligence by asking the right questions within your information sharing community or talking to researchers at your strategic information security vendors. Depending on how the intelligence is packaged, you may pay or get the ability to interact with their security researchers as part of your product/service agreement. The kind of adversary intelligence you need goes well beyond what’s published in the quarterly threat reports from all the security vendors. They tend to give away their least interesting data as bait, but they are very likely to have much more interesting data which use they for their own work – you just have to ask and possibly subscribe to get access. When we talk about how advanced attackers impact the security process at the end of this series, we will discuss how to integrate this type of adversary intelligence into your security program. Threat Intelligence Indicators Now that we have defined the intelligence terminology we can get into the stuff that will directly impact your security activity: the threat intelligence that has become such a hot topic in security circles. We have recently researched this topic extensively so we will highlight a bunch of it here, but we also recommend you read our papers on Building an Early Warning System, Network-based Threat Intelligence, and Email-based Threat Intelligence for a much deeper look at the specific data sources and indicators you will be looking for. But let’s start with a high-level overview of the general kinds of threat intelligence you are likely to leverage in your efforts to deal with advanced attackers. Malware Malware analysis is maturing rapidly, and it is becoming common to quickly and thoroughly understand exactly what a malicious code sample does and define behavioral indicators you can search for within your environment. We described this in gory detail in Malware Analysis Quant. For now suffice it to say that you aren’t looking for a specific file – that would just take us back to AV blacklists – instead you will seek indicators of what a file did to a device. Remember, it is no longer about what malware looks like – it is now about what it does. Fortunately a number of parties offer information services that provide data on specific pieces of malware. You can get an analysis based on a hash of a malware file, or upload a file that hasn’t been seen before. The services run malware samples through a sandbox to figure out what it does, profile it, and

Share:
Read Post

Run faster or you’ll catch privacy

One of the things that smacked me upside the head at a recent IANS Forum, where I run the CISO track, is the clear merging of the security and privacy functions under the purview of one executive. Of the 15 or so CISOs in the room, at least half also had responsibility for privacy. And many of them got this new responsibility as part of a recent reorganization. So once again be careful what you wish for. It was a lot more fun to be able to rail at the wacky privacy folks working for the CFO or General Counsel, wasn’t it? Not so much now that it’s your problem. To be fair this evolution is logical – you cannot really separate out the two if you accept that it’s all about protecting customers. Not only do you have to keep customer data private, but you could make the case that protecting intellectual property ensures you can deliver value to those customers. Malcolm Harkins, CISO (and now CPO) of Intel appeared on a podcast to explain why his organization recently gave him responsibility for the privacy function as well. Intel has added privacy to the portfolio of its top information security executive, Malcolm Harkins, who says too many information security professionals are “color blind or tone deaf” to privacy, wrongly thinking strong data protection provides privacy safeguards. Most security types didn’t want to deal with the policies and other squishy things privacy folks must deal with. It was easier to focus on technology and leave the softer stuff to other folks. We don’t have that choice any more, and if you’re at the CISO level and still largely focused on technology, you’re doing it wrong. But if you thought responsibility for privacy wasn’t bad enough, a few CISOs are now taking on responsibility for management of building access systems as well (as part of physical security), as they are increasingly integrated with existing IAM systems. The fun never ends… Photo credit: “Privacy” originally uploaded by PropagandaTimes Share:

Share:
Read Post

Incite 4/17/2013: Tipping the balance between good and evil

There are things you just can’t explain. No amount of dogma, perceived slights, or anything can excuse a senseless act of violence on unsuspecting, innocent people. Yes, I’m talking about the Boston Marathon attack, but it applies extends to any act of terrorism. I believe in karma, and the perpetrators will get their just rewards. Maybe out of the view of the public eye, but they will. Though I’m not really a fan, Schneier has it right in his post, “Keep Calm and Carry On”. We cannot live in fear. That’s what the terrorists want. We can’t legitimize their cause and we can’t impinge on our personal freedoms. Because then they win. Truth be told, we in the US are spoiled. There are many parts of the world where a bombing like yesterday wouldn’t even make the news. Where terror is an everyday occurrence. I feel very fortunate that isn’t my life and it’s not the life of my kids. We won the birthplace lottery and we must not forget that. But we do have to deliver some kind of message to the younger generation. Try to explain the unexplainable. In today’s iPhone (and iPod touch) driven society, the kids are tuned in whether we like it or not. XX1’s Instagram blew up with pictures and prayers, and she started asking questions right when she got home from school. XX2 and the Boy learned of it soon after because news travels like wildfire in my house. All we could do is explain that some people are misguided souls and they harm each other for no apparent reason. We are security folks. We understand how this works. That you can be aware of what’s around you and not put yourself unnecessarily at risk, but you cannot eliminate this kind of attack. Schneier mentions (correctly) your extreme unlikelihood of being personally impacted by this kind of attack. That’s little consolation to my friend who was at the finish line yesterday, who still has a ringing in his ears and concussive effects from the explosion. And it’s clearly no consolation to the families the people hurt in the attack, picking up the pieces of their lives today. But ultimately the balance is tipped heavily towards the good. Just think of the emergency responders running into the blast area. The folks carrying the wounded out of harm’s way. People opening their homes to displaced strangers. Good people doing good deeds when called upon. The best viewpoint I saw yesterday came from comedian Patton Oswalt on Facebook. He makes exactly the right point at exactly the right time: But the vast majority stands against that darkness and, like white blood cells attacking a virus, they dilute and weaken and eventually wash away the evil doers and, more importantly, the damage they wreak. This is beyond religion or creed or nation. We would not be here if humanity were inherently evil. We’d have eaten ourselves alive long ago. So when you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just garden-variety misogyny, hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye and think, “The good outnumber you, and we always will.” Well said, Mr. Oswalt. Well said. –Mike Photo credits: good and evil originally uploaded by Scotto Bear Heavy Research We are back at work on a variety of blog series, so here is a list of the research currently underway. Remember you can get our Heavy Feed via RSS, where you can get all our content in its unabridged glory. And you can get all our research papers too. The CISO’s Guide to Advanced Attackers Sizing up the Adversary Understanding Identity Management for Cloud Services Buyers Guide Architecture and Design Integration Newly Published Papers Email-based Threat Intelligence: To Catch a Phish Network-based Threat Intelligence: Searching for the Smoking Gun Understanding and Selecting a Key Management Solution Building an Early Warning System Implementing and Managing Patch and Configuration Management Incite 4 U Can we sacrifice PCI yet? Dave Elfering makes a number of good points in Worshipping at the Alter of Best Practices. It is basically stuff you know, but we see folks fall into the same trap over and over again. Not you but other folks, of course. Looking for the prescriptive guidance rather than doing the work. “Unfortunately we in security and IT often succumb to the microwave dinner approach to solving business issues.” Should we call this the Hungry Man approach to security? But Dave is exactly right – mandates start in the right place, but ultimately “often cross over into zealotry complete with dueling and echelons of priestly orders.” How many of you will be at the Temple of Bob Russo on Sunday? Yeah, that’s a scary thought… – MR Cloud FUD-tastic: Things must be getting ugly in the competitive battle between cloud vendors if Verizon is pulling out the FUD card by claiming that you’re ‘endangering’ your business by selecting Amazon as a cloud service provider. Many data centers did get flooded by hurricane Sandy, so Verizon’s dodging of that bullet makes them look smart by comparison, but that is a long way from claiming Amazon AWS endangers your business. Any cloud provider basing their competitive claims on 100% uptime is likely to be embarrassed in the future – it is unreasonable to expect a cloud service to be 100% reliable. And if Amazon AWS is having more security issues that competitors, I am willing to bet tha it’s because they have a lot more customers, with a far larger number who don’t take security seriously. If other cloud infrastructure providers want to cast stones, look at issues of lock-in and why more customers don’t have failover contingencies to multiple regions. Those are more compelling concerns. – AL Awareness and security training – not mutually exclusive: This is wading into the discussion a couple weeks late, but two of the biggest windbags in security, Bob Schneier and Ira Winkler, got into it over security training. Stephen Cobb provided a good summary and better perspective on the issues. Suffice it to say we need more and better of both security awareness

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

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.