Organizations which deploy RSA Authentication Manager (SecurID) for enforcing two-factor authentication frequently think of their RSA SecurID solution only as an additional security control to enforce strong authentication to resources. However, by analyzing the wealth of log data that is generated by RSA Authentication Manager, organizations can gain valuable intelligence that can be useful to detect attacks and perhaps even predict new attacks.
After having conducted a number of such Breach Readiness Assessments over the past year or so with customers in a variety of industry sectors – including, aerospace, financial, telecommunications device manufacturers, and health care technology – we’ve compiled a list of the Top 10 gaps that we’ve observed during these engagements. The following list is roughly ordered in frequency of occurrence (gaps at the top were seen at more customers than those further down the list), but all were observed at numerous customers.
In Part I of my post on Switch Targeting, I discussed the fundamentals of how adversaries use seemingly trusted hop points as vectors in and out of primary targets similar to how bank robbers target, stage and execute their robberies. Now I want to introduce the concept of the three “R’s” or R3 based on my experience in the field helping organizations position themselves to detect where these switch targets may be relative to their own attack infrastructure as part of designing a Next Generation Security Operations Center (SOC). R3 is comprised of three focal areas for the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) to consider —- Readiness, Response and Resiliency.
In part 1 of this blog, “Beyond the Zero Day” we focused on detecting malicious JVM [Java Virtual Machine] activity and identifying the ‘blob’ that was downloaded. No subsequent network activity was detected after the download, but that doesn’t discount successful malware delivery and deployment. We can certainly seize and forensically examine the host, but that might require massive time investment for an organization and we don’t even know what we’re looking for yet. The first place to start is by examining the Class file that kicked off the HTTP GET for our ‘blob’.
Being in the IT world, the years fly by at such a rate it all seems like a blur. Many of us in this field are tied to multiple large-scale projects that need to be completed before year-end. Well here we find ourselves in 2013 and the question is how serious are you and your company about IT security? Is your company aware of how complicated and serious the threats are today? Does your company have the proper stance to defend and alert against breaches across the multiple attack vectors? Most companies are behind both in practice and planning and there is a lot at stake.
This blog series examines response options to an enterprise intrusion of some sort, be it by “APT” or Hacktivists” or some other category involving a purpose-driven actor. I’ll refer to these as targeted attacks even though they are often not targeted too specifically, but that’s a different topic. These threats pose a risk to the organization that is, generally speaking, more severe than typical malware on a single system. A hactivist attempting to discredit your company will probably have more of a business impact than a single computer infected by the Zeus crimeware trojan. Of course, that “common” Zeus infection could happen to be on a system used by someone in finance who has access to company records, as seen in actual attacks, and may indicate a major threat to your organization.
It’s an increasingly common question these days, and not an easy one at that. That is, do you build your security operations capabilities in house, or do you go with a Managed Security Service Provider (MSSP)? There are certainly advantages to both and bottom line wise; it is hard to say which one actually is cheaper. Ultimately, as with all things, it is a business decision that is made with an acceptable level of risk in mind.
A through risk assessment should be adopted by customers to ensure that the benefits for moving on to the cloud outweigh the potential security threats. Techniques like privacy impact assessment (PIA) and ‘Plan, Do, Act, Check’ are recommended to ensure a moderate, but comprehensive change for them. Evidences shows that there may be issues involving customers meeting their legal obligations when their data are hosted outside of their local context. Hence, this will trigger issues relating to the effectiveness of existing risk governance frameworks. There should be more evaluations conducted to assess the true potential and apparent risks to protect customers and Cloud Service Providers (CSP).
With all the recent Java Virtual Machine (JVM) exploits, a lot of attention is being focused on figuring out how best to mitigate the vulnerability. Detection has been limited to signature-based attempts, mostly firing on class names or well-known strings within the JAR/Class. While this works for the commodity malware based on pre-packaged kits like Black Hole and Redkit, a clever adversary will re-write the exploit and avoid that simple detection method.