Category: Editorials

Hacking the Presidency: Will Data Breaches Help Decide the 2016 Presidential Election?

The 2016 presidential election hasn’t been without controversy. Both candidates have blemishes on their records that have left many Americans with a bitter pill to swallow when voting comes in November, and cybersecurity has been put front and center in a way never before seen in a U.S. election. Email hacks, data breaches, cybersecurity ineptitude — they’re not just conversation topics among infosec wonks; but major campaign talking points.

Cybercrime has already infiltrated many facets of our everyday lives. Account information, payment card information, trade secrets, and more are regularly obtained and sold like merchandise on underground markets. Cyber-espionage also remains a huge threat as organizations and governments attempt to secure their precious secrets. With such a divided nation over who will become our next president, could the recent data breach of Democratic National Committee (DNC) data be a sign of what’s to come in this election?

More importantly, could this be the first presidential campaign ultimately swung by leaked information obtained in a data breach?

The information released by WikiLeaks from the DNC email breach caused an uproar from American citizens as the emails released showed a clear bias for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders — a claim made by the Sanders campaign months before the DNC data breach. While none of the DNC information shows correspondence from Hillary Clinton directly, the DNC breach– along with other related cybersecurity issues — has had a big impact in Clinton’s polling numbers. However, the latest polls show Clinton above Trump by a favorable margin.

Clinton isn’t out of hot water yet. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told PBS’s Judy WoodRuff in a recent interview there would be more information released that will negatively affect Clinton’s campaign:

It’s a wide range of material. It covers a number of important issues. There’s a variety of natural batches and some thematic constellations that we’re working on.

It’s interesting material. We have done enough work now that we are comfortable with the material’s authenticity. And so now it’s a matter of completing the format, layout to make it easy and accessible and so that journalists can easily extract material from it, extract stories from it, and also the general public.

DNC Fallout from Breach

DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced her resignation as national party chair following the leak of the stolen DNC emails. Since the Democratic National Convention has wrapped up, more high-profile DNC officials have announced their resignation as well.

Chief Executive Amy Dacey, Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda have all resigned just days after a new chair took over for Schultz. Luis Miranda was one of the key figures whose email account was breached and leaked by WikiLeaks.

The rest of the DNC members whose accounts were hacked have not resigned, including National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan, Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer, Finance Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish, Finance Director Allen Zachary, Senior Advisor Andrew Wright, and Northern California Finance Director Robert Stowe.

Donald Trump in the Mix

During the DNC breach investigation, evidence was discovered linking Russia to the cyber-attack. Based off of this information, Trump called for Russia to conduct cyber-espionage against Hillary Clinton:

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said referencing Clinton’s email scandal. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Trump later said he was kidding about his comment.

Not every politician found his remarks funny. Democratic Senators Chris Coons of Delaware and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island recently petitioned Senator and former Presidential candidate Ted Cruz to conduct an investigation into Trump’s support of involvement from Russia in U.S. elections. The Senators wrote the letter to Cruz because he chairs the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, which potentially could have jurisdiction in the matter. Cruz has not responded to the letter and his involvement in the matter is not likely.

Still, the damage has been done to Trump as the Clinton campaign is alleging him of having ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which makes his “joke” no laughing matter.

The data breach of the DNC, the controversy surrounding Clinton’s emails, accusations that Russia is trying to directly influence the election — this is the first time a presidential election cycle has been so heavily dominated by cybersecurity events.

The effects, at least for the candidates, have been relatively mild so far, but with WikiLeaks promising more leaks painting Hillary Clinton in a bad light, there is the potential that a close election in November could ultimately be decided based on cybersecurity.

No matter the outcome, cybersecurity has gained a national stage and everyone should take notice. Understanding cyber threats and the potential consequences of those threats is vital, whether you’re an employee, an executive, or a presidential candidate.

Cyber Skills Shortage Continues To Be An Issue

It has been long documented that cybersecurity organizations are struggling to hire qualified personnel. A recent study on the cybersecurity professional gap has reaffirmed this dilemma.

Intel Security and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) released a global report that outlined the cybersecurity talent shortage crisis. The report, Hacking the Skills Shortage, outlined how the talent shortage crisis has impacted both companies and nations. Eighty-two percent of respondents said there is a clear shortage in cybersecurity, while 71 percent of respondents said this talent shortage has been a primary contributor to the amount of cyber-attacks — because organizations who lack qualified personnel are more desirable hacking targets.

“A shortage of people with cybersecurity skills results in direct damage to companies, including the loss of proprietary data and IP,” said James A. Lewis, senior vice president and director of the Strategic Technologies Program at CSIS. “This is a global problem. A majority of respondents in all countries surveyed could link their workforce shortage to damage to their organization.”

As we noted in June, more companies need talent, so companies are going to continue to be easier targets.

The lack of qualified candidates makes using the resources your organization does have that much more important. That’s one of the many reasons SurfWatch Labs stresses the importance of threat intelligence.

The Hacking and Skill Shortage report also mentioned diversity as being a huge challenge in the cybersecurity skills gap. The report referenced a 2014 Taulbee Survey and an ISC report to address the women and minority diversity challenge:

“In North America, a dearth of women and minorities in the cybersecurity industry mirrors trends in academia, according to a survey of academic institutions that provide degrees in computer science and engineering or information security. In this study, only 2.6% of doctoral graduates of these programs in 2014 were non-Asian minorities, a decrease from 3% in 2013. Women comprise only 17 to 18% of doctoral graduates in computer science, engineering, and information security. This mirrors industry trends, as an (ISC) study of 306,000 professionals in cybersecurity revealed only 11% were women. Anecdotal evidence from our interviews suggests that while relevant technical programs are slowly adding more women, black and Hispanic students remain in short supply.”

If women and minorities are so poorly represented in the cybersecurity workforce, organizations need to recognize this issue and put a plan in action. This is the same with threat intelligence; it’s not enough to do the bare minimum and meet security requirements, you have to recognize where your organization is vulnerable and address those threats head on with practical tools and intelligence.

Cyber-Insurance, Threat Intelligence and the Wendy’s Breach: Interview with Larry Bowman

Data breaches and other cyber threats have plagued business over the past decade often resulting in a long and expensive recovery process. Luckily for businesses, cyber-insurance can help alleviate some of the financial burden of these cyber-attacks.

“If you were to Google top ten losses due to data breaches in 2015 you would start off with a low of about $46 million for the Home Depot, move into the hundreds of millions with Anthem and Target, and as you get closer to Epsilon you get into the hundred to a billion mark,” said  Larry Bowman, Director at Kane Russell Coleman and Logan PC. “The Veteran’s Administration hack was valued at about $500 million.  These totals are for notification costs, response, cleaning up the computer system, implementing changes to increase encryption and security protection in the system. But, this does not take into account the loss of business and revenue.”

We had a chance to speak with Bowman about cyber-insurance: what is it, what it covers, and how threat intelligence fits into the equation. Bowman also provides some insight on the current Wendy’s point-of-sale data breach. Our conversation follows.

To kick things off, can you explain what cyber-insurance is and what exactly it covers?

To explain cyber-insurance, it’s helpful to first start with a brief explanationLarry Bowman of traditional insurance and then explain the difference between it and cyber-insurance. Traditionally, insurance is for tangible property – such as if you own a home, business, or rent space. You insure property against the risk of loss, and that property is typically tangible property. So, you’ll see language in first-party property insurance – which is insurance industry lingo for like your homeowner’s policy – that is set up to protect you from that. The core insuring agreement – in exchange for premium money – insures the risk of loss which is usually defined in terms as direct physical loss to tangible property.

Secondly, there is a form of insurance called liability insurance. The industry acronym for it is CGL – commercial general liability insurance. And once again, if you act negligently – you being the insured – and you cause damage to some third party’s tangible property, your liability insurance will indemnify you for your legal obligation, which will then indemnify the people you hurt for the damage that you caused to their property.

Along comes hacking and cybercrime and data breaches. The people who are victimized by these third-party attacks make claims to their property insurance coverage. In most instances, whether it is a claim submitted under a traditional property or liability insurance policy , the courts look at these policies’ language  and say there is no coverage because there is no loss to direct tangible property. This doesn’t exist in the virtual world of data and data breaches. There have been some cases where damage has been done to a computer system that looks like it is physical damage. Stuxnet is a great example of how a computer program can damage tangible property. In those cases, traditional policies may cover an insured’s losses.  The bottom line is though, with the outlying cases aside, most cases say for there to be property or liability insurance coverage you have to have physical damage to tangible property, and that doesn’t exist when the insured has lost electronic data.

The losses from companies who suffer a data breach and the lack of insurance from the traditional market created  a market for cyber-insurance. What has happened over the last few years has been the development of specialty insurance products designed to insure against the losses companies face when their computer systems or data is breached or hacked. These policies operate like traditional property or liability policies. But, there is no longer a requirement to have direct physical loss to tangible property. Cyber-insurance policies cover things like the cost of notifications to people affected by a data breach, the cost of hiring security professionals and lawyers to deal with the situation, and the cost of government compliance. It may or may not cover lost revenues or profits. Of course, the scope of coverage is specific to the policy itself.

What are some of the problems with the cyber-insurance industry?

There are a couple problems the insurance industry currently faces. First, the industry only has about  a decade of experience in covering cyber losses – which isn’t a lot of time in the historical knowledge-base of the insurance industry – that makes pricing policies difficult. However, that is a problem in the process of being solved because the quantifiers are coming up with increasingly better models and formulas to allow an insurance company to set up a policy and price it accordingly. The insurance companies like certainty; they like probability. As time goes by and as data improves, this will be easier and easier to do – within reason.

The second problem is the lack of a consensus standard of care for data protection; although there are numerous proposed standards and guidelines for data protection – such as NIST’s cybersecurity framework.   What I am talking about here is that it is nice to know what the rules are. The SEC, FDIC, and FTC have all pronounced in the last couple of years that they think cybersecurity is a board of directors-level issue that requires hands-on knowledge and attention and an effective remedy at the board of high management level. When you fill in the blanks, there are conflicting messages about what a board should do to enable reasonable cyber protections.

At SurfWatch Labs, we believe that robust security features such as firewalls and antivirus software are paramount to a well-rounded cybersecurity strategy. Perhaps just as important, we believe cyber threat intelligence – knowing what threats are out there and knowing how to proceed with security – is just as important. Some of the problems you mentioned with cyber-insurance is a lack of understanding around reasonable cyber protections. Do you believe cyber threat intelligence is a logical step in solving that issue?

As part of the initial application for cyber-insurance a lot of insurance companies will require the company applying for insurance to fill out a detailed form describing what its current cybersecurity policies are. I don’t know if those forms require cyber threat intelligence, but that would be a source of beneficial information. And it may be something that insurance companies should require from insurance applicants.

Are companies utilizing cyber-insurance to protect their assets in case of a data breach?

If you were to Google the amounts spent on cyber-insurance it started out small, but it really started to get off the ground with these well-publicized data breaches. In a few years, this is going to be a multi-billion dollar market. As a matter of fact, I believe it is already up to the billion-dollar mark already, and it is expected to get to about $5 billion by 2020. As the consensus standard gets better defined, using due diligence to protect your company’s assets and customer’s assets is certainly going to be a part of liability cyber-insurance coverage.

I would love to get your take on the current events tied to the Wendy’s data breach. It seems like the number of restaurants affected by point-of-sale malware increases every week.

The loss to Wendy’s is similar to the Target loss. The bad guys have gotten control of point-of-sale information, which means they have people’s credit card information. So what is the exposure to Wendy’s? Wendy’s gets sued by multiple customers who are saying they failed to implement reasonable measures and allowed our payment card information to be obtained by these hackers.

Now, their insurance policy will define what out-of-pocket costs are covered. That’s part of the fun right now is defining what those costs are. Some of those costs are driven by state and federal laws – like notification. If you are a retail company in possession of thousands of credit cards and those cards are obtained by a third-party, you have to notify all of those people about the event.

It’s not just notification costs; it’s everything that is done to investigate the data breach. They might have to pay experts, lawyers, and pay for forensic measures to make sure a breach doesn’t happen again.  There may be costs with complying with regulatory action or government investigations.  Those are just some of the out-of-pocket costs from the breach. Who knows, maybe people won’t trust Wendy’s anymore with their credit card information and consumers may simply avoid the restaurant.

 

 

Costs of Data Breaches Rising, But Its Not All Bad News

It should come as no surprise, but data breaches are costly for organizations. Each stolen record containing sensitive or confidential information costs an organization an average of $158, according to the 2016 Ponemon Cost of Data Breach Study released last month. That price more than doubles – to $355 – when looking at a highly regulated industry such as healthcare.

Those costs add up. The final tally for an average breach is now a whopping $4 million. That’s up from the $3.79 million last year and a 29 percent in total costs since 2013.

Clearly, data breaches have a significant impact on business. In fact, the biggest financial consequence often comes in the form of lost customers, according to Ponemon. The findings confirm what others surveys have recently reported: consumers are increasingly unforgiving when it comes to data breaches, particularly younger generations.

A FICO survey found that 29 percent of millennials will close all accounts with a bank after a fraud incident. Not only will they take away their own business, a significant percentage will actively campaign against others using the bank. A quarter will turn to social media with negative posts, and more than a fifth will actively discourage their friends families from using the services.

Can the C-Suite Make a Difference?

It’s not all bad news when it comes to cybercrime-related research though. In fact, The Economist Intelligence Unit recently found that certain types of organizations are having at least some success when it comes to fighting against the tidal wave of cyber-attacks. Making cybersecurity a priority at the top of an organization can have a significant impact on cyber risk.

According to the survey:

  • A proactive strategy backed by an engaged C-suite and board of directors reduced the growth of cyber-attacks and breaches by 53% over comparable firms.
  • This includes a 60% slower growth in hacking, a 47% slower growth in ransomware, and a 40% slower growth in malware attacks than their less successful counterparts.
  • Successful firms were also 56% more likely to maintain a standing board committee on cybersecurity.

Unfortunately, many organizations are either overwhelmed with low-level data and tasks, or they are unable to clearly articulate relevant threats to those executives. This leaves them more vulnerable to the various cyber threats facing their organizations — and the potential costs and other fallout associated with those incidents.

That’s why it’s crucial that those in the C-suite and on the board of directors have strategic threat intelligence — including dark web data on the cybercriminals themselves — provided in a clear, concise and ongoing manner. It is possible to stem the tide of cyber-attacks with a combination of the proper leadership, expertise and tools, but all too often those organizations are operating without a crucial piece of the puzzle — the high-level threat intelligence to help guide those decisions.

Taking Action with Threat Intelligence

Much has been written about the cybersecurity knowledge gap in the C-suite; however, that issue runs both ways. Earlier this year, ISACA released its State of Cybersecurity: Implications for 2016 report, and they found that respondents “overwhelmingly reported that the largest [skills] gap exists in cybersecurity and information security practitioners’ ability to understand the business.”

This is a crucial problem as security experts continue to hammer home the point that cybersecurity is no longer an IT problem, but a business one. Cybersecurity employees understanding business concerns and business executives understanding cybersecurity concerns isn’t just an aspiration, it’s a necessity for properly managing cyber risk.

That collaboration and understanding is at the heart of effective cyber threat intelligence.

Effective threat intelligence empowers those in the C-suite and board of directors with relevant and easy-to-comprehend information about the most important cyber threats impacting their business, their competitors and their supply chain. Effective threat intelligence also serves as a guidepost for those in IT to ensure that tactical defenses and resources are aligned with the most pressing business concerns.

In short, threat intelligence is a key component in getting away from the never-ending game of whackamole that results from blindly chasing down the latest headline-grabbing cyber threats and instead operating with a more thoughtful, harmonious and strategic approach. It’s applying the same combination of technical analysis and business insight that are commonplace in other key areas of the organization in order to achieve the biggest return on your cybersecurity investment.

It’s no wonder then that those organizations are seeing the best results when it comes to reducing their overall cyber risk.

Startup Companies Claiming To Be “Non-Hackable”: Interview With Angel Investor Michael Barbera

While cyber-attacks continue to grow and evolve some companies are claiming to be “non-hackable” – and they’re often startups. The problem with this logic is that it is simply incorrect; all companies are potentially vulnerable to being hacked.

“Every organization can be hacked by a clever person with patience. I personally avoid all companies who say they are non-hackable.”

We had the opportunity to speak with Barbera about angel investing, how serious startup companies are taking cybersecurity, and what he is looking for a startup company to have in place in terms of cybersecurity before he invests.

Our edited conversation follows.

As an angel investor, when a startup company tells you that they are “non-hackable,” what is your initial reaction?

So, a cloud storage company comes up and says you can store your files with them. Those files are encrypted, and once it is on their server if it were to ever get hacked, the hacker would receive an encrypted file and it looks like a bunch of junk. That means nothing to me. If the US Army can get hacked, if the CIA can get hacked, so can your little company. Nothing is foolproof, so why are you going around and saying it is? I don’t think they can practice what they preach.

Do you think these startup companies are simply saying what you would want to hear, or are they ignorant and truly believe they are “non-hackable?”

I think there is a lot of ignorance, and I think these companies really believe that they have a product or service that is foolproof. I also think some say it as a marketing technique for non-tech savvy people. If you had a baby boomer generation target market, they don’t know much about IT, or the Internet and how it works. They can barely operate a Facebook account. So when they hear a service is “non-hackable,” they are more likely to use that service. So it might be a marketing technique for some companies.

Years ago, LifeLock had an actor or spokesman put their social security number on a commercial. He got hacked.

[Laughs] Well of course he did.

What is your overall view on how cybersecurity is evolving when you learn about these new companies?

It really changes based on each company’s business model and strategy. So when you have a startup dependent on their budget and their goals, IT and security may or may not be a big part of it. It all depends on what they are doing.

Say you have a small mom-and-pop shop that is selling goods from their brick-and-mortar store that is also selling on their website, their minimal requirement is to be PCI compliant. Their biggest concern is being hacked. In the larger scheme of things, hackers will probably won’t look at a smaller target like a mom-and-pop store. It might not be beneficial to them.

Other companies who do more stuff on the Internet have more of a liability to protect that information, so they need to take it more seriously.

Focusing on cybersecurity, when you are looking to invest in a company, what are you hoping to hear from them when making a decision to invest or not?

If it was anything more than being PCI compliant, I would want them to have an in-house IT specialist that could provide the services needed. If it is a smaller company needing to be PCI compliant, we can outsource that. It really goes toward the organizational services that they are working with. If they are working with people’s finances, then we are going to have to implement advanced security systems. If they are working with names, addresses, and they are PCI compliant, that is a different story. There are different levels, and it really goes back to business models.

What you have to understand is a lot of people – like small business owners – their everyday life is making a sale. On top of that, while they are sweeping they are supposed to do their books, their IT, and their taxes. A lot of people don’t think about [cybersecurity] until it is too late, and that is unfortunate.

Cybersecurity Rant – Security Marketers Misusing Terms

Let me start off by saying that I am a marketer. I’ve been in the cybersecurity space for roughly 10 years with multiple companies focusing on different aspects that can be bucketed under the following segments of the market: endpoint security, network security and threat intelligence. In every segment there are buzzwords that seem to take on a life of their own.

In threat intelligence there are a few that really do us a disservice. The two that I want to pick on are “real-time” and “actionable.” Let’s dissect these:

“Real-time” Threat Intelligence

When I see this, to me it’s like nails on a chalkboard because “real-time” and “threat intelligence” cannot possibly go hand in hand. Threat intelligence requires analysis … by humans who have the expertise to do so. This does not and cannot happen in “real-time.” You can certainly get real-time information, but information and intelligence are not one in the same.

As my colleague Adam Meyer wrote in an article titled “Setting the Record Straight on Cyber Threat Intelligence,” information is unfiltered and unevaluated, available from many sources, and can be accurate/false, misleading and/or incomplete. Additionally, it may or may not be relevant to your business. The beauty of cyber threat intelligence is transforming all of that information into meaningful insights that drive better decision-making. That transformation process can be discussed in its own blog or collection of blogs, but the point I’m trying to make is that none of this is in “real-time.” I’m comfortable with near real-time because timeliness is an important attribute of intel … along with accuracy and relevancy.

“Actionable” Threat Intelligence

The word actionable isn’t bad, it’s just that we’ve overused it to the point it no longer means anything. Too many vendors equate information with actionable threat intelligence, but again, these are very different. A lot of information for you to research certainly creates lots of action, but is it actionable? To me, “actionable” means a decision can be made without requiring much, if any, additional research and analysis. If it is refined, final, actionable threat intelligence, all that prep work has been done and now you can make a sound risk management decision.

When I first joined SurfWatch Labs I had a friend who worked for an e-commerce business take me through a “day in the life” of how his company used threat intelligence. They took in a feed of low-level, tactical data and fed that into their SIEM, which spit out hundreds of alerts per day. The company had a team of analysts that would research each alert (which I was told could take as little as 20 minutes and sometimes up to a full day) and try to understand if they needed to worry about it and if so, how to deal with it. Every day this team of analysts had a lot of actions to take regarding their threat-related data. Just a few types of questions they needed to be able to answer:

  • What was the actual threat?
  • Was it relevant to their business and infrastructure?
  • What was the potential impact? Did it impact sensitive information/systems?
  • If it was relevant and important, then what steps and tools were necessary to mitigate this risk before it was too late?

Again, the information they received required lots of actions, but I would argue it wasn’t actionable intelligence at that point. Actionable intelligence takes that information and then runs analysis and correlation against the business profile where at the end there is a decision point and a method for addressing the risk. If you look at all the companies throwing around the term “actionable” I bet the majority provide an aspect of intelligence or a step in the direction of intelligence, but do not actually provide “actionable” intelligence.

Ok so why am I ranting about this? The above are just two of the more obvious examples where vendors are actively confusing the market and doing a disservice to customers trying to understand what threat intelligence is, what type of intelligence is right for them, and how to use it. Threat intelligence is not tangible like a firewall or some whiz-bang appliance, but if properly understood it can be extremely valuable to directing a cybersecurity program and reducing an organization’s overall risk footprint.

What Sensitive Information is on Your Organization’s Old Drives?

I heard a story yesterday about a friend’s nephew that lost his SD card from his smartphone. The SD card contained data on his games, pictures, and pretty much everything else he used his phone for. He searched everywhere for this SD card until it finally dawned on him where it was.

Turns out, the SD card was in his old smartphone that he traded to a cellular store for a newer phone. Honest mistake, right?

It was an honest mistake, but it is also a symptom of a bigger issue.

Data recycling can lead to big problems, problems that most people are unaware of. For many people that are looking to get rid of electronics, they probably go through a few basic steps to get rid of data such as a factory reset or manually erasing any data they see. However, this won’t get rid of all the data contained on the device.

In a study conducted by Blancco Technology Group, it was found that 78% of hard drives examined in the study still contained residual data that could be recovered. The study focused on 200 used hard disk drives sold on eBay and Craigslist.

What is this data? Well, let’s start with photos (with locations indicators), personal information, Social Security numbers and other financial information.

Perhaps more alarming, about 11% of studied devices contained company information such as emails, sales projections, product inventories and CRM records.

Unfortunately for organizations, this is another way neglectful actions on the part of human beings can cause a data breach or other malicious activity. People make mistakes all the time, and these unintentional mistakes can have severe consequences.

Erasing Computers, Tablets and Phones

Going through all your devices and making sure they are clear of any data can be a chore (especially if technology is not your thing). There is good news: the Internet is full of information that can help you solve this problem.

Obviously, there are different devices that hold your data and the steps taken to get rid of that data will be different. Below are some helpful links that can guide you through erasing all the data from a device:

As the Blancco Technology Group noted, many organizations struggle when it comes to securing the data on old drives.

“One of the more troublesome challenges is related to wiping the data from them when employees leave the company, the drives hit their end of life or the data itself needs to be removed to comply with IT policies and security regulations,” the report read.

Ensure your organization has a clear policy in place so that — unlike my friend’s nephew — you’re not scrambling later and trying to figure out the source of sensitive information being compromised.

How Threat Intelligence is Used in the Real World – Customer Interview

I recently had the pleasure of sitting down with Larry Larsen, Director of Cyber Security at Apple Federal Credit Union, to learn about the cybersecurity challenges they face and how threat intelligence fits into their overall approach to risk mitigation.

Larry explained that his primary objective is two-fold: to protect member information and assets, and to protect Apple FCU’s organizational information. With increasing complexity around cyber, he discussed with me the need for threat intelligence to become more apparent. Beyond just blocking threats, he wants to understand what attackers are trying to do so he can prepare as best as possible. And while there are many sources of open source threat information, intelligence takes it a step further by correlating patterns of behavior that the cybersecurity team at Apple Federal Credit Union uses to guide their efforts and anticipate threats before they occur.

When it came to discussing how they use the intel from SurfWatch Labs, Larry said that it has “led to direct changes in Apple FCU’s infrastructure due to emerging threats we would not have known about as quickly if we did not have that pattern analysis and comprehensive picture.”

In this 5 minute clip, you can learn about how strategic and operational threat intelligence are used throughout the organization – beyond just the cyber team – to prepare for impending threats and reduce risk.

Q&A: How can Threat Intel Help Your Organization? (Part 2)

Cyber threat intelligence offers an in-depth look at the potential threats and attack vectors facing an organization. Each organization is different, and in these differences there are a variety of ways cybercriminals can exploit a company. Security tools such as firewalls and antivirus software protect against several of these threats, but they cannot protect an organization from everything. This is where cyber threat intelligence plays a crucial role.

Threat intel gives an organization the ability to identify threats, understand where any lapses in security have already occurred, and gives direction on how to proceed concerning these vulnerabilities. This is a lot of information for any organization to handle on their own, especially since the cyber landscape continues to change.

“The field is constantly growing and evolving; there is no shortage of cyber information, which means it can be very easy to get overwhelmed with it,” said Aaron Bay, chief analyst at SurfWatch Labs. “We sometimes forget to take a peek at what is going on with the rest of the world.”

Yesterday we talked with Bay about the role of the cyber threat analyst. Today we finish our conversation, and focus on how threat intelligence can help organizations.

Why does a company need to implement threat intelligence on top of their existing security?

Having security tools such as firewalls and antivirus software is critical; you have to have them. If you don’t have these tools, you are already at a disadvantage. These security tools are paramount, but the information derived from them can be overwhelming.  From what I have seen, a lot of time companies will simply buy these tools, plug them in and forget about them. From a threat analyst perspective, what we do when we give companies information about threats affecting their industry is show them the known mitigation of the threat. We can only lead the horse to water; we can’t make it drink. But if we can give organizations enough pertinent information where they are asking, “Does my defense actually protect us against this?” that goes a long way.

A lot of the time companies are putting up boundaries to stop threats from getting in, but they might not necessarily know when information gets out. They may be breached, and their information could have been compromised. They could also be attacked at a point they weren’t protecting such as point-of-sale systems. A bank has credit and debit cards, and the bank itself is usually pretty well protected against direct attacks. All of that can be defeated by a skimmer on an ATM. Knowing these attack vectors and knowing this is another way cybercriminals can get to your customers’ data can really help mitigate risks. If we as threat analysts are looking for these attack vectors and alternative methods, then we can help an organizations be better prepared and protected against threats.

Cyber threat intelligence is a relatively new avenue in cybersecurity. Are companies seeing value in this?

Cyber threat intelligence is still a growing field; it is definitely still evolving — as it should be. Threats are evolving, so this field that focuses on these threats is evolving as well. I think, for the most part, everybody is doing the best job that they can. It’s hard for a business to feel like they are getting a return on their investment from IT security in general. When you get that big win, when you catch something that no one else caught, either protecting some data or helping stop something before it became a big deal, then it is easy to see the value of it. For companies, as long as everything is working, the people who make decisions about IT and their infrastructure don’t necessarily want to know what goes into keeping everything running. They just want it to work. If everything is working, it is easy to not respond and spend money on keeping everything running. In their mind, everything is working. It appears that not much has to be done to keep things running, why would they spend more money on it?

How can companies providing cyber threat intelligence improve?

If there is a way to improve our field it is really just to work together as a community to make sure companies understand the value of cyber threat intelligence. I feel like we are doing a good job, but I feel that the industry isn’t ready for the message. These companies are being attacked left and right, and it feels like all we are doing is showing up and telling them they need to be doing security better. To actually translate everything that is going on, distill it and focus it on the company specifically is really the best approach. I am glad that SurfWatch Labs is going down this road. Showing companies why they need to care about this information that is being presented to them is very valuable.  

I also think that internally, for our customers, we sit between business operations and the IT department. We aren’t just supporting IT security or just enabling compliance with the various IT regulations a business must adhere to. A Cyber Threat Intel Analyst should be assisting the translation between business units — and the various IT and cyber risks they face — and helping them understand sometimes how two separate threats are actually part of a larger threat against the company. I believe that is when we can really show our value.

For example, let’s say an attacker breaks into a company and steals credentials to the gaming platform that is hosted by that business. The network defense team should detect that and stop it. If a new attack is being used that has never been detected before and no signatures have been created for it yet, it’s possible the attack may go unnoticed. Soon after this undetected attack, separately, your cyber threat intel analyst discovers that someone dumped some credentials to your game on the dark web or is selling them. If that credential dump is only passed on to a third group such as customer service in order to reset accounts, but the network defense team isn’t made aware, then the source of the leak may not be plugged. Or if the developers are not notified, and the vulnerability came from a bug in the software that the company created, then again the problem will still be there.

What are some of the achievements cyber threat intelligence has accomplished. Is it changing the game?

It is changing the game for sure. Some of the big wins cyber threat intelligence has gotten comes from exposing malicious activity in general. When you can find those hidden gems and expose what is going on those are the big wins. Seeing the new carding efforts and all the things that are going into combating organized crime is very rewarding. The big ones are of course things like uncovering STUXNET, and all of the pieces that went along with that. The Mandiant APT1 report I think spawned a whole new movement with regards to CTI, some good some bad, but it got a lot of people to sit up and take notice, and that’s really what we want.

Final thoughts?

We talked about how new the field of cyber threat intelligence is, but that is also exciting. Being in a field with all of this different stuff going on makes cyber threat intelligence a very exciting field to be a part of and stay focused on. I look forward to the future.   

Q&A: What Does a Cyber Threat Intelligence Analyst Do? (Part 1)

As cybercrime continues to grow and evolve at a rapid pace, organizations are faced with difficult decisions in finding solutions to this problem. Deploying security tools to combat cybercrime is a crucial part of this dilemma, but this brings with it the herculean task of attempting to process massive amounts of data in order to keep up in the game defending against cyber-attacks.

In order to get the most up-to-date and accurate cyber threat intelligence, SurfWatch Labs employs talented analysts with a focus on threat intelligence. These threat analysts are the backbone to a new and developing field of cyber threat intel, providing valuable information to organizations that go well beyond identifying threats.

“Being a threat analyst often requires being a chameleon or wearing many hats,” said Aaron Bay, chief analyst at SurfWatch Labs. “You need to be able to understand the technical side of security, navigate among the various hacker and cybercrime forums on the dark web, understand business risk, and then distill all of that information into valuable intelligence that can be easily understood by business executives. It’s not an easy role, but it is one that is becoming increasingly important to organizations.”

We spoke with Bay to get some insight about the role of a threat analyst and how cyber threat intelligence can benefit organizations.

Tell us a little bit about being a threat intelligence analyst.

Being a threat analyst feels a little bit like a cross between a weatherman, an interpreter and someone trying to find a needle in a haystack. It’s not just about knowing the latest attacks and staying up on the latest jargon. There is a lot of translation that has to take place to get that information to the decision makers in such a way that they can actually make a decision based on it. So being able to speak “cyber” but also being able to translate that to someone who is not a cyber person takes some work as well. Powerful Google-fu is also helpful in this position; even though Google is not the only source, knowing how to find data using it and other tools is invaluable.

Describe your typical day.

mugshot
Aaron Bay, Chief Analyst at SurfWatch Labs

My typical day is probably a little bit different than most cyber threat intel analysts. Because SurfWatch Labs focuses on the bigger picture, we aren’t typically gathering the latest signatures from the latest malware or putting together snort rules for all the new bad stuff that’s been detected by various sensors or honey pots.

I spend a lot of time reading blogs, Twitter, various forums and general Web searching. To support SurfWatch Labs’ customers, a lot of my focus is on them: what they’ve said is most important to them, things they want to stay aware of, constantly looking for information that may be of interest to them in general, keeping track of that and reporting it to them, and then getting their feedback on what we’ve told them to tailor our internal processes so that we constantly evolve and stay current with their needs, as well as stay current with the threats out there.

Is being a cyber threat intel analyst mostly about IT security?

Firstly, I think the term IT Security is becoming archaic. When it is used, the person who hears it or uses it has a preconceived notion about what IT Security is. Computers and routers and switches and firewalls and all things traditionally associated with IT security come to mind. But our businesses and our personal lives have become so connected and dependent on technology, that just calling it “IT” seems to leave out things that should be included, but aren’t.  I have to say that I am not a fan of the term “cyber” or “cybersecurity,” but I can understand the reason for having a new term that’s a little more ambiguous.  

Credit cards used to just be numbers printed on plastic read by zip-zap machines until magnetic strips were created and used to save information in a way that could be read by a computer and transmitted via telephone back to your bank. Forty years later, those are being replaced by sophisticated memory cards that keeps your information encrypted. Do you consider your credit card to be IT? You should. Credit card fraud has been around as long as credit cards, and the more IT we throw at the problem, the more it becomes an IT security problem. I know that banks and organizations like Visa consider this an IT security issue, but most people still do not, I would assume. And that’s just one example.

For a Cyber Threat Intel Analyst to do their job correctly, they need to understand that it really is about IT security, but the scope is usually bigger than most people realize. The analyst needs to be aware of that, but they need to help their employer or customer understand that as well.

What is one of the biggest things to understand about cyber risk?

Typically, cyber threats enter an organization by way of something every user touches: browsing the web, reading their email, opening files, etc. Traditional IT security has been tasked with solving that. But that’s not the only way cyber threats can harm an organization. As soon as you do business with another organization, the scope of your risk increases. You have to send and receive information from them, send and receive money from them. This information is at risk if one organization protects it less than the other. If pieces of the business are outsourced, whatever that is, it’s now at risk to however that third party protects its business or its infrastructure.

Some of this even just comes in the form of what software a business chooses to use for its customer portal, where customers can post questions or the business otherwise interacts with its customers. Any vulnerabilities in that software or where that software is hosted translates to risk to the primary organization. Again, none of this is meant as a reason not to function this way, only as a way to say that these risks need to be understood and monitored. As new threats or attacks or vulnerabilities are discovered, an organization needs to be made aware of them so actions can be made to mitigate or remove them.

What are some cybersecurity trends you are seeing as a threat analyst that are concerning?

The biggest trend I am really starting to see is the continuation of cybercriminals using cyber means to make money.  They steal credit card numbers, people’s personal identities, and the profits from these crimes and frequency of attacks continues to grow. Ransomware is now growing. It’s not growing because people think it is funny to do. It’s growing because people are making a lot of money off of these attacks. In these attacks, cybercriminals don’t care about obtaining information from our computer. All they care about is getting you into paying them money to get back your information. This is a scary trend, because it is really working.

Denial-of-service is still going on; people will pay to conduct denial-of-service attacks or pay ransoms to have these attacks stopped. It will be interesting to see what attack shows up next in an effort to make money.

To encapsulate that trend, it is becoming a lot more organized. In years past, the traditional “organized crime” groups were the only ones really making money off of cyber attempts. Today, however, all parts of cybercrime are becoming more accessible, and as it becomes easier a lot more people are going to be doing it.

Along that vein, attacks that produce the most results are of course going to trend. Ransomware as I mentioned, but a lot of businesses are getting better at detecting and eliminating threats … but don’t quite understand or monitor threats coming from their third-party suppliers, so attacks will start to come from that angle.

What is your biggest fear as a threat analyst?

My biggest fear is people not taking this information seriously or people not thinking it is useful information. I am fearful that people view this information as no big deal, viewing it as just another report and moving on. I hope that companies feel this information is useful, and it is taken seriously instead of thinking they don’t need the information anymore. Some of that could be that an organization doesn’t quite have a mature enough cybersecurity program so it can’t properly digest and protect against what an analyst may be telling them. The failure of the analyst to correctly translate risks and threats and trends into something meaningful could also contribute to the message being lost.

In the next post, Aaron shares his thoughts about how cyber threat intelligence can help your organization.