Category: IT Optimization
Continuous Monitoring: How a SIEM Platform Can Help with this Daunting Requirement
(3rd in a series of 3)
Today’s blog entry is the third and final blog in the series on SIEM features which support continuous monitoring requirements. The past two blog entries covered situational awareness, threats, assessing security controls, and collecting, correlating, and analyzing security information. In today’s entry I will cover security status communication and risk management requirements for continuous monitoring.
The FIFTH requirement is “providing actionable communication of security status across all tiers of the organization.” This requirement has to do with the organizations capability to provide accurate communication on the current security status of the organization at all levels within the organization and provide recommended action when needed. This particular requirement is focused on defining, providing, and communicating security status and metrics. A SIEM should be capable of providing notification of security-related issues to owners of particular systems allowing them to take remediation action as necessary. The more advance SIEMs actually have the capability to provide automated remediation actions when specific issues are identified. The metric portion of the requirement quantifies the current status of information security at all levels of the organization. The SIEM at a minimum should be able to provide an audit trail of the actual uses of the SIEM as part of a metric. The SIEM should audit alerts generated by critical events, the analyst’s acknowledgment of the alert, investigations initiated by the analyst in response to the event, and actions taken to remediate the threat of the event, and review of the event by management.
The SIXTH and final requirement is “active management of risk by organizational officials.” This particular requirement indicates that management must actively manage organizational risks. This is really an extension of the risk assessment process which ensures all risks are identified, mitigated, and acknowledged by management. A SIEM should extend managements view of the organizations risk landscape by providing a view of critical risks such as threats and vulnerabilities, and provide visibility to the effectiveness of mitigating controls such as anti-malware, firewalls, IDS, patch management, vulnerability scanners, etc…
A SIEM can be a powerful tool to meet continuous monitoring requirements through automated means. Keep in mind not all SIEMs are created equally and some provide limited functionality at a premium price. Ensure the organization performs an in-depth review of the regulatory requirements along with functional requirements before a SIEM selection is made. Robust SIEMs often provide mappings of key features directly to regulatory control requirements which they meet or supplement. Advance SIEMs which provide capability such as built-in alerts, threat advisories, and automated remediation functionality can help organizations stay informed and better prepared to quickly remediate security risks.
Continuous Monitoring: How a SIEM Platform Can Help with this Daunting Requirement
Blog 2 of 3 – the beginning of the series is below.
Today’s blog entry is a continuation of yesterday’s blog on SIEM features which support continuous monitoring requirements. Yesterday’s blog covered situational awareness and threats. In today’s entry I will cover continuous monitoring requirements for assessing security controls and collecting, correlating, and analyzing security information.
The THIRD requirement is “assessing all security controls.” For this requirement the organization must assess all implemented security controls to insure they properly mitigate the threat as intended. This is best accomplished by having a 3rd party perform an annual review of the organizations information security controls. The third party should be versed in reviewing controls specific to the organizations regulatory requirements. Organizations should also be conducting internal assessment in an ongoing basis in order to supplement the third party review. A SIEM should be able to help with this assessment by providing support for vulnerability and patch management. SIEMs should be capable of collecting notifications of vulnerabilities from anti-malware, firewalls, IDSs, and vulnerability scanners along with patch management notifications from hosts. The more advanced SIEMs actually have the capability to import vulnerability scan results or even launch scans from the console which allows for the verification of an identified vulnerability.
The FOURTH requirement is “collecting, correlating, and analyzing security-related information.” This is a mandate for organizations to collect security relate information, correlate the information with multiple sources, and analyze the information in order to properly assess the risk. All SIEMs should directly support the event & incident management process by automating the collection, correlation, analysis, and risk rating of security related information. SIEMs should collect information from a variety of logs (applications, hosts, network devices, physical devices, security devices, etc…). One of the most important things to understand about a particular SIEM is what systems they can collect logs from, how the collection occurs, and what can be done if a system log is not supported. A SIEM compatible with an organization should have the capability either native or through custom parsing to collect security information from all in scope systems. It is best practice for SIEMs to archive and retain logs in the original state for no less than one year in order to provide forensic investigation support. Be sure to tune in for tomorrow’s blog entry where I will finish the discussion by covering security status communication and risk management requirements for continuous monitoring.
Continuous Monitoring: How a SIEM Platform Can Help with this Daunting Requirement
Blog 1 of 3
Continuous monitoring is one area where most organizations often experience audit related issues during their regulatory review. The most typical issues are often related to analyzing security related information and assessing security controls. Many of my clients would enable logging on the majority of their systems but would not actually analyze any of their logs due to the large volume. I can certainly empathize with them having been in their shoes myself. However it’s not acceptable to stop monitoring critical system logs because the task seems too daunting, there is a better way. A robust SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) solution can centrally collect millions of logs, correlate information across the organizational infrastructure, and alarm on user-defined critical conditions resulting in a manageable subset of security related events. There are many different players in the SIEM market and a wide range of functionality offered; over the next three days my blog entries will tell you about specific features to look for in a SIEM to help meet continuous monitoring requirements.
FIRST, it is important to understand the six main continuous monitoring requirements outlined in NIST (National Institute of Standards and technology) 800-137 before seeking a SIEM solution. The first requirement is “maintaining situational awareness of all systems across the organization.” This describes the need for the organization to keep an awareness of all systems in their organization. Organizations should have an asset management program which actively maintains inventories of systems, software, and network diagrams. A SIEM should supplementary support the asset management program by providing details of all known assets (hosts, network devices, physical devices, security devices, etc…) within the organizations infrastructure. It is also best practice to implement technologies such as NAC (Network Access Control Systems) which have the ability to detect unidentified systems and deny them access to the infrastructure. A SIEM should also collect logs from these types of devices and generate alarms when unidentified systems are detected.
The SECOND requirement is “maintaining an understanding of threats and threat activities.” Organization must stay up to date on current threats and have the capacity to identify specific threats to their organization to meet this requirement. They are expected to keep their knowledge of threats current by researching in-scope threats to their systems on a regular basis. There are a variety of content providers which focus on providing threat advisories via RSS feeds. Organizational threats should be identified and assessed through the risk assessment process. However a SIEM should provide continuous threat assessment by collecting, correlating, and identifying threats from network and host anti-malware systems, firewalls, and IDSs (Intrusion Detection Systems). The more advanced SIEMs have the capability to give additional information about an identified threat through knowledge bases or 3rd party advisories.
Tune in for tomorrow’s blog entry where I will continue the discussion by covering requirements for assessing security controls and collecting, correlating, and analyzing security information.
Just The Facts – It’s When, Not If
Following the significant shift in the cyber threat landscape, the mindset of information security professionals has changed substantially. Eighteen months ago, most reasonably funded information security groups felt that the tools, processes and people they had in place were fairly strong relative to the risks and threats they were designed to address. As such, most felt that, while by no means bullet-proof, their defenses were likely to keep the bad guys at bay and targeting more vulnerable organizations. Oh, what a difference a year and a half makes.
The rapidly maturing cyber crime economy and supporting supply chain have led information security professionals to realize that the bad guys are getting more sophisticated and more numerous at an accelerating pace. Since this time last year, most InfoSec pros have accepted the idea that “It’s when, not if” their organization will experience a breach. While this mentality seemed to be pervasive as we approached the end of 2011, we wanted to put some hard numbers to it; Just how exposed do organizations believe they are? To answer that question, we conducted a survey of over 200 information security professional on their organizations’ Cyber Threat Readiness. The results, while not surprising, are alarming and reflect the need for better detection and response capabilities: to know sooner when breaches occur and to be empowered to respond faster and more effectively when it happens.
82% of respondents stated they have firewalls in place and use anti-malware/anti-virus
solutions, but 75% said they lack confidence in their ability to detect activity commonly tied to breaches and cyber crime (e.g., to know when credentials or hosts are compromised). The bright spot in the survey results is that organizations taking steps to deploy technology such as NGFW and SIEM to improve their visibility and response capability were twice as likely to be confident in their ability detect cyber attacks and breaches.
You can check out the Cyber Threat Readiness survey results for yourself in today’s press release. And as you’re reading the results and considering the scenarios to which most organizations are blind, answer the question “Would you know if…”.
Why Click Fraud Matters
Spending on Internet advertising in the US alone eclipsed $10 billion in 2010. Unfortunately, online sponsored advertising has a major downside: Click Fraud. Industry rivals, or other interested parties impersonate consumers by clicking on paid ads with no intent of making a purchase. These fraudulent clicks effectively drive up a company’s advertising costs without increasing sales. Click Fraud has become such a widespread issue that in the eyes of LinkShare CEO Stephen Messer, it “could wipe out ROI in search marketing.”
Initially, advertisers placed their trust in search companies such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to police fraudulent clicks. In 2006, Google CEO Eric Schmidt compromised that trust when he stated:
“Eventually the price that the advertiser is willing to pay for the conversion will decline because the advertiser will realize that these are bad clicks. In other words, the value of the ad declines. So, over some amount of time, the system is, in fact, self-correcting. In fact, there is a perfect economic solution, which is to let it happen.”
His statement led many companies to question the commitment of their providers to preventing Click Fraud.
At the heart of Click Fraud is the act of simulating a click. This is accomplished through multiple means. The simplest is to employ individuals who spend their time clicking on ads without ever purchasing an item. This act is both costly and time consuming if done inside the United States. In developing countries, this is not the case. In the words of Nir Kshetri, the fraudster “must often decide to employ the seemingly bottomless source of human clickers in developing countries, or use technology.” Kshetri goes on to point out that employing human labor becomes less attractive as PPC providers and advertisers become more adept at employing invalid click detection. Because the IP address of a human clicker is usually consistent, PPC providers can easily block traffic from it.
Another method for performing fraud is to write a program that simulates clicks. To do this, the program must perform many tasks normally undertaken by a web browser. The program must first execute JavaScript code to retrieve the HTML code of a web advertisement. It then parses the HTML code for links and sends an HTTP request to the advertiser’s web server. Since this type of fraud is simple to detect, the perpetrator must distribute the program across the Internet using a botnet. The botnets find their way onto unsuspecting users’ computers through many means. Tempting offers of free software, games or other goods from illegitimate websites lure many consumers into loading botnets unknowingly. Computers can also be infected by visiting legitimate websites that have been compromised by Click Fraudsters.
Unlike many other online crimes, Click Fraud has no offline counterpart. One impact of Click Fraud is that the legal system has not been able to keep pace with it. Online crime is growing at a rapid rate that legislators have been unable to match. Adding to the problem is a lack of regulation across borders. While new antifraud laws are slowly being passed in the United States and the European Union, other countries have little or no regulation. In India in 2006; for example, advertisements looking to hire people to click on ads ran in national newspapers.
As an industry, online advertising is not going away anytime soon. Click Fraud will not be going away either. Given my background in law, it is obvious to me that just like with other legal issues regarding technology, legislators cannot keep up with the rapid pace with which Click Fraudsters change their tactics. Add in the challenges of enforcing laws across international borders and the problem becomes even direr. It is therefore obvious that legal changes will not come soon, so other methods are necessary. With legal recourses lagging behind, it is up to industry to find ways to protect itself.
LogRhythm wins "Innovator of the Year" from SC Magazine. "This is not your father's log manager."