Our cyber security products span from our next gen SIEM used in the most secure government and critical infrastructure environments, to automated cyber risk reporting applications for commercial and government organisations of all sizes.
This blog post ‘How to mature Audit and Accountability’ is the third in a series on Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) – a US Department of Defense (DoD) initiative that imposes requirements on contractors and subcontractors to help safeguard information within the US defense supply chain.
You can read the first two blog posts here and here. In this post, we take a look at the security disciplines of Audit and Accountability and how organisations can fulfil the CMMC requirement to achieve a more robust approach to governance and compliance.
Individual accountability is a concept that lies at the heart of a good governance and compliance model, since without evidence to trace actions back to specific users, there is no way to determine who did what, whether that person should have done it; and there is no way to enforce rules or disciplinary actions without proof.
Most modern computer systems can record every single action that occurs. In Microsoft Windows, a blend of group policy settings and System Access Controls Lists (SACLs) supports this. You would set the group policy to record the kinds of events you are interested in, then apply SACLs to objects, such as the files, folders and the registry, then users accessing those resources will result in the system generating an event based on the group policy audit setting.
For example, if success auditing is enabled, a log entry is created when any user accesses a file with a matching SACL. Similarly, if you enable failure auditing, a log entry is recorded when a user unsuccessfully attempts to access a file with a matching SACL.
It’s important that anyone setting up the security architecture for a business understands the importance of individual accountability so they can deploy systems capable of complying with the requirements. These requirements should influence decisions such as how you structure your username convention, if you use location-aware authentication and multi-factor authentication, since all of these attributes of a user’s session can digitally tie them to the actions they take on your systems. At a minimum, you should ensure your audit system collects user IDs, source and destination IP network addresses, and that the system timestamps associated with the actions being recorded, so you know who did what, from where and when.
Additional attributes, such as machine ID and specific details relating to the activities are all useful in building a picture of what happened on your systems, so in the event of a breach you can better trace what happened. In many cases, this level of auditing helps exonerate users suffering credential theft since you can match patterns of access from their normal behaviour against the breach to prove the breach came from elsewhere.
Every audit log your systems generate can become useful in an investigation, however, one of the biggest challenges digital forensic investigators face is that those logs are usually distributed across many hundreds (or even tens of thousands) of systems, crossing user access devices, servers, cloud-based systems, network devices and applications, all of which create their own logs. Furthermore, the structure of audit logs across multiple sources is never consistent, so an event created on a Microsoft Windows 10 computer will look entirely different to that of an event created inside an Oracle database application.
Next Generation SIEM & Security Analytics
This disparity across systems and applications makes the job of a forensic investigator complex and time consuming, which is why Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) systems were originally created to offer organisations a way to pull together these events from across the enterprise and store them in a standard format in one location.
By using a SIEM to collate your digital evidence you can use it in investigations and potentially even court cases, should an investigation lead to a prosecution. A court will consider the ‘evidential weight’ of your records, which refers to the value the court places in the evidence presented, and whether under analysis from an opposing attorney it could be discredited.
It’s very important that in designing your audit and accountability solution you consider the need for protecting the logs in a way that ensures they cannot be tampered with or deleted, since their integrity will be a crucial aspect of the investigation and presentation of the case to the court.
Most SIEM platforms store logs in a forensically sound manner, where digital signatures and timestamps associated with receipt of the original records are also stored in the database. Nevertheless, log sources are where attacks tend to happen, since attackers are savvy to the concept of logging and will endeavour to destroy any evidence associated with their malicious activity.
System administrators should be encouraged (by their security counterparts) to ensure logging solutions are protected and attempts to stop, flush or modify the audit collection is immediately alerted to the security team for investigation.
As events traverse the network to the SIEM, there will be opportunities for interception and potential modification. To ensure that integrity cannot be refuted in court, encryption and digital integrity measures should be used to protect all log information in transit.
Finally, access to the SIEM should be tightly controlled, with only the most trusted security investigators having access to the full dataset. Analysts working in a Security Operations Centre (SOC) should never need to access the SIEM’s underlying database, so make sure the actions SOC analysts can take are constrained to their job role.
SIEM solutions have evolved into modern, fully featured security management tools supporting governance, risk and compliance, as well as a raft of operational support capabilities such as threat detection, verification and alerting so that security teams can quickly detect and isolate attacks before they cause harm. The fundamental capability of SIEM to aggregate logs in a forensically sound manner is an important element of security management to guarantee the irrefutable audit and accountability required by the CMMC.
As cyber risks increase, organisations are encountering the longer life cycle of insurance renewals and the need to demonstrate better management of security controls and their effectiveness.Read more
Highlights and insights from the recent Managed Services Summit in London & the ISACA Central Chapter Conference on Digital Trust, in Birmingham, UK. With two recent conferences in the space of three days, some interesting challenges were very evident in the topics discussed. Being very different events, the challenges were quite different, but interestingly they […]Read more
In early August 2023, the latest joint advisory on persistent vulnerabilities was issued by the intelligence and security agencies of the “Five-eyes” community. These joint advisories are becoming more common. Perhaps recognising the growing importance of shared security information and the common nature of many of the threats faced – the weight they carry makes […]Read more
The quality of your risk assessment and the security information it provides is important; if you plan to use it to actively manage your operational and cyber resilience activities. Organisations are constantly exposed to a rapidly changing threat environment, so you really need a similarly rapid evidence-based feedback system that informs you of the ongoing […]Read more
The UK market has its own regulators, security standards and challenges. And while rulings from SEC in the US or the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in Australia don’t apply to UK companies, for the most part, the observations are undoubtedly relevant and the resulting advice instructive. It would be wrong to think UK financial […]Read more
<<< Part 2a: Australia’s Essential Eight: Beyond Endpoint Control <<< Part 2b: Activating UK NCSC & US NIST Guidelines: Beyond Endpoint Control Part 4: Systematic Measurement of Cyber Controls >>> As much as we invest into cyber security controls, external threats are inevitable. In a recent Notifiable Data Breaches Report from the Office of the […]Read more
Keen campers, scouts and even the Swiss Army know – that a good penknife is indispensable. This simple device has mitigated many a disaster at one point in time or another. Whether it’s to cut through a bit of string, tighten a screw or simply to solve the problem of no bottle opener in the […]Read more
Supply chain risk is an area of cyber security that demands the ongoing attention of every enterprise; because it can make the difference between being resilient or not. It’s no surprise that insurers warn that the vulnerability of supply chains is potentially a systemic risk that can quickly propagate across supply chain dominated industries. Organisations […]Read more
It took a “tripartite cyber assessment” by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to identify that a sample of financial organisations had inadequate cyber security: poor security control management, a lack of business recovery planning and inadequate 3rd party risk assessment. Why were there gaps? Where is the failure? Clearly the common practice of unsubstantiated […]Read more
The discussion over data-driven vs qualitative cyber security assessment has been going for some time. Nowadays, it is at the top of the priority list for many security and senior executive teams. Managing cyber security has always been a noble ambition but without reliable measurement, the lack of actionable information makes evidence-based management decisions almost […]Read more
Read by directors, executives, and security professionals globally, operating in the most complex of security environments.