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.
Cyber security operations require an automated response to keep up with threats. This blog looks at the three pillars of cyber security automation and gives insight into how they help sustain cyber resilience.
The speed of change in cybersecurity is incredible, with new malware variants continually emerging alongside new hacking techniques that change attack profiles beyond recognition. The tools we employ, such as antivirus (AV) scanners and intrusion prevention systems (IPS) struggle to keep up with this rate of change, and while these technology controls are still required to banish legacy threats, modern attackers integrate evasion techniques that easily bypass our aging ICT immune systems.
Over the past few years, contemporary technologies have appeared integrated into cybersecurity products, purporting to solve these problems with cutting edge artificial intelligence, machine learning and user behavioural analysis. On the surface of it, this sounds great, but what are these technologies, and do they really do what they say they do? Furthermore, how do you upgrade your operational security capability to meet today’s challenges using this new technology? The reality is that these technologies will help, that is a fact, but they all achieve one end goal – incident response automation. Let’s look at how these modern technologies play their part in the cybersecurity response and how this can afford operational teams an edge over their adversaries.
The three technology categories that have found their way into operational security products over the past few years are Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning and User Entity Behavioural Analysis (UEBA).
AI is often misunderstood and misrepresented. At its heart, the goals of AI are to build computer systems that have innate human traits, such as reasoning, perception, intuition, learning, planning and the ability to turn data into knowledge. AI is an entire branch of academic research, modelling mountains of data to make sense of it in the real world. This results in the formation of automated medical doctors, lawyers and even autonomous vehicles. It has massive application in the real world and is a paradigm shift for computers from old-school number-crunchers to analytical thinkers, capable of complex diagnostic work. Research into AI in cybersecurity is prolific; event log information, network traces and system-to-system conversations provide the perfect information base for AI algorithms to mine. We do, however, need to understand the goals of integrating AI capabilities into cybersecurity products and how its capabilities fundamentally help us achieve our desired outcomes.
Machine Learning serves as a feedback system into operational security detection systems, allowing increasingly accurate detections as algorithms learn from their mistakes (and successes). The most well-known machine learning systems are recommender systems used by online retailers such as Amazon and Alibaba. These suggest products that you might be interested in looking at, based on your purchase history, browsing habits and searches. Facebook also uses machine learning to improve the value of your News Feed, coupling interesting posts from connections with the adverts for products you have shown in an interest in. In cybersecurity, machine learning is invaluable. Security Operations Centre (SOC) analysts waste far too much time chasing false positives, so any system that improves the odds of an alert being real, while weeding out the chaff, improves the SOC’s overall efficiency.
UEBA helps identify unusual user behaviour that could indicate an insider threat. This approach is underpinned by profiling systems that learn what normal looks like from the perspective of end users, then variations in behaviour, such as a user trying to get to a file store or database they don’t normally access, can be flagged as risky. The SOC can be alerted to this anomaly and can subsequently decide to investigate. UEBA packages the profiling, baselining and alerting of insider threats in a way that makes it easy (relatively speaking) to deploy in a large enterprise, however, it still takes time to learn the context of the organisation (systems and architecture) and to learn what normal looks like. There is no doubt that UEBA is sound technology and should be considered on any SOC’s operational threat management roadmap.
Each data modelling and feedback system has one primary goal: automating the threat response process to reduce the time between detecting and eradicating the threat. In most SOCs, at least half of an analyst’s time can be spent investigating false flags, with the other half writing reports. Even with a highly-tuned security information and event management (SIEM) system, analysts are responding to hundreds (if not thousands) of potential incidents per week. This is time consuming and demoralising for analysts when 99.9% of their investigations are against false positives, hence they often feel their job is futile. Interestingly, the latest shift in integrating threat intelligence into the SOC’s ecosystem has only served to make this problem worse, since millions of additional correlation items are introduced into the mix every month, pushing the number of false positives up rather than down. The value we get from hiring expert cybersecurity analysts is their ability to leave the confines of the SOC and investigate real incidents, piecing together disparate lines of investigation inside and outside the ICT systems – yet it’s this aspect of the job that is overwhelmingly underserviced since they spend most of their time chasing down false leads.
The three pillars of cyber security automation we’ve looked at here give us the prospects of a brighter future, where the technology supports our beleaguered SOC analyst by:
To move forward, one of the biggest hurdles to overcome when introducing automation is that of trust; remediation efforts can cause a loss of service to the business, something that is rarely acceptable if it’s unnecessary. If the SOC automatically quarantines computers, removes user-rights and turns off customer-facing websites, the business will invariably lose money. If these service disruptions are due to false positives, it has a cumulatively detrimental effect on the business’s bottom-line and long-term trust in the SOC is eroded.
Automating security processes and incident response capabilities must become the goal of every SOC and the only way to do this effectively is through technology. Using a combination of proactive threat identification and security testing (penetration testing can be used for this purpose as it appears to SOC systems as a real attack) SOC analysts can support these AI, Machine Learning and UEBA systems to quickly learn what normal looks like, and as more automations are introduced (and tested) the SOC can build trust with the business that the security investments are worthwhile.
AI, Machine Learning and UEBA are perfect for automating the incident response process. However, automation introduces risk, so comprehensive planning and testing is required to develop trust in any automatic response capability.
AI, Machine Learning and UEBA technologies will undoubtedly improve your organisation’s overall cyber security posture, but the fundamental role of the SOC analyst needs to change as the technology platforms evolve, helping them become master rather than slave to the underpinning technology. If you start by focusing on automating the response to simple, high-confidence alerts, you’ll afford your analysts the time they need to model more complex threats and continually fine-tune their systems, while helping your SOC management team build confidence with the business.
Cyber security automation will eventually be an integral component of every organisation’s defensive security posture, when this happens your SOC analysts will finally gain an edge over their adversaries.
<<< 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
Attack Surface Management (ASM) characterises a business’s security risks as the monitoring and risk mitigation of a constantly changing and vulnerable “risk-surface”. Importantly, this attack surface extends to both internal and external assets and services. Some ASM solutions deliver clear visibility across both Internet facing and internal assets. Others do not. Instead, they assess external […]Read more
The UK Government has released its annual “Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2023”. It provides some valuable insights into how cyber security is currently being managed in the UK, by a range of organisations. It also speaks to how current competing economic priorities are impacting the effectiveness of some cyber security management efforts. The full report […]Read more
Solving the mismatch between cyber security reporting and directors’ requirements You are undoubtedly familiar with the headlines; you may have even become in part desensitised to them: ‘Cyber-attacks are increasingly damaging’, or ‘large amounts of personal data are most at risk’. The important take-away, however, is that modern day thieves can easily gain access to […]Read more
A system to address the untrustworthy security environment Zero trust approaches to security have been talked about for a while; but in recent times they have certainly gained more currency. As a model for protecting data and services, the simplicity of the concept is its biggest strength – assume, as a default position, there is […]Read more
The ongoing protection of Critical Infrastructure from cyber-attacks has implications for us all – whether it’s supporting our health, well-being or simply our way of life, there is good reason to reflect on the effectiveness your cyber security. Cyber security risks are nothing new and the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to them (and the heightened […]Read more
Read by directors, executives, and security professionals globally, operating in the most complex of security environments.