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.
One of the most important preventative cyber mitigation strategies for security managers to make sure organisations adopt is a timely approach to Application Patching. Let’s look at why application patching is so important and how this fits into your overall vulnerability management process.
User applications are a common target for attackers, this is why the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) incorporates a ‘Patch Applications’ mitigation strategy in it’s Essential Eight security controls. Adversaries intending to steal corporate data target user applications since they directly interact with users’ documents, files and folders.
Applications can be self-contained on the user’s PC or they have multiple components in two-tier or three-tier solutions, where any compromise affords the attacker greater access. A search on NIST’s National Vulnerability Database for entries relating to Oracle, for example, returns a count of 6,360 individual vulnerability records. In the last three months alone (at the time of writing) 444 unique Oracle vulnerabilities were identified, with the knock-on effect of enterprise applications being exposed to attackers through these attack points. Looking at Adobe, a quick search over the last three months reveals 82 unique vulnerabilities, many of which have high or critical severity ratings.
These searches show that even the most reputable application providers publish products that are riddled with vulnerabilities, so patching and monitoring for vulnerabilities must be extended to every application you host, not just the common ones. If designers in your marketing team use Adobe’s Creative Cloud suite, you have to monitor every one of those applications and roll out patches when available.
The issue with manual tracking of application vulnerabilities is that it is time consuming, especially when there is more than a handful to keep tabs on. It’s all too easy to miss some. This is why security teams resort to implementing a vulnerability management system to track and assess their organisation’s exposure, reporting on patch deficiencies and misconfigurations.
The main aim of a vulnerability management system is to help reduce the time applications are vulnerable to attack. Three distinct time epochs need consideration for each vulnerability, shown in Figure 1. First, the time between the vulnerability notification sent to the vendor and that notification made public is important. There is a lag between the vendor learning of the vulnerability and that vendor coding, testing and releasing the public patch. This epoch is impossible for organisations to manage, since the only course of action is to apply the patch – which at this stage you don’t have. Compensating controls in security architecture can provide some level of protection, such as updated IPSs rules, firewall blocks and monitoring using a SIEM to look for indicators of compromise. However, vendor patches are usually released at the same time as the vulnerability notification, so the risk is (mostly) insignificant.
Most vulnerability researchers practice responsible disclosure. This means all stakeholders (vendor, researcher, NIST, etc.) agree on a period of time for the vendor to patch the application before the vulnerability details are made public. The public vulnerability notification is then made at the same time as the vendor releases the patch, so administrators can fix the problem immediately.
A bigger problem is the lag between the time the patch is released and its deployment to your end systems. When a vulnerability is disclosed to the public, attackers begin developing exploits, targeting the weaknesses to find ways to elevate privileges, open back doors and override user controls.
If your organisation takes four weeks to roll out a patch and the hackers take one week to build an exploit, you are at risk for three weeks. This window of opportunity is enough for attackers to detect your exposure, break into your network and steal your data. This is why a vulnerability management system is recommended for monitoring and reporting on your entire infrastructure, across client systems, network systems and servers.
The best approach to application patching is to use a vulnerability management system as a patch monitor as well as a configuration checker. Vulnerability management systems, such as those from Qualys, SAINT and Tenable Network Security, perform full scans of every device on the network, searching for vulnerabilities in the device’s current state. Furthermore, these tools can perform what are known as credentialed scans, where they obtain login rights to endpoints, so they check what’s actually installed on the computer and how it has been configured. They perform a full patch audit and configuration check, highlighting where applications require patches or configuration changes to remove risks.
Vulnerability management systems also report in real-time, continually sweeping through the network, looking for changes, while ingesting vulnerability information from the likes of NIST so they always have the latest benchmarks. Once the security team is equipped with an up-to-date picture of where issues are in your infrastructure, deciding what work to prioritise becomes much easier.
Vulnerability management is one of the most critical cyber security processes the security team undertakes. It provides a synoptic picture of the entire business, reporting on security weaknesses, misconfigurations and the patch deficit.
Now that the security team is armed with the facts relating to risks and exposures, prioritising the work plan is easy and justification as to why you have done some patching over rolling out a new application will be factual rather than based on hypothesis.
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
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
Read by directors, executives, and security professionals globally, operating in the most complex of security environments.