Tag Archives: incident response

FIR (Fast Incident Response) – Cyber Security Incident Management Platform

Post Syndicated from Darknet original http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/darknethackers/~3/p378XAVTCWc/

FIR (Fast Incident Response) is a cyber security incident management platform designed for agility and speed. It allows for easy creation, tracking, and reporting of cybersecurity incidents. In the fields of computer security and information technology, computer security incident management involves the monitoring and detection of security events…

Read the full post at darknet.org.uk

New Whitepaper Available: AWS Key Management Service Best Practices

Post Syndicated from Matt Bretan original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/new-whitepaper-available-aws-key-management-service-best-practices/

AWS KMS service image

Today, we are happy to announce the release of a new whitepaper: AWS Key Management Service Best Practices. This whitepaper takes knowledge learned from some of the largest adopters of AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) and makes it available to all AWS customers. AWS KMS is a managed service that makes it easy for you to create and control the keys used to encrypt your data and uses hardware security modules to protect the security of your keys.

This new whitepaper is structured around the AWS Cloud Adoption Framework (AWS CAF) Security Perspective. The AWS CAF provides guidance to help organizations that are moving to the AWS Cloud and is broken into a number of areas of focus that are relevant to implementing cloud-based IT systems, which we call Perspectives. The Security Perspective organizes the principles that help drive the transformation of your organization’s security through Identity and Access Management, Detective Control, Infrastructure Security, Data Protection, and Incident Response. For each of the capabilities, the new whitepaper provides not only details about how your organization should use KMS to protect sensitive information across use cases but also the means of measuring progress.

Whether you have already implemented your key management infrastructure using KMS or are just starting to do so, this whitepaper provides insight into some of the best practices we recommend to our customers across industries and compliance regimes.

– Matt

Incident Response as "Hand-to-Hand Combat"

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/04/incident_respon_1.html

NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett described a 2014 Russian cyberattack against the US State Department as “hand-to-hand” combat:

“It was hand-to-hand combat,” said NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett, who described the incident at a recent cyber forum, but did not name the nation behind it. The culprit was identified by other current and former officials. Ledgett said the attackers’ thrust-and-parry moves inside the network while defenders were trying to kick them out amounted to “a new level of interaction between a cyber attacker and a defender.”

[…]

Fortunately, Ledgett said, the NSA, whose hackers penetrate foreign adversaries’ systems to glean intelligence, was able to spy on the attackers’ tools and tactics. “So we were able to see them teeing up new things to do,” Ledgett said. “That’s a really useful capability to have.”

I think this is the first public admission that we spy on foreign governments’ cyberwarriors for defensive purposes. He’s right: being able to spy on the attackers’ networks and see what they’re doing before they do it is a very useful capability. It’s something that was first exposed by the Snowden documents: that the NSA spies on enemy networks for defensive purposes.

Interesting is that another country first found out about the intrusion, and that they also have offensive capabilities inside Russia’s cyberattack units:

The NSA was alerted to the compromises by a Western intelligence agency. The ally had managed to hack not only the Russians’ computers, but also the surveillance cameras inside their workspace, according to the former officials. They monitored the hackers as they maneuvered inside the U.S. systems and as they walked in and out of the workspace, and were able to see faces, the officials said.

There’s a myth that it’s hard for the US to attribute these sorts of cyberattacks. It used to be, but for the US — and other countries with this kind of intelligence gathering capabilities — attribution is not hard. It’s not fast, which is its own problem, and of course it’s not perfect: but it’s not hard.

Security Orchestration and Incident Response

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/03/security_orches.html

Last month at the RSA Conference, I saw a lot of companies selling security incident response automation. Their promise was to replace people with computers ­– sometimes with the addition of machine learning or other artificial intelligence techniques ­– and to respond to attacks at computer speeds.

While this is a laudable goal, there’s a fundamental problem with doing this in the short term. You can only automate what you’re certain about, and there is still an enormous amount of uncertainty in cybersecurity. Automation has its place in incident response, but the focus needs to be on making the people effective, not on replacing them ­ security orchestration, not automation.

This isn’t just a choice of words ­– it’s a difference in philosophy. The US military went through this in the 1990s. What was called the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) was supposed to change how warfare was fought. Satellites, drones and battlefield sensors were supposed to give commanders unprecedented information about what was going on, while networked soldiers and weaponry would enable troops to coordinate to a degree never before possible. In short, the traditional fog of war would be replaced by perfect information, providing certainty instead of uncertainty. They, too, believed certainty would fuel automation and, in many circumstances, allow technology to replace people.

Of course, it didn’t work out that way. The US learned in Afghanistan and Iraq that there are a lot of holes in both its collection and coordination systems. Drones have their place, but they can’t replace ground troops. The advances from the RMA brought with them some enormous advantages, especially against militaries that didn’t have access to the same technologies, but never resulted in certainty. Uncertainty still rules the battlefield, and soldiers on the ground are still the only effective way to control a region of territory.

But along the way, we learned a lot about how the feeling of certainty affects military thinking. Last month, I attended a lecture on the topic by H.R. McMaster. This was before he became President Trump’s national security advisor-designate. Then, he was the director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center. His lecture touched on many topics, but at one point he talked about the failure of the RMA. He confirmed that military strategists mistakenly believed that data would give them certainty. But he took this change in thinking further, outlining the ways this belief in certainty had repercussions in how military strategists thought about modern conflict.

McMaster’s observations are directly relevant to Internet security incident response. We too have been led to believe that data will give us certainty, and we are making the same mistakes that the military did in the 1990s. In a world of uncertainty, there’s a premium on understanding, because commanders need to figure out what’s going on. In a world of certainty, knowing what’s going on becomes a simple matter of data collection.

I see this same fallacy in Internet security. Many companies exhibiting at the RSA Conference promised to collect and display more data and that the data will reveal everything. This simply isn’t true. Data does not equal information, and information does not equal understanding. We need data, but we also must prioritize understanding the data we have over collecting ever more data. Much like the problems with bulk surveillance, the “collect it all” approach provides minimal value over collecting the specific data that’s useful.

In a world of uncertainty, the focus is on execution. In a world of certainty, the focus is on planning. I see this manifesting in Internet security as well. My own Resilient Systems ­– now part of IBM Security –­ allows incident response teams to manage security incidents and intrusions. While the tool is useful for planning and testing, its real focus is always on execution.

Uncertainty demands initiative, while certainty demands synchronization. Here, again, we are heading too far down the wrong path. The purpose of all incident response tools should be to make the human responders more effective. They need both the ability and the capability to exercise it effectively.

When things are uncertain, you want your systems to be decentralized. When things are certain, centralization is more important. Good incident response teams know that decentralization goes hand in hand with initiative. And finally, a world of uncertainty prioritizes command, while a world of certainty prioritizes control. Again, effective incident response teams know this, and effective managers aren’t scared to release and delegate control.

Like the US military, we in the incident response field have shifted too much into the world of certainty. We have prioritized data collection, preplanning, synchronization, centralization and control. You can see it in the way people talk about the future of Internet security, and you can see it in the products and services offered on the show floor of the RSA Conference.

Automation, too, is fixed. Incident response needs to be dynamic and agile, because you are never certain and there is an adaptive, malicious adversary on the other end. You need a response system that has human controls and can modify itself on the fly. Automation just doesn’t allow a system to do that to the extent that’s needed in today’s environment. Just as the military shifted from trying to replace the soldier to making the best soldier possible, we need to do the same.

For some time, I have been talking about incident response in terms of OODA loops. This is a way of thinking about real-time adversarial relationships, originally developed for airplane dogfights, but much more broadly applicable. OODA stands for observe-orient-decide-act, and it’s what people responding to a cybersecurity incident do constantly, over and over again. We need tools that augment each of those four steps. These tools need to operate in a world of uncertainty, where there is never enough data to know everything that is going on. We need to prioritize understanding, execution, initiative, decentralization and command.

At the same time, we’re going to have to make all of this scale. If anything, the most seductive promise of a world of certainty and automation is that it allows defense to scale. The problem is that we’re not there yet. We can automate and scale parts of IT security, such as antivirus, automatic patching and firewall management, but we can’t yet scale incident response. We still need people. And we need to understand what can be automated and what can’t be.

The word I prefer is orchestration. Security orchestration represents the union of people, process and technology. It’s computer automation where it works, and human coordination where that’s necessary. It’s networked systems giving people understanding and capabilities for execution. It’s making those on the front lines of incident response the most effective they can be, instead of trying to replace them. It’s the best approach we have for cyberdefense.

Automation has its place. If you think about the product categories where it has worked, they’re all areas where we have pretty strong certainty. Automation works in antivirus, firewalls, patch management and authentication systems. None of them is perfect, but all those systems are right almost all the time, and we’ve developed ancillary systems to deal with it when they’re wrong.

Automation fails in incident response because there’s too much uncertainty. Actions can be automated once the people understand what’s going on, but people are still required. For example, IBM’s Watson for Cyber Security provides insights for incident response teams based on its ability to ingest and find patterns in an enormous amount of freeform data. It does not attempt a level of understanding necessary to take people out of the equation.

From within an orchestration model, automation can be incredibly powerful. But it’s the human-centric orchestration model –­ the dashboards, the reports, the collaboration –­ that makes automation work. Otherwise, you’re blindly trusting the machine. And when an uncertain process is automated, the results can be dangerous.

Technology continues to advance, and this is all a changing target. Eventually, computers will become intelligent enough to replace people at real-time incident response. My guess, though, is that computers are not going to get there by collecting enough data to be certain. More likely, they’ll develop the ability to exhibit understanding and operate in a world of uncertainty. That’s a much harder goal.

Yes, today, this is all science fiction. But it’s not stupid science fiction, and it might become reality during the lifetimes of our children. Until then, we need people in the loop. Orchestration is a way to achieve that.

This essay previously appeared on the Security Intelligence blog.

The CIA’s "Development Tradecraft DOs and DON’Ts"

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/03/the_cias_develo.html

Useful best practices for malware writers, courtesy of the CIA. Seems like a lot of good advice.

General:

  • DO obfuscate or encrypt all strings and configuration data that directly relate to tool functionality. Consideration should be made to also only de-obfuscating strings in-memory at the moment the data is needed. When a previously de-obfuscated value is no longer needed, it should be wiped from memory.

    Rationale: String data and/or configuration data is very useful to analysts and reverse-engineers.

  • DO NOT decrypt or de-obfuscate all string data or configuration data immediately upon execution.

    Rationale: Raises the difficulty for automated dynamic analysis of the binary to find sensitive data.

  • DO explicitly remove sensitive data (encryption keys, raw collection data, shellcode, uploaded modules, etc) from memory as soon as the data is no longer needed in plain-text form. DO NOT RELY ON THE OPERATING SYSTEM TO DO THIS UPON TERMINATION OF EXECUTION.

    Rationale: Raises the difficulty for incident response and forensics review.

  • DO utilize a deployment-time unique key for obfuscation/de-obfuscation of sensitive strings and configuration data.

    Rationale: Raises the difficulty of analysis of multiple deployments of the same tool.

  • DO strip all debug symbol information, manifests(MSVC artifact), build paths, developer usernames from the final build of a binary.

    Rationale: Raises the difficulty for analysis and reverse-engineering, and removes artifacts used for attribution/origination.

  • DO strip all debugging output (e.g. calls to printf(), OutputDebugString(), etc) from the final build of a tool.

    Rationale: Raises the difficulty for analysis and reverse-engineering.

  • DO NOT explicitly import/call functions that is not consistent with a tool’s overt functionality (i.e. WriteProcessMemory, VirtualAlloc, CreateRemoteThread, etc – for binary that is supposed to be a notepad replacement).

    Rationale: Lowers potential scrutiny of binary and slightly raises the difficulty for static analysis and reverse-engineering.

  • DO NOT export sensitive function names; if having exports are required for the binary, utilize an ordinal or a benign function name.

    Rationale: Raises the difficulty for analysis and reverse-engineering.

  • DO NOT generate crashdump files, coredump files, “Blue” screens, Dr Watson or other dialog pop-ups and/or other artifacts in the event of a program crash. DO attempt to force a program crash during unit testing in order to properly verify this.

    Rationale: Avoids suspicion by the end user and system admins, and raises the difficulty for incident response and reverse-engineering.

  • DO NOT perform operations that will cause the target computer to be unresponsive to the user (e.g. CPU spikes, screen flashes, screen “freezing”, etc).

    Rationale: Avoids unwanted attention from the user or system administrator to tool’s existence and behavior.

  • DO make all reasonable efforts to minimize binary file size for all binaries that will be uploaded to a remote target (without the use of packers or compression). Ideal binary file sizes should be under 150KB for a fully featured tool.

    Rationale: Shortens overall “time on air” not only to get the tool on target, but to time to execute functionality and clean-up.

  • DO provide a means to completely “uninstall”/”remove” implants, function hooks, injected threads, dropped files, registry keys, services, forked processes, etc whenever possible. Explicitly document (even if the documentation is “There is no uninstall for this “) the procedures, permissions required and side effects of removal.

    Rationale: Avoids unwanted data left on target. Also, proper documentation allows operators to make better operational risk assessment and fully understand the implications of using a tool or specific feature of a tool.

  • DO NOT leave dates/times such as compile timestamps, linker timestamps, build times, access times, etc. that correlate to general US core working hours (i.e. 8am-6pm Eastern time)

    Rationale: Avoids direct correlation to origination in the United States.

  • DO NOT leave data in a binary file that demonstrates CIA, USG, or its witting partner companies involvement in the creation or use of the binary/tool.

    Rationale: Attribution of binary/tool/etc by an adversary can cause irreversible impacts to past, present and future USG operations and equities.

  • DO NOT have data that contains CIA and USG cover terms, compartments, operation code names or other CIA and USG specific terminology in the binary.

    Rationale: Attribution of binary/tool/etc by an adversary can cause irreversible impacts to past, present and future USG operations and equities.

  • DO NOT have “dirty words” (see dirty word list – TBD) in the binary.

    Rationale: Dirty words, such as hacker terms, may cause unwarranted scrutiny of the binary file in question.

Networking:

  • DO use end-to-end encryption for all network communications. NEVER use networking protocols which break the end-to-end principle with respect to encryption of payloads.

    Rationale: Stifles network traffic analysis and avoids exposing operational/collection data.

  • DO NOT solely rely on SSL/TLS to secure data in transit.

    Rationale: Numerous man-in-middle attack vectors and publicly disclosed flaws in the protocol.

  • DO NOT allow network traffic, such as C2 packets, to be re-playable.

    Rationale: Protects the integrity of operational equities.

  • DO use ITEF RFC compliant network protocols as a blending layer. The actual data, which must be encrypted in transit across the network, should be tunneled through a well known and standardized protocol (e.g. HTTPS)

    Rationale: Custom protocols can stand-out to network analysts and IDS filters.

  • DO NOT break compliance of an RFC protocol that is being used as a blending layer. (i.e. Wireshark should not flag the traffic as being broken or mangled)

    Rationale: Broken network protocols can easily stand-out in IDS filters and network analysis.

  • DO use variable size and timing (aka jitter) of beacons/network communications. DO NOT predicatively send packets with a fixed size and timing.

    Rationale: Raises the difficulty of network analysis and correlation of network activity.

  • DO proper cleanup of network connections. DO NOT leave around stale network connections.

    Rationale: Raises the difficulty of network analysis and incident response.

Disk I/O:

  • DO explicitly document the “disk forensic footprint” that could be potentially created by various features of a binary/tool on a remote target.

    Rationale: Enables better operational risk assessments with knowledge of potential file system forensic artifacts.

  • DO NOT read, write and/or cache data to disk unnecessarily. Be cognizant of 3rd party code that may implicitly write/cache data to disk.

    Rationale: Lowers potential for forensic artifacts and potential signatures.

  • DO NOT write plain-text collection data to disk.

    Rationale: Raises difficulty of incident response and forensic analysis.

  • DO encrypt all data written to disk.

    Rationale: Disguises intent of file (collection, sensitive code, etc) and raises difficulty of forensic analysis and incident response.

  • DO utilize a secure erase when removing a file from disk that wipes at a minimum the file’s filename, datetime stamps (create, modify and access) and its content. (Note: The definition of “secure erase” varies from filesystem to filesystem, but at least a single pass of zeros of the data should be performed. The emphasis here is on removing all filesystem artifacts that could be useful during forensic analysis)

    Rationale: Raises difficulty of incident response and forensic analysis.

  • DO NOT perform Disk I/O operations that will cause the system to become unresponsive to the user or alerting to a System Administrator.

    Rationale: Avoids unwanted attention from the user or system administrator to tool’s existence and behavior.

  • DO NOT use a “magic header/footer” for encrypted files written to disk. All encrypted files should be completely opaque data files.

    Rationale: Avoids signature of custom file format’s magic values.

  • DO NOT use hard-coded filenames or filepaths when writing files to disk. This must be configurable at deployment time by the operator.

    Rationale: Allows operator to choose the proper filename that fits with in the operational target.

  • DO have a configurable maximum size limit and/or output file count for writing encrypted output files.

    Rationale: Avoids situations where a collection task can get out of control and fills the target’s disk; which will draw unwanted attention to the tool and/or the operation.

Dates/Time:

  • DO use GMT/UTC/Zulu as the time zone when comparing date/time.

    Rationale: Provides consistent behavior and helps ensure “triggers/beacons/etc” fire when expected.

  • DO NOT use US-centric timestamp formats such as MM-DD-YYYY. YYYYMMDD is generally preferred.

    Rationale: Maintains consistency across tools, and avoids associations with the United States.

PSP/AV:

  • DO NOT assume a “free” PSP product is the same as a “retail” copy. Test on all SKUs where possible.

    Rationale: While the PSP/AV product may come from the same vendor and appear to have the same features despite having different SKUs, they are not. Test on all SKUs where possible.

  • DO test PSPs with live (or recently live) internet connection where possible. NOTE: This can be a risk vs gain balance that requires careful consideration and should not be haphazardly done with in-development software. It is well known that PSP/AV products with a live internet connection can and do upload samples software based varying criteria.

    Rationale: PSP/AV products exhibit significant differences in behavior and detection when connected to the internet vise not.

Encryption: NOD publishes a Cryptography standard: “NOD Cryptographic Requirements v1.1 TOP SECRET.pdf“. Besides the guidance provided here, the requirements in that document should also be met.

The crypto requirements are complex and interesting. I’ll save commenting on them for another post.

News article.

New Presidential Directive on Incident Response

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/08/new_presidentia.html

Last week, President Obama issued a policy directive (PPD-41) on cyber-incident response coordination. The FBI is in charge, which is no surprise. Actually, there’s not much surprising in the document. I suppose it’s important to formalize this stuff, but I think it’s what happens now.

News article. Brief analysis. The FBI’s perspective.

New Whitepaper Now Available: The Security Perspective of the AWS Cloud Adoption Framework

Post Syndicated from Armando Leite original https://blogs.aws.amazon.com/security/post/Tx1X3HU67FA1F2N/New-Whitepaper-Now-Available-The-Security-Perspective-of-the-AWS-Cloud-Adoption

Today, AWS released the Security Perspective of the AWS Cloud Adoption Framework (AWS CAF). The AWS CAF provides a framework to help you structure and plan your cloud adoption journey, and build a comprehensive approach to cloud computing throughout the IT lifecycle. The framework provides seven specific areas of focus or Perspectives: business, platform, maturity, people, process, operations, and security.

The Security Perspective captures AWS’s experience working with enterprise customers on their cloud adoption journey. It details how to structure a risk-based approach to control identification and selection (for example, building a security cartography), how to build a security program that enables maturation through iteration, and how AWS advises customers to set up their security model in the AWS Cloud.

The core of the Security Perspective is composed of 10 themes:

  • 5 core security themes– Define these foundational themes from the outset to allow adequate management of risk as well as progress by functions outside of information security: identity and access management, logging and monitoring, infrastructure security, data protection, and incident response.
  • 5 augmenting security themes – These 5 themes drive continuous operational excellence through availability, automation, and audit: resilience, compliance validation, secure continuous integration (CI)/continuous deployment (CD) (DevSecOps), configuration and vulnerability analysis, and security big data analytics.

The Security Perspective treats the security themes as Scrum epics (as shown in the following image), partitioned into multiple sprints that address a range of user stories that include both use and misuse cases. This approach allows you to quickly iterate and mature security capabilities on AWS while maintaining flexibility to adapt to business pace and demand.

Whether you are already moving to the AWS Cloud or just starting, this whitepaper will provide insight into some best practices we have observed and a template to help you define and refine your own journey. 

If you would like additional information about the Security Perspective or about AWS CAF in general, please contact us.

– Armando

Fully Integrated Defense Operation (FIDO) – Automated Incident Response

Post Syndicated from Darknet original http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/darknethackers/~3/6FYuds7KnaQ/

FIDO is an orchestration layer which enables an automated incident response process by evaluating, assessing and responding to malware. FIDO’s primary purpose is to handle the heavy manual effort needed to evaluate threats coming from today’s security stack and the large number of alerts generated by them. As an orchestration platform FIDO can…

Read the full post at darknet.org.uk