Seasoned cybersecurity pros will be familiar with MITRE. Known for its MITRE ATT&CK framework, MITRE helps develop threat models and defensive methodologies for both the private and public sector cybersecurity communities.
MITRE recently added to their portfolio and released MITRE Shield, an active defense knowledge base that captures and organizes security techniques in a way that is complementary to the mitigations featured in MITRE ATT&CK.
The MITRE Shield framework focuses on active defense and adversary engagement, which takes the passivity out of network defense. MITRE defines active defense as ranging from “basic cyber defensive capabilities to cyber deception and adversary engagement operations,” which “allow an organization to not only counter current attacks, but also learn more about that adversary and better prepare for new attacks in the future.”
This is the first time that deception has been proactively referenced in a framework from MITRE, and yes, it’s a big deal.
As the saying goes, the best defense is a good offense. Cybercriminals continue to evolve their tactics, and as a result, traditional security and endpoint protections are proving insufficient to defend against today’s sophisticated attackers. Companies can no longer sit back and hope that firewalls or mandatory security training will be enough to protect critical systems and information. Instead, they should consider the “active defense” tactics called for in MITRE Shield to help level the playing field.
The key to deception technology – and why it’s so relevant now – is that it goes beyond simple detection to identify and prevent lateral movement, notoriously one of the most difficult aspects of network defense. The last several months have been especially challenging for security teams, with the pandemic and the sudden shift to remote work leaving many organizations more vulnerable than before. Cybercriminals are acutely aware of this and have been capitalizing on the disruption to launch more attacks.
In fact, the number of data breaches in 2020 has almost doubled (compared to the year before), with more than 3,950 incidents as of August. But what this number doesn’t account for are the breaches that may still be undetected, in which attackers gained access to a company’s network and are performing reconnaissance weeks, or potentially months, before they actually launch an attack.
As they move through a network laterally, cybercriminals stealthily gather information about a company and its assets, allowing them to develop a plan for a more sophisticated and damaging attack down the line. This is where deception and active defense converge – hiding real assets (servers, applications, routers, printers, controllers and more) in a crowd of imposters that look and feel exactly like the real thing. In a deceptive environment, the attacker must be 100% right, otherwise they will waste time and effort collecting bad data in exchange for revealing their tradecraft to the defender.
Deception exists in a shadow network. Traps don’t touch real assets, making it a highly valued solution for even the most diverse environments, including IT, OT and Internet of Things devices. And because traps are not visible to legitimate users or systems and serve only to deceive attackers, they deliver high fidelity alerts and virtually no false positives.
How can companies embrace MITRE Shield using deception?
MITRE Shield currently contains 34 deception-based tactics, all mapped to one of MITRE’s eight active defense categories: Channel, Collect, Contain, Detect, Disrupt, Facilitate, Legitimize and Test. Approximately one third of suggested tactics in the framework are related to deception, which not only shows the power of deception as an active defense strategy, but also provides a roadmap for companies to develop a successful deception posture of their own.
There are three tiers of deceptive assets that companies should consider, depending on the level of forensics desired:
1. Low interaction, which consists of simple fake assets designed to divert cybercriminals away from the real thing, using up their time and resources.
2. Medium interaction, which offers greater insights into the techniques used by cybercriminals, allowing security teams to identify attackers and respond to the attack.
3. High interaction, which provides the most insight into attacker activity, leveraging extended interaction to collect information.
While a company doesn’t have to use all of the deception-based tactics outlined in MITRE Shield to prevent attacks, low interaction decoys are a good place to start, and can be deployed in a matter of minutes. Going forward, CISOs should consider whether it’s time to rethink their security strategy to include more active defense tactics, including deception.
Vulnerabilities in leading web and application frameworks, if exploited, can have devastating effects like the Equifax breach which affected 147 million people, according to RiskSense.
Among the report’s key findings, total framework vulnerabilities in 2019 went down but the weaponization rate went up, WordPress and Apache Struts had the most weaponized vulnerabilities, and input validation surpassed cross-site scripting (XSS) as the most weaponized weakness in the frameworks examined.
“Even if best application development practices are used, framework vulnerabilities can expose organizations to security breaches. Meanwhile, upgrading frameworks can be risky because changes can affect the behavior, appearance, or inherent security of applications,” said Srinivas Mukkamala, CEO of RiskSense.
“As a result, framework vulnerabilities represent one of the most important, yet poorly understood and often neglected elements of an organization’s attack surface.”
Most weaponized vulnerabilities
These two frameworks alone accounted for 57% of the weaponized vulnerabilities, those for which exploit code exists to take advantage of the weakness, in the past 10 years.
WordPress faced a wide variety of issues, but XSS was the most common problem, while input validation was the biggest risk for the Apache Struts framework. Their respective underlying languages, PHP for WordPress and Java for Struts, were also the most weaponized languages in the study.
2019 vulnerabilities are down, but weaponization is up
While the overall number of framework vulnerabilities was down in 2019 compared to previous years, the weaponization rate jumped to 8.6% which is more than double the National Vulnerability Database (NVD) average of 3.9% for the same period. This uptick was primarily due to increased weaponization in Ruby on Rails, WordPress and Java.
Input validation replaces XSS as top weakness
While XSS issues were the most common vulnerability over the 10-year study period, it dropped to 5th when analyzed over the last 5 years. This is a sign that frameworks are making progress in this important area.
Meanwhile, input validation has emerged as the top security risk for frameworks, accounting for 24% of all weaponized vulnerabilities over the past 5 years mostly affecting Apache Struts, WordPress, and Drupal.
Injection weaknesses are highly weaponized
Vulnerabilities tied to SQL injection, code injections, and various command injections remained fairly rare, but had some of the highest weaponization rates, often over 50%. In fact, the top 3 weaknesses by weaponization rate were command injection (60% weaponized), OS command injection (50% weaponized), and code injection (39% weaponized). This often makes them some of the most sought after weaknesses by attackers.
Shedding light on hidden threats
An organization’s web-facing applications represent fundamental digital assets that are essential to serving internal and external users. Their exposure to the outside world also means they are susceptible to constant attack.
Our data-driven society has a tricky balancing act to perform: building innovative products and services that use personal data while still protecting people’s privacy. To help organizations keep this balance, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is offering a new tool for managing privacy risk.
Version 1.0 of the NIST Privacy Framework
The agency has just released Version 1.0 of the NIST Privacy Framework: A Tool for Improving Privacy through Enterprise Risk Management. Developed from a draft version in collaboration with a range of stakeholders, the framework provides a useful set of privacy protection strategies for organizations that wish to improve their approach to using and protecting personal data.
The publication also provides clarification about privacy risk management concepts and the relationship between the Privacy Framework and NIST’s Cybersecurity Framework.
“Privacy is more important than ever in today’s digital age,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and NIST Director Walter G. Copan.
“The strong support the Privacy Framework’s development has already received demonstrates the critical need for tools to help organizations build products and services providing real value, while protecting people’s privacy.”
Personal data includes information about specific individuals, such as their addresses or Social Security numbers, that a company might gather and use in the normal course of business. Because this data can be used to identify the people who provide it, an organization must frequently take action to ensure it is not misused in a way that could embarrass, endanger or compromise the customers.
Helping organizations manage privacy risk
The NIST Privacy Framework is not a law or regulation, but rather a voluntary tool that can help organizations manage privacy risk arising from their products and services, as well as demonstrate compliance with laws that may affect them, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. It helps organizations identify the privacy outcomes they want to achieve and then prioritize the actions needed to do so.
“If you want to consider how to increase customer trust through more privacy-protective products or services, the framework can help you do that. But we designed it to be agnostic to any law, so it can assist you no matter what your goals are.”
Privacy application still evolving
Privacy as a basic right in the USA has roots in the U.S. Constitution, but its application in the digital age is still evolving, in part because technology itself is changing at a rapidly accelerating pace.
New uses for data pop up regularly, especially in the context of the internet of things and artificial intelligence, which together promise to gather and analyze patterns in the real world that previously have gone unrecognized. With these opportunities come new risks.
“A class of personal data that we consider to be of low value today may have a whole new use in a couple of years,” Lefkovitz said, “or you might have two classes of data that are not sensitive on their own, but if you put them together they suddenly may become sensitive as a unit. That’s why you need a framework for privacy risk management, not just a checklist of tasks: You need an approach that allows you to continually reevaluate and adjust to new risks.”
The Privacy Framework 1.0 has an overarching structure modeled on that of the widely used NIST Cybersecurity Framework, and the two frameworks are designed to be complementary and also updated over time.
Merely adopting a good security posture is not enough
Privacy and security are related but distinct concepts, Lefkovitz said, and merely adopting a good security posture does not necessarily mean that an organization is addressing all its privacy needs.
As with its draft version, the Privacy Framework centers on three sections: the Core, which offers a set of privacy protection activities; the Profiles, which help determine which of the activities in the Core an organization should pursue to reach its goals most effectively, and the Implementation Tiers, which help optimize the resources dedicated to managing privacy risk.
The NIST authors plan to continue building on their work to benefit the framework’s users. Digital privacy risk management is a comparatively new concept, and Lefkovitz said they received many requests for clarification about the nature of privacy risk, as well as for additional supporting resources.
“People continue to yearn for more guidance on how to do privacy risk management,” she said. “We have released a companion roadmap for the framework to point the way toward more research to address current privacy challenges, and we are building a repository of guidance resources to support implementation of the framework. We hope the community of users will contribute to it to advance privacy for the good of all.”