Author: admini

· A move from application to data security as cyber-criminals look for new ways to bypass existing security measures and focus on obtaining valuable information.
· Increasing attacks through social network sites where vulnerable and less technically savvy populations are susceptible to phishing attacks and malware infection.
· An increase in credential theft/grabbing attacks. As the face value of individual credit card records and personal identity records decreases (due to massive data breaches) attackers look at more profitable targets. Obtaining application credentials presents an up sell opportunity as they provide a greater immediate value to stolen data consumers up the food chain.

· A move from reactive to proactive security as organisations move from sitting back and waiting to be breached, to actively seeking holes and plugging them as well as trying to anticipate attacks before they come to realisation.

Application owners need to get their act together and tackle these trends head on. Organisations serious about protecting data will need to address not only the application level but also at the source of data. This will mean introducing of new technologies including a Database Firewalls, File Activity Monitoring, and the next generation of DLP products. These tools should also be combined together with other technologies such as Web Application Firewalls and classic DLP solutions to allow organization to keep track of dataflow across the enterprise from source to sink.

He sees the automation of hacking as a major issue and technical measures will be needed to combat this trend.

Organisations must look to integrate their protection tools with proactive security measures, admittedly not readily available today, however the security community is currently developing solutions and these will become widely available over the next few years.

The next decade must see the IT security industry rise up and stand shoulder to shoulder if it is to win the fight against cyber-criminals.

­Botnet growers / cultivators whose sole concern is maintaining and increasing botnet communities ­ Attackers who purchase botnets for attacks aimed at extracting sensitive information (or other more specialized tasks) Cyber criminals who acquire sensitive information for the sole purpose of committing fraudulent transactions As with any industrialisation process, automation is the key factor for success.

Indeed we see more and more automated tools being used at all stages of the hacking process.

Proactive search for potential victims relies today on search engine bots rather than random scanning of the network.

Massive attack campaigns rely on zombies sending a predefined set of attack vectors to a list of designated victims.

Attack coordination is done through servers that host a list of commands and targets.

SQL Injection attacks, “Remote File Include” and other application level attacks, once considered the cutting edge techniques manually applied by savvy hackers are now bundled into software tools available for download and use by the new breed of industrial hackers.

Search engines (like Google) are becoming an increasingly vital piece in every attack campaign starting from the search for potential victims, the promotion of infected pages and even as a vehicle for launching the attack vectors themselves.

In the last few days, Imperva tracked and analysed a compromise that affected hundreds of servers injecting malicious code into web pages, these were cross referenced with keywords that scored highly in Google search engine generating traffic and thus creating drive by attacks.

The scale of this attack, and others like it, is enormous and would not be achievable without total automation at all stages of the process.

Organisations must realize that this growing trend leaves no web application out of reach for hackers.

Attack campaigns are constantly launched not only against high profile applications but rather against any available target.

Protecting web applications using application level security solutions will become a must for larger and smaller organisations alike.

End users who want to protect their own personal data and avoid becoming part of a botnet must learn to rely on automatic OS updates and anti-malware software.

Previously attracting student communities, the growing popularity of social networking sites, such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn is fast infiltrating mainstream populations with practically every man, and his dog, now ‘on Facebook’.

Elderly people as well as younger children, people who did not grow up with an inherent distrust in web content may find it very difficult to distinguish between messages of true social nature and widespread attack campaigns.

Attackers will also take advantage of the social networking information made accessible by social platforms to create more credible campaigns (e.g. make sure you get your Phishing email from your grandchildren).

The capabilities offered by the social platform and their growing outreach into other applications (webmail, online games) allow attacker to launch huge campaigns with a viral nature and at the same time pinpoint specific individuals.

Much like searching through the Google search engine for potentials target applications, attackers will scan social networks (using automated tools) for susceptible individuals, further increasing the effectiveness of their attack campaigns.

An entire set of tools that would allow us to evaluate and express personal trust in this virtual society are yet to be developed and put to use by platform owners and consumers.

Even when considering manually executed fraud, it is evident that having multiple sets of valid credentials for an online trading application makes it much more easier than having the personal data of account owners.

Consumers should protect themselves mainly from Trojan and KeyLogger threats by using the latest anti-malware software.

To date the security concept has been largely reactive — waiting for a vulnerability to be disclosed; creating a signature (or some other security rule) then cross referencing requests against these attack methods, regardless of their context in time or source.

http://www.businesscomputingworld.co.uk/?p=2017

1. Security event management (SEM): Analyzes log and event data in real time to provide threat monitoring, event correlation and incident response. Data can be collected from security and network devices, systems and applications.

2. Security information management (SIM): Collects, analyzes and reports on log data (primarily from host systems and applications, but also from network and security devices) to support regulatory compliance initiatives, internal threat management and security policy compliance management.

Traditional SEM vendors have responded by orienting products previously geared toward real-time event alerting and management toward log management functionality. For instance, ArcSight added its Logger appliance and additional deployment options to address compliance. Meanwhile, SIM players such as SenSage and LogLogic are adding real-time capabilities.

Jon Oltsik, an analyst at Enterprise Strategy Group, sees the market differently. The main driver, he says, is the need to keep up with security complexity. “There is an acute awareness that security attacks are more sophisticated and that security at a system level is harder than at the device level,” he says. Compliance is the second most important factor, he says, and the third is the need to replace early SIEM platforms that don’t scale or provide the right level of analytics and reporting capabilities.

Forrester expects consolidation among the 20-plus SIEM vendors in the next 12 to 36 months, as well as more cloud-based SIEM services.

Core Capabilities
According to Gartner, five critical capabilities differentiate SIEM products, whether you use them for SEM, SIM or both.
This includes functions that support the cost-effective collection, indexing, storage and analysis of a large amount of information, including log and event data, as well as the ability to search and report on it.
Reporting capabilities should include predefined reports, ad hoc reports and the use of third-party reporting tools.
Key capabilities include user and resource access reporting.
This includes real-time data collection, a security event console, real-time event correlation and analysis, and incident management support.

The need for compliance has encouraged smaller security staffs to adopt SIEM, and these buyers need predefined functions and ease of deployment and support over advanced functionality and extensive customization.

Large volumes of event data will be collected, and a wide scope of analysis reporting will be deployed. This calls for an architecture that supports scalability and deployment flexibility.
Access Monitoring. This capability defines access policies and discovers and reports on exceptions. It enables organizations to move from activity monitoring to exception analysis. This is important for compliance reporting, fraud detection and breach discovery.

SIEM DOs and DON’Ts DO include multiple stakeholders.
When developing requirements, be sure to collect them from the range of groups that may benefit from collected log data. This includes internal auditors, compliance, IT security and IT operations.
There are certainly customers just looking for log management because of a compliance requirement, and they may not have the internal resources to do anything but collect and document logs, Kavanaugh says. “But many buyers realize the capabilities inherent in log management software—the ability to collect, search and run reports—are valuable to security operations.” Once the security group gets involved, he says, they look at including network security devices, routers and other areas of the network environment where they don’t have great insight, as well as the real-time component.

When selecting a SIEM product at Liz Claiborne, Mike Mahoney, manager of IT security and compliance, involved architecture leaders from eight groups, asking them to respond to an in-depth questionnaire regarding what would help them improve their jobs. It ultimately took six months to complete the evaluation. “I wanted this to be a tool they would benefit from beyond log collection,” Mahoney says.
“Ultimately, the point of intersection is log management, but analytics might be done by two different platforms,” Oltsik says. “Whether you need security or compliance, you’re using the same log data.”

Correlation is a key aspect of SIEM systems, says Larry Whiteside, associate director of information security at the Visiting Nurse Service of New York (VNSNY). SIEM systems normalize logs from various systems, which helps you see the most important data you need out of those logs in a readable format. They also help you correlate events that the human eye could never perceive but that correlation rules can detect. “If you use correlation rules, you can run a report, and two events that are 10 minutes apart will be right on top of each other because they’re directly related to each other,” White­side says. He can also look at specific databases on specific servers and see who’s touching them. Or he can get log events to see what applications are talking to other applications and what database tables they’re hitting.For instance, if Server A is talking to Server B, and activity peaks on Sunday night at 10 p.m., he can drill in further to see what desktops are involved.

While software is the traditional form factor, Kavanaugh says, vendors have increasingly come out with all-in-one appliances, which do the data collection, analysis and correlation and use their own built-in databases to store copies of logs.

There are also many blended offerings, in which a server performs the real-time analysis, correlation and monitoring, and an appliance covers log collection.
Cincera warns that hardware and software accounts for one-half or less of the total cost of ownership of a SIEM implementation. The rest, he says, is the labor involved with creating, building and deploying the technology. “You can’t just put someone on the console and have them whip up 10 good correlation rules a day,” he says. “They need to understand things like, ‘These events need to be treated in this manner, or with this level of discretion.’ ” This requires the governance function to specify which events to care about and what actions to take. … There’s a cost to the organization based on that function,” Cincera says.

Another cost is maintenance, which includes keeping rules up to date, group management, permissions, alerting, monitoring and metrics. “You need to manage interfaces to upstream systems, things that feed information to the engine,” Cincera says. “You need to stay constantly involved, making sure connections stay in sync with one another, and that can be a daunting effort.” The work level grows dramatically based on the number of upstream systems you need to feed, he warns. “Every event you choose not to ignore is one on which you must act, even if it’s just to say, ‘noted,’ ” Cincera says. At some point, Cincera says, the rules, alerts and actions you take lose value and should be decommissioned.

Total cost of ownership is something no vendor is good at communicating, he adds. “They don’t want you to think of all those costs.”

http://www.csoonline.com/article/509553/Choosing_SIEM_Security_Info_and_Event_Management_Dos_and_Don_ts