ISACA: 2020 Vision for the 2020 CISO – Certificate of Attendance
ISACA: Governing Data for Business Value – Data Management Maturity – Certificate of Attendance
2017 Cybersecurity Predictions: The Year We Get Serious About IoT Security
This post is part of an ongoing blog series examining “Sure Things” (predictions that are almost guaranteed to happen) and “Long Shots” (predictions that are less likely to happen) in cybersecurity in 2017.
Throughout 2016, cybersecurity moved more into the public eye than ever before. Hacks into the Democratic National Committee, BitFinex, Yahoo, Dropbox, LinkedIn, and Verizon were just a few of the high-profile security breaches that grabbed headlines this year.
With 2017 fast approaching, we expect that we’ll continue to see breaches in the news. Let’s look at some predictions for the new year around network security:
Sure Things
Phishing attacks will continue to increase…and be effective
While phishing has been around for a long time, it continues to be a very successful method of attack for hackers. The 2016 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report cites 30 percent of phishing messages were opened by the target, with a median time of the first click on a malicious attachment being within the first three minutes and 45 seconds. It’s effective, and it works. In their Q2 2016 Phishing Activity Trends Report, Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG) observed 466,065 unique phishing sites in Q2 CY2016 – up 61 percent from the previous quarter’s record in Q1 CY2016. Seagate Technology, Snapchat, and Polycom are just a few examples where spear phishing attacks compromised employee payroll information in 2016. With attackers creating ever-more-realistic-looking emails and landing pages, we’re only going to see more of this in 2017.
Security organizations will begin to move away from security sprawl and towards true automation
To counter the malicious activities coming at them, security operations teams need to be more agile than ever – that means more visibility into what’s coming at them, a reduction of noise, and automating for faster response.
Traditionally, security teams have bolted on additional security solutions to address new threats. This has led to management frustration – coordinating security resources (oftentimes manually) from a variety of security solutions and vendors where the components don’t talk to each other or share knowledge. Security organizations will start to migrate toward solutions that are more contextually aware and security platforms that can share information across the attack surface, utilizing analytics for automated detection and response.
Internet of Things (IoT) attacks become a thing
Experts have been sounding warnings about IoT security vulnerabilities for a few years now, and while hacks have been demonstrated, until recently we hadn’t seen a lot of widely reported malicious activity. That changed in a big way towards the end of 2016. We saw the largest DDoS attack ever delivered by a botnet made up of IoT devices and a major attack on Dyn just a month later led to a massive internet outage across the U.S. and parts of Western Europe.
Gartner estimates that there are 6.4 billion connected things worldwide in use this year, a number expected to reach 20.8 billion by 2020. That’s a lot of targets.
Ease of use will be key to the success of IoT devices, but requiring individual users to constantly update their security wrinkles the user experience. Will “Uncle Joe” really go through the process of updating the default password on his new connected thermostat? Probably not – and that leaves a gaping hole for breaches depending on other connections in his network. I expect we’ll look back and view 2017 as the year IoT attacks really started – and also when we got serious as an industry about preventing them.
Long Shot
Ransomware encroaches on IoT devices
DDoS attacks are one thing, but what about ransomware on IoT devices? Ransomware has traditionally been used to hold an organization’s valuable data hostage by locking down the computers that store that data. Attacks often come into an organization through things like Adobe Flash or executable files.
IoT devices don’t generally store sensitive data and often don’t have the interfaces to deliver ransom notes. Malicious actors of course tend to be motivated by profits and it’s still easier, more efficient, and more profitable today to go after data where it resides. But the vulnerabilities in IOT devices will eventually lend themselves to ransomware that threatens immediate damage – shutting down a power grid or production line, for example.
As we start to see connected devices exploited more often for DDoS attacks, additional kinds of exploits are sure to follow – the question is whether it will become a profitable enough endeavor for bad actors to take mainstream in the next year.
What are your cybersecurity predictions around network security? Share your thoughts in the comments and be sure to stay tuned for the next post in this series where we’ll share predictions for endpoint security.
[Palo Alto Networks Research Center]
2017 Cybersecurity Predictions: New Norms Expected in Threat Landscape
This post is part of an ongoing blog series examining “Sure Things” (predictions that are almost guaranteed to happen) and “Long Shots” (predictions that are less likely to happen) in cybersecurity in 2017.
Here’s what we see coming on the threat landscape in 2017:
Sure Things
The ransomware business model moves to new platforms
As we highlighted in our May report, ransomware is not a malware problem, it’s a criminal business model. Malware is typically the mechanism by which attackers hold systems for ransom, but it is simply a means to an end. As noted in our report, the ransomware business model requires an attacker to successfully perform five tasks:
- Take control of a system or device. This may be a single computer, mobile phone, or any other system capable of running software.
- Prevent the owner from accessing it. This may happen through encryption, lockout screens, or even simple scare tactics, as described later in this report.
- Alert the owner that the device has been held for ransom, indicating the method and amount to be paid. While this step may appear obvious, one must remember that the attackers and the victims often speak different languages, live in different parts of the world, and have very different technical capabilities.
- Accept payment from the device owner. If the attacker cannot receive a payment, and, most importantly, receive the payment without becoming a target for law enforcement, the first three steps are wasted.
- Return full access to the device owner after payment has been received. While an attacker may have short-lived success with accepting payments and not returning access to devices, in time this will destroy the effectiveness of the scheme. Nobody pays a ransom when they don’t believe their valuables will be returned.
The ransomware business model can target any device, system, or data, where someone can perform all five of these tasks. At DEFCON 24 in August 2016, researchers from Pen Test Partners demonstrated taking over an internet-connected thermostat and locking its controls before displaying a ransom note (Figure 1) demanding one Bitcoin in payment.
Figure 1: Ransom note displayed on internet-connected thermostat at DEFCON 24
While this was not a live attack, a similar screen is sure to appear on an internet-connected device in 2017. For a cybercriminal, making money is the name of the game. If they can capture control of a device, it’s only truly valuable if they can monetize that control. If they take control of an internet-connected refrigerator, they will probably struggle to find data they can sell or otherwise turn into cash, but holding the refrigerator for a small ransom could be very profitable. The same is true for nearly any internet-connected device, as long as they can complete all five tasks outlined above. It would be hard to communicate a ransom note via an internet-connected lightbulb, unless the victim is fairly conversant in Morse code.
Political Leaks are the New Normal
Looking back on the headlines of 2016, it’s apparent that data leaks of a political nature had a significant impact in the United States. While the election may be over, I predict that these types of breaches will continue well into the future, and throughout the world.
Some features of politically focused data leaks are both desirable to government actors and dangerous for an electorate. Consider the following:
- Years of releases from WikiLeaks and others have conditioned the public to assume that leaked information is true by default. While previously released data may be authentic, this assumption could be easily exploited by a leaker interested in influencing voters.
- If leaked data has been altered, the breached party may have no reasonable way to disprove the alteration. A digital signature on a document could prove its authenticity, but the lack of a digital signature does not prove it to be inauthentic.
- A government (or government-sponsored) organization can release information gained through espionage under the guise of a hacktivist, absolving him or her of negative political impact. Even in cases where strong evidence suggests a government was behind the intrusion that revealed the leaked data, plausible deniability exists.
Consider a case where there are private documents describing a trade negotiation between Nation A and Nation B, which Nation C does not favor. If Nation C obtains a legitimate document describing the details of the negotiation and releases an altered version, which drastically favors Nation A; the voters in Nation C may be outraged, causing the negotiations to fail. To disprove the leak, Nations A and B would have to release the actual documents, which could also cause problems for the negotiation.
No matter your political persuasion or opinion on government transparency, it’s important to understand how certain parties can abuse the current environment. Political leaks are a form of information operations that can be conducted with great effectiveness and little chance of retribution. What we have seen in 2016 will be the new normal.
Long Shots
Secure Messaging Apps Gain Widespread Adoption in Response to Massive E-mail Leaks
If people take nothing else away from the leaks of 2016, it should probably be this:
Don’t put in an e-mail what you wouldn’t want to see on the front page of the newspaper.
This is a hard lesson to internalize, as e-mail has become asynchronous communication for most of the world (and certainly people reading these words). But it’s one we should take to heart.
There are many problems with using e-mail to transmit messages that are only intended for a specific audience. The messages often sit unencrypted once they reach their destinations. Even if they are encrypted, the sender typically doesn’t have control over the security of the recipient’s system; the recipient could decrypt the e-mail and store it in plain text or mismanage their encryption keys. In most cases, the messages are sorted, cataloged, and indexed automatically, allowing an individual with just temporary access to drudge up secrets by keyword and forward them to parts unknown.
If you are wondering if you should return to simply making phone calls when you want to share a private message, that’s not a bad idea, but take a look at any teenager’s phone when considering a technology solution. Snapchat’s killer feature is messages that automatically delete themselves after the recipient reads them. This allows users to send messages with less concern about them being shared with others. There are now many security-focused messaging systems, including Telegram, Wickr, Signal and Allo, which feature end-to-end encryption and self-deleting messages. While it’s still possible for someone to grab a screenshot of one of these messages, they are often much safer than e-mail.
Widespread adoption of these services in 2017 is still a long shot, as many users may not be comfortable making the transition from e-mail. However, those who’ve learned from widespread leaks will look for alternative ways to share their private thoughts with others.
What are your cybersecurity predictions around our threat landscape? Share your thoughts in the comments and be sure to stay tuned for the next post in this series where we’ll share predictions for network security.
[Palo Alto Networks Research Center]
Suggested Tips Auditors Need to Know About Cyber Security
The responsibility to ensure such a program is properly implemented resides with senior management. The main objectives of such a program are to ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the information assets and associated resources.
These overall objectives should be supported by safeguards known as controls, which are put in place to mitigate the risks associated with the use of the technology. If the controls are operating effectively and efficiently, the potential for loss and harm to enterprises assets should be reduced to an acceptable level. The question is who and/or what makes the determination of the effectiveness and efficiency of the controls.
This is where auditors come in. Their role is to review and perform tests to ultimately provide a level of assurance to management and the board of directors that the controls in place are appropriate, are in fact operating and are meeting the intended objectives. In many cases, this job function is relatively straightforward. However, many would argue that when it comes to cyber security technology, although the auditor’s role doesn’t change, the complexity of the audit does.
Auditors have an obligation to educate themselves on this powerful and evolving technology, and there is much to learn. Below are 10 things an auditor needs to know about cyber security. This list is not all-encompassing, nor is it ranked in any order.
- Everything is connected to everything. The primary function and objective of any cyber device is connectivity. Devices are like climbers roped together on the side of a mountain – if one falls, it can bring down anything connected to it. The Target hack (through an HVAC supplier connection) clearly demonstrates the need for a holistic cyber security view. With the arrival of the Internet of Things, it’s imperative that auditors understand and address the bigger picture.
- All risks are subjective. To qualify as a “risk,” a threat needs to be associated with a vulnerability that – if exploited – could negatively impact an information asset. If it does not, it is not a threat. Too many auditors worry about threats and vulnerabilities that pose no actual risk to an asset, prioritizing compliance over risk and wasting precious time and resources.
- Users are (and will always be) the biggest security risk. Our industry is led by vendors, and we continue to seek security through products (firewalls, IDS/IPS, DLP, etc.). We invest in product before people while real and measurable results can be achieved by investing in information security awareness. To contribute tangible results, auditors should prioritize people over product. Cyber security education is the silver bullet.
- Leverage existing frameworks/guidelines. Auditors should consider mapping of the NIST “Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity” to ISO 27001:2013 controls and COBIT 5 to reduce the scope of the audit, making the audit more manageable.
- Consider forthcoming legislation. Auditors should study how forthcoming and existing legislation like General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) could potentially be incorporated into cyber security programs. Also, auditors need to understand the global regulatory environment and the differences that can exist between different geographic regions.
- Basic information security controls still hold true. As part of overall security (including cyber security), these controls provide a valid baseline of security controls that help create in-depth security, such as physical and logical access controls and application of “principle of least privilege.”
- Utilize a cyber incident response policy and plan that is fully tested. Auditors need to assess whether a proper crisis management and communication plan is in place, clearly communicated and tested as appropriate. This should enable sufficient business continuity in the event of a cyber security breach. Crisis management should include incident response and forensics, where warranted. Proactive monitoring and detection (with automated tools) should be in place.
- Cyber security strategy needs to be agile – the landscape is “mutating.” Strategy needs to be adaptable and scalable to handle new attack methods, such as ransomware and cloud-related risks. Auditors need to be aware that this is an area that is constantly changing and must not assume that what currently keeps your IT environment secure will continue to remain secure indefinitely.
- Cyber security awareness depends on the right training. Employees need sufficient and timely education and training to help combat ever-changing cyber security threat. Security needs to be interwoven into the fabric on an organization. One-off, box-checking exercises are not sufficient. For example:
- Do employees understand the implications of a cyber security breach?
- Has any thought been given to insider threats from a cyber security perspective?
- Is there clear guidance on the use of social media/shadow IT solutions/BYOD/how to respond to a phishing or ransomware attack?
- Are employees rewarded/praised for promoting security in an organization? Are they incentivized?
- Be aware of credential theft techniques. Auditors should have knowledge of credential theft attack techniques. Typically, the Pass-the-Hash (PtH) attack and other credential theft attacks utilize an iterative, two-stage process. First, an attacker captures account logon credentials on one computer, and then uses those captured credentials to authenticate to other computers over the network.
Editor’s note: To learn more, register for ISACA’s 6 December webinar, “Suggested Tips Auditors Need to Know About Cyber Security.” Click on the link below to register:
www.isaca.org/Education/Online-Learning/Pages/Webinar-Suggested-Tips-Auditors-Need-to-Know-about-Cyber-Security.aspx
ISACA also is offering a one-day workshop entitled “Cyber Security for Auditors” immediately following the 2017 North America CACS conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. For more information and to register, click on the link below:
www.isaca.org/Education/Conferences/Pages/North-America-CACS-Presentations-and-Descriptions.aspx#ws7
Paul Phillips, Technical Research Manager, ISACA
[ISACA Now Blog]
