Skip to main content

Busting the myth of the malicious insider

The Myth of the Insider Threat

Too often after the announcement of a new breach, the first reaction from the victim company and the media is "another malicious insider attack".  Case in point, I was catching up on news from various sources and came across the following:

http://www.idgconnect.com/abstract/19647/lessons-sage-leak

"“We believe there has been some unauthorised access using an internal login to the data of a small number of our UK customers so we are working closely with the authorities to investigate the situation,” the Newcastle, England-headquartered firm said in a statement."

Of course an internal login was used to access the data, as part of the attack lifecycle, during your reconnaissance phase you identify accounts to target for possible compromise, based on the access/role of the individual.  

Phishing attacks or other simply attacks are often successful in gathering login credentials for individual users, which can then often be used to access an environment (using approved remote access methods such as external facing jump boxes, VPN systems, etc.).

Once an attacker has compromised an account, they use that to access the network or systems, perform additional reconnaissance, identify additional user accounts to target (based on access, and depending on the goal of the compromise). Once they have an account that provides access to the system or network that contains the data they are after, they begin the data theft process.

"Despite the “distinct lack of facts” currently in the public domain, Clarke says the case “looks to be an insider threat” and praised the fact that Sage appears to have publicised the incident quickly.
Insider threats are, of course, nothing new. Before the World Wide Web, the notion that insider threats were the most serious challenges to information security was generally acknowledged to be true. With the advent of the web, media attention moved on to juicy new topics such as phishing, state-sponsored attacks, denial-of-service takedowns, hacktivism and so on. But the insider threat regained stature in dramatic fashion with the Edward Snowden PRISM disclosures.
“Insiders are trusted individuals that have access to the ‘crown jewels’,” Clarke says. “The lesson here is to get your house in order and realise that while, traditionally, security has been about perimeter defences, it also has to be about protecting from the inside.”
Regular auditing, encryption and data segmentation should all be part of a holistic approach to security, Clarke says, so that in the event of a breach at least companies know the likely impact and size of the issue. “Nobody is immune to a breach but it’s important that in the event I do get breached that I know the scale of the threat.”"

Active and meaningful detection, baseline use profiling, and correlation can help to identify either internal misuse, or attempts or usage from external attackers. 

Recommended counters:

  • Multifactor authentication – I can’t stress it enough, but organizations who rely on passwords alone WILL be compromised.  When you decide to deploy Multifactor authentication, select a reputable vendor and have an implementation partner that has done this before and has a good track record. A bad (either weak implementation or poor product) multifactor authentication system is not an improvement, and may provide a very expensive, and false sense of security.
  • Audit the accounts – establish a periodic account review for privileged accounts, establish both an on-boarding and termination process that documents the request, approval, access required, and requires the hiring manager to identify the specific access required (and justify the access). You can’t just use a request process of “Give my new hire the same access that I have”.
  • Remove/reduce access for key systems. Systems that house confidential data, regulated data, customer information, or business sensitive systems should all have a very short list of users who legitimately need access. This should not include company executives or non-technical managers, just because they could request access does not mean they need access.
  • Using access control logs, create a baseline for your privileged account holders. Don’t over do it, start with the most critical accounts (Admins, Domain Admins, people that have SUDO on key systems, and executives) and profile their login behavior. Using your SIEM or log management system, identify the systems they standardly login to and from, and generate events when access exceeds these standard behaviors, especially for unexpected VPN sources, use of multiple VPN connections, excessive logins, logins after hours, or attempts to login to critical systems. Each of these potentially should have a Tier 1 level analyst take a look at the events, and look for correlation or possibly contact the account holder to validate the activity.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Requirements for Information Security

If you want to get into Information Security you HAVE to be a/have this skill... Why this is total BS. Almost daily I see someone posting on twitter, trying to be helpful to folks who are looking to get into InfoSec. Often I see "If you want to be in Information Security (Cyber Security) then you HAVE to be a programmer" or "If you want to be successful you have to be a hacker/have a criminal record/have abused systems without permission" etc. While having technical capabilities (such as programming) and having the ability to compromise a system shows a specific skillset neither are required. When talking to people who are interested in Information Security I often refer to it as a cake, there are tons of slices, many flavors, many pieces and parts you can sample, choose to focus on, will be expected to know something about, etc. Incident Response and Forensics (my current focus) is not the only part of Information Security, and certainly not the only part tha
Weekly recap and why you should be concerned about "attackers" even if you have "nothing to hide" Why you should be aware of, defend against, and prevent attackers... even at home: I often hear from future victims "well I don't have anything to hide/anything of value/why would they target me!?" It's really not about you, usually the attackers aren't looking for your data (if they get it, or have easy access to it, they may try to profit from it, but the people doing the compromising aren't usually the same folks that monetize). What the attackers want are compromised systems they can use to do what they want at scale. So if they can compromise 50 systems, they can send 50X the amount of SPAM... 100 systems, 100X, etc. Some operations get paid based on the number of emails they can send per day. Of course the email will likely not just be SPAM, but may also be malicious (ransomware, etc.). http://thehackernews.com/2017/09/linux-ma