Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

5/22/2018
10:30 AM
Paul Kurtz
Paul Kurtz
Commentary
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

The State of Information Sharing 20 Years after the First White House Mandate

Finally! Actionable guidance for ISACs and enterprises on what threat intel to share, how to share it, and which key technologies will automate redaction and protect privacy.

Much has been made of the need to share information among companies since President Clinton signed Presidential Directive 63 exactly 20 years ago today, on May 22, 1998. Commonly referred to as PDD-63, the directive called for the creation of information sharing and analysis centers (ISACs) for critical sectors of the economy. President Obama widened the aperture to include other constituencies that desired to work together, including small businesses, sports organizations, and Internet of Things communities. Congress stepped up and passed the Cyber Security Act of 2015, which clarified what information can (and cannot) be shared and relieved concerns about liability and antitrust.

But even with all of this activity, progress has been very slow. Robust organizations like the FS-ISAC have been established to address sharing within the financial sector, but most organizations would agree that we have struggled with the "what, when, and how" of information sharing. In fact, the use of the word "sharing" in cybersecurity has almost become pejorative. Very basic questions have surfaced within in small and large organizations, such as, "How do I decide what to share?" "Do I only need to share information after a breach?" "How do I share securely?" and perhaps most importantly, "What value will I receive in return?"

Prior to the anniversary of PDD-63, the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) with little fanfare made a significant contribution to enabling the free flow of sharing by releasing a research paper on its experiences in operating the Cloud Cyber Incident Sharing Center (C-CISC). The organization's work started nearly two years ago when Jim Reavis, CEO of CSA, started a voluntary exchange among member companies to exchange data. CSA member experiences yielded some straightforward lessons that can be adopted by ISACs and individual organizations alike.

Fixing a Broken Information Sharing Process
First, we must acknowledge there are vast differences between legacy information sharing systems and what organizations should look for today. The working group discovered that many organizations would hold data until after a breach was confirmed, which is of little value to others seeking to prevent a similar attack. Most data was being shared through noisy email listservs, and the review and approval process for sharing data was burdensome, resulting in reports that lacked proper context.

Through trial and error, CSA discovered what to share and how to share and identified key technologies to automate redaction and protect privacy.

The Hardest Part Is Getting Started
CSA's working group also found the majority of enterprises it encountered wanted to participate in a threat intelligence exchange, but they didn't know where to start. Enterprises begin by leveraging events generated by security information and event management systems or other tools that require review by an analyst. Then they gather event data with context into a secure repository, and, finally, exchange data with others using automated redaction tools.

CSA learned that most organizations did not have the means to see all of their suspicious event data in a common repository. In some cases, organizations were using multiple case management or orchestration tools that did not allow for easy correlation or real-time chronology of event data. The CSA guidance advises to select a system that allows the user to receive immediate feedback and is extensible, allowing you to choose what you want to share and with whom.

CSA's research paper includes other useful guidance around developing supporting security knowledge management policies and helps shape organizations that are thinking about evolving to mature cyber intelligence knowledge management, rather than thinking about purely reactionary threat intelligence as we did in the wake of breaches against Target and others several years ago.

Twenty years is far too long to wait for such guidance, but it has arrived just in time. You can download the paper here.

Related Content:

Paul Kurtz is the CEO and cofounder of TruSTAR Technology. Prior to TruSTAR, Paul was the CISO and chief strategy officer for CyberPoint International LLC where he built the US government and international business verticals. Prior to CyberPoint, Paul was the managing partner ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Aviation Faces Increasing Cybersecurity Scrutiny
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  8/22/2019
Microsoft Tops Phishers' Favorite Brands as Facebook Spikes
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/22/2019
MoviePass Leaves Credit Card Numbers, Personal Data Exposed Online
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/21/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2016-6154
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-23
The authentication applet in Watchguard Fireware 11.11 Operating System has reflected XSS (this can also cause an open redirect).
CVE-2019-5594
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-23
An Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ("Cross-site Scripting") in Fortinet FortiNAC 8.3.0 to 8.3.6 and 8.5.0 admin webUI may allow an unauthenticated attacker to perform a reflected XSS attack via the search field in the webUI.
CVE-2019-6695
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-23
Lack of root file system integrity checking in Fortinet FortiManager VM application images of all versions below 6.2.1 may allow an attacker to implant third-party programs by recreating the image through specific methods.
CVE-2019-12400
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-23
In version 2.0.3 Apache Santuario XML Security for Java, a caching mechanism was introduced to speed up creating new XML documents using a static pool of DocumentBuilders. However, if some untrusted code can register a malicious implementation with the thread context class loader first, then this im...
CVE-2019-15092
PUBLISHED: 2019-08-23
The webtoffee "WordPress Users & WooCommerce Customers Import Export" plugin 1.3.0 for WordPress allows CSV injection in the user_url, display_name, first_name, and last_name columns in an exported CSV file created by the WF_CustomerImpExpCsv_Exporter class.