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.

Attacks/Breaches

2/20/2020
09:15 AM
50%
50%

Firms Improve Threat Detection but Face Increasingly Disruptive Attacks

In addition, more third parties are discovering the attacks rather than the companies themselves.

Organizations are more quickly detecting attackers in their networks and systems, but the majority of attacks are still being found by third parties and not by internal security groups.

In 2019, companies needed 56 days, on average, to detect an attacker in their networks, down from 78 days in 2018, FireEye Mandiant stated in its "M-Trends 2020" report, out today. While the improvement is partially due to companies spending more effort and resources on detecting threats and responding to incidents, much of the impetus to improve is due to a second trend identified in the report: Attackers are more quickly taking action once inside a victim's network, and often the action is destructive, says Charles Carmakal, vice president of consulting and chief technology officer at FireEye Mandiant.

"Unfortunately, we are seeing a lot more disruptive threats," he says. "We are seeing a lot more ransomware out there, and ransomware operators are deploying in days to weeks, executing in a much shorter time frame than espionage-type threats."

Overall, 43% of attacks have a destructive element, the company found.

The findings indicate that, while organizations are getting better at detecting threats, attackers have become more agile as well. 

The groups behind the attacks, for example, are expanding beyond just attacking Windows systems. In 2019, 274 of the 1,268 malware families tracked by FireEye — 22% of the total — targeted either the Linux operating system or the Mac OS. Seven in 10 malware samples encountered belonged to the top five malware families, which are based on open source tools and under active development, the company stated in the report. About 41% of the malware families encountered by FireEye were previously unknown.

"Attackers continue to grow more adept at working across a range of operating systems and device types, as well as in both on-premises and cloud architectures," the report stated. "Traditional barriers to attacker success continue to lessen over time. Put simply, more attackers can do more things in more diverse environments."

While the overall time between the compromise of a network and the detection of the attack showed improvement, the percentage of attacks discovered by company employees, as opposed to external third parties, declined to 47% in 2019, demonstrating that businesses need to focus more on their own security. In 2017, internal detection of threats peaked at 62%.

Organizations based in the Americas had the best success, with 52% detecting threats internally rather than relying on third parties, while the Asia-Pacific region relied far more on third parties, with almost three-quarters of attacks discovered by external sources.

Data on threat detection varies widely. Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, for example, sees companies detecting attacks more quickly; it found the average organization takes five days to detect an attack and a little less than seven days to contain a breach. Meanwhile, a Trustwave report found that companies detected attacks within 14 days in 2018, down from 26 days in the prior year.

The differences in estimates of the so-called "dwell time" could be due to the focus of the company collecting the data. FireEye Mandiant focuses on incident response, helping companies that have already been breached, while Trustwave and CrowdStrike aim to proactively prevent breaches and detect attacks. 

The company tracked 1,268 malware families in 2019, 41% of which were new. While the vast majority of malicious software targeted Windows systems, 208 targeted or could impact Linux systems and 66 targeted or could impact Mac systems. 

The attackers' focus on ransomware and other disruptive attacks raises the stakes for organizations. While many companies are prepared to recover from such attacks — regularly backing up data being a priority — many still pay ransoms to expedite recovery, Carmakal says. 

"The assumption is that when victims pay, they are doing it because they have not made good backups, but that's not the case," he says. "There are plenty of organizations that have terrific backups. But if you have so many systems taken offline in a matter of minutes or hours, and you have to recover so many servers in your environment, the amount of downtime can be excessive."

Carmakal declined to say how many, or what fraction, of ransomware incidents resulted in the victim paying a ransom.

Related Content

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading's new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today's top story: "8 Things Users Do That Make Security Pros Miserable."

 

Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT's Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
R_Villadiego
50%
50%
R_Villadiego,
User Rank: Author
2/21/2020 | 3:47:53 PM
Closing the Breach Detection Gap
Great story Robert. The fact that so many companies don't know their network has been compromised, whether it's for days or months (or in the case of Citrix, years) has to be among the most alarming metrics for security leaders. But it's hardly surprising given that SOC analysts have to sift through so much noise before they can confirm that they have indeed been compromised. Until we can isolate confirmed instances of compromise with confidence, attacker dwell time will continue to be one of the most pressing issues we as security leaders must deal with...
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
Data breaches and regulations have forced organizations to pay closer attention to the security incident response function. However, security leaders may be overestimating their ability to detect and respond to security incidents. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-11509
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-07
An XSS vulnerability in the WP Lead Plus X plugin through 0.98 for WordPress allows remote attackers to upload page templates containing arbitrary JavaScript via the c37_wpl_import_template admin-post action (which will execute in an administrator's browser if the template is used to create a page).
CVE-2020-6647
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-07
An improper neutralization of input vulnerability in the dashboard of FortiADC may allow an authenticated attacker to perform a cross site scripting attack (XSS) via the name parameter.
CVE-2020-9286
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-07
An improper authorization vulnerability in FortiADC may allow a remote authenticated user with low privileges to perform certain actions such as rebooting the system.
CVE-2020-11508
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-07
An XSS vulnerability in the WP Lead Plus X plugin through 0.98 for WordPress allows logged-in users with minimal permissions to create or replace existing pages with a malicious page containing arbitrary JavaScript via the wp_ajax_core37_lp_save_page (aka core37_lp_save_page) AJAX action.
CVE-2013-7488
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-07
perl-Convert-ASN1 (aka the Convert::ASN1 module for Perl) through 0.27 allows remote attackers to cause an infinite loop via unexpected input.