Daily Archives: November 6, 2019

National Cyber Security Committee urges vigilance as two concerning cyber security threats are in the wild

UPDATE: As at 12th November 2019 the CIMA level returned to Level 5 - Normal Conditions. The Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC), with its state and territory partners, is continuing to respond to the widespread malware campaign known as Emotet while responding to reports that hackers are exploiting the BlueKeep vulnerability to mine cryptocurrency. The Cyber Incident Management Arrangements (CIMA) remain activated, however the alert level has been downgraded to Level 4 – ‘Lean Forward’.

Seven Security Strategies, Summarized

This is the sort of story that starts as a comment on Twitter, then becomes a blog post when I realize I can't fit all the ideas into one or two Tweets. (You know how much I hate Tweet threads, and how I encourage everyone to capture deep thoughts in blog posts!)

In the interest of capturing the thought, and not in the interest of thinking too deeply or comprehensively (at least right now), I offer seven security strategies, summarized.

When I mention the risk equation, I'm talking about the idea that one can conceptually image the risk of some negative event using this "formula": Risk (of something) is the product of some measurements of Vulnerability X Threat X Asset Value, or R = V x T x A.

  1. Denial and/or ignorance. This strategy assumes the risk due to loss is low, because those managing the risk assume that one or more of the elements of the risk equation are zero or almost zero, or they are apathetic to the cost.
  2. Loss acceptance. This strategy may assume the risk due to loss is low, or more likely those managing the risk assume that the cost of risk realization is low. In other words, incidents will occur, but the cost of the incident is acceptable to the organization.
  3. Loss transferal. This strategy may also assume the risk due to loss is low, but in contrast with risk acceptance, the organization believes it can buy an insurance policy which will cover the cost of an incident, and the cost of the policy is cheaper than alternative strategies.
  4. Vulnerability elimination. This strategy focuses on driving the vulnerability element of the risk equation to zero or almost zero, through secure coding, proper configuration, patching, and similar methods.
  5. Threat elimination. This strategy focuses on driving the threat element of the risk equation to zero or almost zero, through deterrence, dissuasion, co-option, bribery, conversion, incarceration, incapacitation, or other methods that change the intent and/or capabilities of threat actors. 
  6. Asset value elimination. This strategy focuses on driving the threat element of the risk equation to zero or almost zero, through minimizing data or resources that might be valued by adversaries.
  7. Interdiction. This is a hybrid strategy which welcomes contributions from vulnerability elimination, primarily, but is open to assistance from loss transferal, threat elimination, and asset value elimination. Interdiction assumes that prevention eventually fails, but that security teams can detect and respond to incidents post-compromise and pre-breach. In other words, some classes of intruders will indeed compromise an organization, but it is possible to detect and respond to the attack before the adversary completes his mission.
As you might expect, I am most closely associated with the interdiction strategy. 

I believe the denial and/or ignorance and loss acceptance strategies are irresponsible.

I believe the loss transferal strategy continues to gain momentum with the growth of cybersecurity breach insurance policies. 

I believe the vulnerability elimination strategy is important but ultimately, on its own, ineffective and historically shown to be impossible. When used in concert with other strategies, it is absolutely helpful.

I believe the threat elimination strategy is generally beyond the scope of private organizations. As the state retains the monopoly on the use of force, usually only law enforcement, military, and sometimes intelligence agencies can truly eliminate or mitigate threats. (Threats are not vulnerabilities.)

I believe asset value elimination is powerful but has not gained the ground I would like to see. This is my "If you can’t protect it, don’t collect it" message. The limitation here is obviously one's raw computing elements. If one were to magically strip down every computing asset into basic operating systems on hardware or cloud infrastructure, the fact that those assets exist and are networked means that any adversary can abuse them for mining cryptocurrencies, or as infrastructure for intrusions, or for any other uses of raw computing power.

Please notice that none of the strategies listed tools, techniques, tactics, or operations. Those are important but below the level of strategy in the conflict hierarchy. I may have more to say on this in the future. 

The App Defense Alliance: Bringing the security industry together to fight bad apps

Fighting against bad actors in the ecosystem is a top priority for Google, but we know there are others doing great work to find and protect against attacks. Our research partners in the mobile security world have built successful teams and technology, helping us in the fight. Today, we’re excited to take this collaboration to the next level, announcing a partnership between Google, ESET, Lookout, and Zimperium. It’s called the App Defense Alliance and together, we’re working to stop bad apps before they reach users’ devices.
The Android ecosystem is thriving with over 2.5 billion devices, but this popularity also makes it an attractive target for abuse. This is true of all global platforms: where there is software with worldwide proliferation, there are bad actors trying to attack it for their gain. Working closely with our industry partners gives us an opportunity to collaborate with some truly talented researchers in our field and the detection engines they’ve built. This is all with the goal of, together, reducing the risk of app-based malware, identifying new threats, and protecting our users.
What will the App Defense Alliance do?
Our number one goal as partners is to ensure the safety of the Google Play Store, quickly finding potentially harmful applications and stopping them from being published
As part of this Alliance, we are integrating our Google Play Protect detection systems with each partner’s scanning engines. This will generate new app risk intelligence as apps are being queued to publish. Partners will analyze that dataset and act as another, vital set of eyes prior to an app going live on the Play Store.
Who are the partners?
All of our partners work in the world of endpoint protection, and offer specific products to protect mobile devices and the mobile ecosystem. Like Google Play Protect, our partners’ technologies use a combination of machine learning and static/dynamic analysis to detect abusive behavior. Multiple heuristic engines working in concert will increase our efficiency in identifying potentially harmful apps.
We hand-picked these partners based on their successes in finding potential threats and their dedication to improving the ecosystem. These partners are regularly recognized in analyst reports for their work.
Industry collaboration is key
Knowledge sharing and industry collaboration are important aspects in securing the world from attacks. We believe working together is the ultimate way we will get ahead of bad actors. We’re excited to work with these partners to arm the Google Play Store against bad apps.
Want to learn more about the App Defense Alliance’s work? Visit us here.