Cybersecurity is tricky business for the mid-sized enterprise.
Attacks targeting mid-sized companies are on the rise, but their security teams are generally resource constrained and have a tough time covering all the potential threats.
There are solutions that provide sustainable security infrastructures but the vendor landscape is confusing and difficult to navigate. With smaller teams and more than 1,200 cybersecurity vendors in the market, it’s no wonder mid-sized enterprise IT departments often stick with “status quo” solutions that provide bare-minimum coverage. The IT leaders I talk to, secretly tell me they know bare-bones security is a calculated risk but often executive support for resources is just not there. These are tradeoffs that smaller security teams should not have to make.
Here's the good news. Building a solid enterprise-scale security program without tradeoffs is possible. To get started IT leaders should consider the 3 C’s of a sustainable security infrastructure: Coverage, Context, and Cost.
In part 1 of this 3-part blog series, we will deep-dive into the first "C": Coverage.
When thinking about coverage, there are two challenges to overcome. The first challenge is to achieve broad visibility into your sensors. There is a wide array of security sensors and it’s easy to get overwhelmed by the avalanche of data they generate. Customers often ask me: Do we have to monitor everything? Where do I begin? Are certain sensor alerts better indications of compromise than others?
Take the first step: Achieve visibility with appropriate sensor coverage
To minimize blind spots, start by achieving basic 24 x 7 coverage with continuous monitoring of Network Intrusion Detection & Prevention (NIDS/NIPS) and Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) activity. NIDS/NIPS solutions leverage signatures to detect a wide variety of threats within your network, alerting on unauthorized inbound, lateral, and outbound network communications. Vendors like Palo Alto Networks, TrendMicro and Cisco have solid solutions. Suricata and Snort are two popular open-source alternatives. EPP solutions (Symantec, McAfee, Microsoft) also leverage signatures to detect a variety of threats (e.g. Trojans, Ransomware, Spyware, etc) and their alerts are strong indicators of known malware infections.
Both NIDS/NIPS and EPP technologies use signatures to detect threats and provide broad coverage of a variety of attacks, however, they do not cover everything. To learn more on this topic read our eBook: 5 Ingredients to Help your Security Team Perform at Enterprise-Scale
To gain deeper visibility IT departments can eventually start to pursue advanced coverage.
With advanced coverage, IT teams can augment basic 24 x 7 data sensor coverage by monitoring web proxy, URL filtering, and/or endpoint detection and response (EDR). These augmented data sources offer opportunities to gain deeper visibility into previously unknown attacks because they report on raw activity and do not rely on attack signatures like NIDS/NIPS and EPP. Web proxy and URL filtering solutions log all internal web browsing activity, and as a result, provides in-depth visibility into one of the most commonly exploited channels that attackers use to compromise internal systems. In addition, EDR solutions act as a DVR on the system, recording every operation performed by the operating system—including all operations initiated by adversaries or malware. Of course, the hurdle to overcome with these advanced coverage solutions is managing the vast amounts of data they produce.
This leads to the second coverage challenge to overcome—obtaining the required expertise and capacity necessary to analyze the mountains of data generated.
As sensor coverage grows, more data is generated with each sensor type, creating data with unique challenges. Some sensors are extremely noisy and generate massive amounts of data. Others generate less data but are highly specialized and require a great deal more skill to analyze. To deal with the volume of data, common approaches are to ‘tune down’ sensors (which literally filters out potentially valuable data). This type of filtering is tempting since it essentially reduces the workload of a security team to a more manageable level. In doing so, however, clues to potential threats stay hidden in the data.
Take the second step: Consider security automation to improve coverage with resource-constrained teams.
Automation effectively offers smaller security teams the same capability that a full-scale Security Operations Center (SOC) team provides a larger organization, at a fraction of the investment and hassle.
Automation improves the status quo and stops the tradeoffs that IT organizations make every day. Smaller teams benefit with advanced security operations. Manual monitoring stops. Teams can keep up with the volume of data and can ensure that the analysis of each and every event is thorough and consistent. Security automation also provides continuous and effective network security monitoring and reduces time to respond. Alert collection, analysis, prioritization, and event escalation decisions can be fully or partially automated.
So to close, more Coverage for smaller security teams is, in fact, possible: First, find the right tools to gain more visibility across the network and endpoints. Second, start to think about solutions that automate the expert analysis of the data that increased visibility produces.
But, remember, ‘Coverage’ is just 1 part of this 3-part puzzle. Be sure to check back next month for part 2 of my 3 C’s (Coverage, Context, Cost) blog series. My blog on “Context” will provide a deeper dive into automation and will demonstrate how mid-sized enterprise organizations can gain more insights from their security data—ultimately finding more credible threats.
In the meantime, please reach out if you’d like to talk to one of our Security Architect to discuss coverage in your environment.
Tim Wenzlau is a Product Manager at Respond Software. He is focused on adding skills to the Respond Analyst--continuously improving the Respond Analyst’s intelligence, visibility, awareness, and user experience. Prior to Respond Software, Tim managed and launched a user behavior product and held various roles in corporate development, strategy, and business operations. Tim holds a degree in Operations Research and Financial Engineering from Princeton University.View all posts by Tim Wenzlau