There was a time when one of our biggest challenges was securing our physical assets, whether that was our people or our property from crime.

We researched and deployed the very latest in video solutions, intrusion systems, fire alarms and access control devices, all in an effort to keep the bad guys out and the good guys safe, along with protecting our facilities from break-ins, robberies and countless other crimes. However, times are changing. No longer must we only be concerned about keeping intruders out of our buildings but now—off our networks.

It should come as no surprise that cybercrime is one of the biggest threats organisations of all shapes and sizes face today. While attacks on major brands and Fortune 500 companies make headlines, there were purportedly 918 reported data breaches, compromising nearly 2 billion data records in just the first six months of 2017. Of those 918 breaches, 500 of them had an unknown number of compromised records.

Some in the industry referred to not locating cyberattacks in a swift manner as a breach detection gap or dwell time

Reducing breach detection gap

Depending on your organisation, these cybercrimes and the investigation into them, may be handled by your IT department. However, considering the magnitude of these crimes, it now falls on the entire organisation, including the traditional security or loss prevention executives, to band together to combat these threats.

One of the biggest challenges cyberattacks pose is timing. Often cyberattacks can go undetected for weeks, months or even years. Some in the industry referred to this timing as a breach detection gap or dwell time and is defined as the time elapsed between the initial breach of a network by an attacker and the discovery of that breach by the victim.

To put that into perspective, the most recent Ponemon report on the cost of a data breach showed dwell time for malicious attacks has stretched to an average of 229 days—a long time for bad actors to be lurking around your networks.

Many companies rely on heritage-based services offered by managed security service providers (MSSPs)

Traditional cybersecurity measures

We are familiar with traditional cyber lines of defence against these attacks like firewalls and anti-virus software. While these solutions are effective at identifying and potentially stopping known forms of malware and viruses that are attacking companies every day, they are blind to signatureless and zero-day malicious activity.

Unfortunately, this trend does not show signs of letting up as internal security processes are having trouble keeping up with increasingly sophisticated land pervasive threats.

Many companies rely on heritage-based services offered by managed security service providers (MSSPs) that use security information and event management (SIEM) software, or intrusion detection systems/intrusion prevention systems (IDS or IPS respectively) to monitor networks for malicious activities on a continuous basis.

However, these activities are based on known threats where a valid signature of the cyberattack or system logs are available and used to analyse activity. They then provide security alerts to the client and generate reports for compliance purposes.

This form of alerting often generates an overwhelming number of notifications causing what is coined in the industry as ‘alert fatigue’ making it hard to weed out what is important from what is not.

Cybercrime is one of the biggest threats organisations of all shapes and sizes face today
Managed detection response uses a combination of advanced technology and expert human analysis to combat cybercrime

Managed detection and response

The Ponemon Institute found that companies spend an average of 21,000 hours each year analysing false negative/false positive alerts trying to detect and contain cyberattacks. This translates to approximately 17,000 security alerts in a week of which only 4% were deemed reliable and investigated. This can potentially waste nearly $1.3 million per year on investigating and managing inaccurate data.

Based on this overwhelming challenge, it’s time for organisations to look at improving real-time threat detection and incident response capabilities beyond standard security screening and compliance requirements. In addition to the services provided by an MSSP, it would be wise to add or layer a managed detection and response (MDR) service to your arsenal of cyber defence weapons.

An MDR analyst can replay the event allowing him to dig deeper into the incident and determine remediation steps

Identifying real threats with MDR services

MDR services use a unique combination of advanced technology and expert human analysis. Equating MDR services to traditional physical security devices, it is more like having a DVR, where an analyst can go back and replay the incident on the network via packet capture technology.

Event logs and signatures by themselves don’t provide visibility and detail. Traditional cyber defences act like a conventional alarm system. The alarm sounds and a notification is sent, but there is no context or detail about the incident and it is up to the recipient to determine if the alarm is valid, what exactly happened and what to do about it.

With packet capture on the network, an MDR analyst can replay the event allowing him to dig deeper into the incident and determine remediation steps. This approach helps quickly identify real threats to the business, provides remediation specifics for timely resolution, and significantly cuts through the false positive noise so security teams can focus on the things that matter.

Efficient incident management

MDR services only notify clients after the incident is verified. The notifications provide granular detail of the scope and severity of an attack with recommendations for quick containment and response. MDR services offer 24/7/365 continuous monitoring of customer network data, provide analysis of the data to add context to the event and notify the customer of the incident.

With MDR services, clients have direct communication with the security analyst and rely less on using an alert portal

With MDR services, clients have direct communication with the security analyst and rely less on using a portal for alerting, investigations, case management and workflow activities.

Because MDR services rely on advanced tools and human analysis, they are more apt to uncover malicious activity that has breached the first line of defence and can reduce the time from infection to detection to minutes rather than months.

Combating cybercrime with secure networks

To sum it all up, MSSPs focus on perimeter devices like firewalls, or IDS/IPS and SIEM and provide device management such as updating firewall rules, anti-virus software and compliance reporting. They are typically used to supplement internal IT or security teams.

An MDR service concentrates on detecting threats that have penetrated the perimeter. MDRs deliver threat notification and remediation guidance. While both solutions provide value to their clients, their basic areas of focus are different.

Cybercriminals are becoming more coordinated in their efforts to steal our data, disrupt our operations and damage our brands. It is time that we coordinate our efforts across the entire organisation to combat them.

Download PDF version

In case you missed it

Enhance traditional security systems within your smart home
Enhance traditional security systems within your smart home

Market dynamics are changing the U.S. residential security market, creating new business models that better appeal to the approximately 70% of households without a security system. Smart home adjacencies have helped revitalise the traditional security industry, and alternative approaches to systems and monitoring for the security industry are emerging, including a new batch of DIY systems. Growth in the residential security market and its position as the channel for smart home solutions have attracted numerous new entrants. Telecoms, cable operators, and CE (consumer electronics) manufacturers are joining traditional security players as they compete to fulfill consumer demand for safety and security. Connected products also provide a layer of competition as consumers must decide whether having category devices such as doorbell video cameras, networked cameras, and other products suffice for their security. Increasingly competitive landscape Smart home services can provide additional revenue streams for the security industry For instance, IP cameras are a highly popular smart home device rooted in security, and Parks Associates estimates 7.7 million standalone and all-in-one networked/IP cameras will be sold in the U.S. in 2018, with $889M in revenues. Product owners may feel their security needs are fulfilled with this single purchase, as such dealers and service providers are under increasing pressure to communicate their value proposition to consumers. Categorically, each type of player is facing competition uniquely—national, regional, and local dealers all have a different strategy for overcoming the increasingly competitive landscape. Smart home services can provide additional revenue streams for the security industry. In Parks Associates’ 2017 survey of U.S. security dealers, 58% report that smart home service capabilities enable extra monthly revenue. Almost half of dealers also note they have to offer smart home devices and services in order to keep up with their competition. While white-label devices are acceptable in some instances, dealers need to integrate with hero products whenever possible when those exist for a category. For dealers who have added smart home devices and services are all potential benefits and good for business Improved customer engagement That 2017 survey also revealed 36% of security dealers that offer interactive services report security system sales with a networked camera and 16% report sales with a smart thermostat. For dealers who have added smart home devices and services, enhanced system utility, increased daily value, and improved customer engagement with the system are all potential benefits and good for business. Security has served as the most productive channel for smart home solutions, mainly because the products create natural extensions of a security system’s functions and benefits, but as smart home devices, subsystems, and controllers expand their functionality, availability, and DIY capabilities, many standalone devices constitute competition to classical security. Particularly viable substitute devices include IP cameras, smart door locks, smart garage doors, or a combination of these devices. Products that are self-installed offer both convenience and cost savings, and these drivers are significant among DIY consumers—among the 6% of broadband households that installed a security system themselves, 39% did it to save money. Enhance traditional security Self-installable smart home devices may resonate with a segment of the market who want security While many security dealers believe substitute offerings are a threat, some dealers do not find such devices an existential threat but instead view them as another path to consumer awareness. They argue that the difference between smart product substitutes and traditional security is that of a solution that provides knowledge versus a system that gives one the ability to act on that knowledge. A common theme among professional monitoring providers is that a homeowner who is aware of events happening in the home does not necessarily have a secure and protected household. For example, a Nest camera, a DIY product, notifies a consumer via smartphone about events in the home when it detects motion, but only when the notification is opened and identified will a consumer be able to act on the related event. Self-installable smart home devices may resonate with a segment of the market who want security but are unwilling to adopt professional monitoring; however, providers can leverage these devices to enhance traditional security features and communicate the value of professional monitoring. Smart home devices and features, while posing a threat to some security companies, are a potential way forward to increased market growth Increased market growth A key counterstrategy for security dealers and companies is to leverage their current, powerful role as the prime channel for smart home devices. Many security dealers now include smart home devices with their security systems to complement their offerings and increase system engagement. For example, as of Q4 2017, nearly 70% of U.S. broadband households that were very likely to purchase a security system in the next 12 months reported that they want a camera to be included as part of their security system purchase. In response, many security system providers now offer IP cameras as optional enhancements for their systems. Smart home devices and features, while posing a threat to some security companies, are a potential way forward to increased market growth. Security dealers have an opportunity to become more than a security provider but a smart home solutions provider rooted in safety. Provide status updates Comcast has entered both the professionally monitored security market and the market for smart home services The alternative is to position as a provider of basic security with low price as the key differentiator. Comcast has entered both the professionally monitored security market and the market for smart home services independent of security. It has discovered that monetising smart home value propositions through recurring revenue becomes increasingly challenging as the value extends further away from life safety. Since the security industry remains the main channel for smart home services, security dealers are in a unique position to leverage that strength. Value propositions must shift from the traditional arming and disarming of a system to peace-of-mind experiences that builds off the benefits of smart devices in the home to provide status updates (e.g., if the kids arrived home safely) and monitoring at will (e.g., checking home status at any time to see a pet or monitor a package delivery). These types of clear value propositions and compelling use cases, which resonate with consumer and motivate them to expand beyond standalone products, will help expand the home security market.

What is the value of "free" video management systems?
What is the value of "free" video management systems?

They say that every choice has a cost. It's a basic principle that, economically speaking, nothing is free. If it doesn't cost actual money, it may be expensive in terms of time, attention and/or effort. These are interesting observations to keep in mind as one peruses the various "free" video management system (VMS) offerings available on the market. Some are provided by camera companies to unify their products into a "system", even if it's a small one. Other free VMS offerings are entry-level versions offered by software companies with the intent of the customer upgrading later to a paid version. For more insights, we asked this week's Expert Panel Roundtable: What is the value of “free” video management systems (VMSs) and how can a customer decide whether “free” is the right price for them?

The ongoing challenge of IT and data risk management
The ongoing challenge of IT and data risk management

Managing IT and data risk is a challenging job. When we outsource our IT, applications and data processing to third-parties more and more every day, managing that risk becomes almost impossible. No longer are our data and systems contained within an infrastructure that we have full control over. We now give vendors our data, and allow them to conduct operations on our behalf.  The problem is, we don’t control their infrastructure, and we can never fully look under the hood to understand and vet their ability to protect our data and operations. We have to fully understand how important this issue is, and ensure we have the right governance, processes and teams to identify and mitigate any risks found in our vendors. No longer are our data and systems contained within an infrastructure that we have full control over Today, everything is connected. Our own networks have Internet of Things (IoT) devices.  We have VPN connections coming in, and we aren’t always sure who is on the other end of that connection. It is a full-time job just to get a handle on our own risk. How much harder, and how much larger should our teams and budgets be, to truly know and trust that our vendors can secure those devices and external connections?  For every device and application we have internally, it is very difficult to even keep an accurate inventory. Do all of our vendors have some special sauce that allows them to overcome the traditional challenges of securing internal and vendor-connected networks? They are doing the same thing we are – doing our best with the limited human and financial resources allocated by our organisation. Risk stratification and control objectives  The benefits of outsourcing operations or using a vendor web application are clear. So how can we properly vet those vendors from an IT risk perspective?  The very first thing we need to put in place is Risk Stratification. Risk Stratification presents a few targeted questions in the purchasing process. These questions include – what type of data will be shared? How much of this data? Will the data be hosted by a vendor? Will this hosting be in the US or offshored? Has the vendor ever had a data breach? These questions allow you to quickly discern if a risk assessment is needed and if so, what depth and breadth.  Risk stratification allows you to make decisions that not only improve your team’s efficiency, but also ensure that you are not being a roadblock to the business Risk stratification allows you to make decisions that not only improve your team’s efficiency, but also ensure that you are not being a roadblock to the business. With risk stratification, you can justify the extra time needed to properly assess a vendor’s security.  And in the assessment of a vendor’s security, we have to consider what control objectives we will use. Control objectives are access controls, policies, encryption, etc. In healthcare, we often use the HITRUST set of control objectives. In assessing against those control objectives, we usually use a spreadsheet.  Today, there are many vendors who will sell us more automated ways to get that risk assessment completed, without passing spreadsheets back and forth. These solutions are great if you can get the additional budget approved.  Multi-factor authentication  Even if we are using old-fashioned spreadsheets, we can ensure that the questions asked of the vendor include a data flow and network/security architecture document.  We want to see the SOC2 report if they are hosting their solution in Amazon, etc. If they are hosting it within their own datacentre, we absolutely want to see a SOC2 Type II report. If they haven’t done that due diligence, should that be a risk for you?  Today, we really need to be requiring our vendors to have multi-factor authentication on both their Internet-facing access, as well as their privileged internal access to our sensitive data. I rate those vendors who do not have this control in place as a high risk. We’ve recently seen breaches that were able to happen because the company did not require administrators or DBAs to use a 2-factor authentication into sensitive customer data sources.  In the assessment of a vendor’s security, one has to consider what control objectives to use This situation brings up the issue of risk acceptance. Who in your organisation can accept a high risk? Are you simply doing qualitative risk assessment – high, medium and low risks? Or are you doing true quantitative risk analysis? The latter involves actually quantifying those risks in terms of likelihood and impact of a risk manifesting, and the dollar amount that could impact your organisation.   So is it a million dollars of risk? Who can accept that level of risk? Just the CEO? These are questions we need to entertain in our risk management programs, and socialised within your organisation.  This issue is so important – once we institute risk acceptance, our organisation suddenly starts caring about the vendors and applications we’re looking to engage.  If they are asked to accept a risk without some sort of mitigation, they suddenly care and think about that when they are vetting future outsourced solutions. Quantitative risk analysis involves quantifying risks in terms of likelihood and impact of a risk manifesting Risk management process  In this discussion, it is important to understand how we think of, and present, the gaps we identify in our risk management processes. A gap is not a risk. If I leave my front door unlocked, is that a control gap or a risk? It is a gap – an unlocked door. What is the risk?  The risk is the loss of property due to a burglary or the loss of life due to a violent criminal who got in because the door was unlocked. When we present risks, we can’t say the vendor doesn’t encrypt data. The risk of the lack of encryption is fines, loss of reputation, etc. due to the breach of data. A gap is not a risk.  Once we’ve conducted our risk analysis, we must then ensure that our contracts protect our organisation? If we’re in healthcare, we must determine if the vendor is, in fact, a true HIPAA Business Associate, and if so we get a Business Associate Agreement (BAA) in place. I also require my organisation to attach an IT Security Amendment to these contracts. The IT Security Amendment spells out those control objectives, and requires each vendor to sign off on those critical controls. We are responsible for protecting our organisation’s IT and data infrastructure – today that often means assessing a 3rd-party’s security controls One final note on risk assessments – we need to tier our vendors. We tier them in different ways – in healthcare a Tier 1 vendor is a vendor who will have our patient information on the Internet. Tiering allows us to subject our vendors to re-assessment. A tier 1 vendor should be re-assessed annually, and may require an actual onsite assessment vs. a desk audit. A tier 2 vendor is re-assessed every 2 years, etc. We are responsible for protecting our organisation’s IT and data infrastructure – today that often means assessing a 3rd-party’s security controls. We must be able to fully assess our vendors while not getting in the way of the business, which needs to ensure proper operations, financial productivity and customer satisfaction. If we truly understand our challenge of vendor risk management, we can tailor our operations to assess at the level needed, identify and report on risks, and follow-up on any risks that needed mitigated.