Blog
/

Thought Leadership

/
December 13, 2022

Five Cyber Security Predictions for 2023

Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
13
Dec 2022
This blog walks through five key trends we expect to observe in the cyber threat and cyber defense landscape in the next 12 months.

2022 Cyber Security Reflection

As 2022 draws to a close, we reflect on a cyber security landscape shaped by a partial return to office but with a wide acceptance of hybrid and flexible working, as well zero-trust principles becoming mainstream, increasingly complex digital landscapes, and a geopolitical situation marred by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

These new challenges have been accompanied by more familiar threats vectors, with ransomware remaining rampant, and the growing commercial availability of offensive cyber tools leading a persistent stream of low-sophistication cyber crime becoming a thorn in the side of CISOs and security teams.

But the cyber landscape is constantly changing, and in what follows, we look at five key predictions, pulled from a range of analysts and experts across the Darktrace team, that we expect to see emerge in 2023.

1)  Attacker tradecraft centers on identity and MFA

It wasn’t just the recent Uber attack in which the victim’s Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) was compromised; at the core of the vast majority of cyber incidents is the theft and abuse of legitimate credentials. In the case of Uber, we saw that MFA can be defeated, and with Okta, that the MFA companies themselves become targets – potentially as a mechanism to reduce its effectiveness in other customer environments. 

Once considered a ‘silver bullet’ in the fight against credential stuffing, it hasn’t taken attackers long to find and exploit weaknesses in MFA and they will continue to do so in 2023. MFA will remain critical to basic cyber hygiene, but it will cease to be seen as a stand-alone ‘set and forget’ solution. Questions around accessibility and usability continue to dominate the MFA discussion and will only be amplified by increases in cloud and SaaS along with the dissolution of traditional on-prem networks. 

Today and in the future, MFA should be viewed as one component of a wider zero trust architecture, one where behavior-based analytics are central to understanding employee behavior and authenticating the actions taken using certain credentials. 

2) Continued ‘hacktivism’  

Hacktivism from non-state actors complicates cyber attribution and security strategies. The so-called ‘vigilante’ approach to cyber geopolitics is on the rise. Recent attacks launched by groups such as Killnet, though limited in their operational impact, have not failed in their aim to dominate global headlines in light of the Russo-Ukraine conflict, mounting concerns that these citizen-led operations could become more destructive or that states could use these groups as a deniable proxy.

Yet claims that ‘Russia’ launched these attacks can be misleading and add fuel to an already complicated political fire. Cyber attribution and deciphering the extent of state-level tasking is difficult, with blurred lines between state-aligned, state-involved and state-directed increasing the risk of escalation, collateral and misattribution. 

In 2023, ‘knowing thy enemy’ in cyber will be more complicated than ever before – but it is critical that organizations remain aware of the realities of cyber risk and cease to focus on the ‘boogie man’ of the internet that features in sensationalist reporting. Persistent, widely available, lower-sophistication malware and run-of-the-mill phishing campaigns statistically remain a greater global risk to corporations than the newest, most devious exploit kit or ransomware typically associated with APT groups. As it gets harder to name the enemy, we should see organizations moving away from the headlines and towards ensuring operational stability based on a bespoke understanding of their unique risk profile.

3) Crypto-jacking neglect gets dangerous

The hijacking of computer resources to mine cryptocurrencies is one of the fastest growing types of cyber-threats globally. These attacks are often overlooked as unthreatening ‘background noise’, but the reality is that any crypto-mining infection can turn into ransomware, data exfiltration or even an entry point for a human-driven attack at the snap of a finger. 

To achieve the scale of deployment that crypto-jackers are looking for, illegitimate network access must have been enabled by something relatively low-cost – a pervasive software vulnerability or default, weak or otherwise compromised credentials. This means that the basics aren't being done right somewhere, and if a crypto-jacker could do it, what's stopping a ransomware actor from following the same path? 

In 2023, crypto-jackers will get more savvy and we might start to see the detrimental effects of what is usually considered inevitable or negligible. Security leaders need to ask themselves: “How did this person get in?” – and shore up the easiest points of entry into their organization. 

Companies should not live with rogue software and hackers siphoning off their resources – particularly as rising energy prices will mean a greater financial loss is incurred as a result of illicit crypto-mining. 

4) Ransomware rushes to the cloud

Ransomware attacks are ever-evolving, and as cloud adoption and reliance continue to surge, attackers will continue to follow the data. In 2023, we are likely to see an increase in cloud-enabled data exfiltration in ransomware scenarios in lieu of encryption. 

Third-party supply chains offer those with criminal intent with more places to hide and targeting cloud providers instead of a single organization gives attackers more bang for their buck. Attackers may even get creative by threatening third-party cloud providers – a tactic which already impacted the education sector in early October when the Vice Society ransomware gang blackmailed Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD), the second largest school district in the US, and published highly sensitive information, including bank details and psychological health reports of students on the darknet. 

5) Proactive security 

The recession requires CISOs to get frank with the board about proactive security measuers. Cyber security is a boardroom issue, but with growing economic uncertainty, organizations are being forced to make tough decisions as they plan 2023 budgets. 

Rising cyber insurance premiums are one thing, but as more underwriters introduce exclusions for cyber-attacks attributed to nation-states, organizations will struggle to see the value in such high premiums. Both insurance and compliance have long been seen as ways of ticking the ‘protection’ checkbox without achieving true operational assurance, and we need look no further than Colonial Pipeline to see that insurance cannot compensate for long-term business disruption and reputational damage. 

In 2023, CISOs will move beyond just insurance and checkbox compliance to opt for more proactive cyber security measures in order to maximize ROI in the face of budget cuts, shifting investment into tools and capabilities that continuously improve their cyber resilience. With human-driven means of ethical hacking, pen-testing and red teaming remaining scarce and expensive as a resource, CISOs will turn to AI-driven methods to proactively understand attack paths, augment red team efforts, harden environments and reduce attack surface vulnerability. Maturity models and end-to-end solutions will also be critical, as well as frank communication between CISOs and the board about the efficacy of continuously testing defenses in the background.

Inside the SOC
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
Author
Toby Lewis
Head of Threat Analysis

Prior to joining Darktrace, Toby spent 15 years in the UK Government’s cyber security threats response unit, including as the UK National Cyber Security Centre’s Deputy Technical Director for Incident Management. He has specialist expertise in Security Operations, having worked across Cyber Threat Intelligence, Incident Management, and Threat Hunting. He has presented at several high-profile events, including the NCSC’s flagship conference, CyberUK, the SANS CyberThreat conference, and the Cheltenham Science Festival. He was a lead contributor to the first CyberFirst Girls Competition, championing greater gender diversity in STEM and cyber security. Toby is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) and holds a Master’s in Engineering from the University of Bristol.

Book a 1-1 meeting with one of our experts
Share this article

More in this series

No items found.

Blog

/

November 7, 2024

/

Inside the SOC

Onomastics Gymnastics: How Darktrace Detects Spoofing and Business Email Compromise in Multi-Name Users

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Note: For privacy reasons, actual surnames and email addresses observed in these incidents below have been replaced with fictitious placeholder names, using the common Spanish names “Fulano” and “Mengano”.

Naming conventions

Modeling names and their variants of members of an organization is a critical component to properly detect if those same names and variants are being spoofed by malicious actors. For many predominantly English-speaking organizations, these variants can largely be captured by variants of a person’s given name (e.g. James-Jimmy-Jim) and a consistent, singular surname or family name (e.g. Smith). Naming conventions, however, are far from universal. This piece will review how Darktrace / EMAIL manages the common naming conventions of much of the Spanish-speaking world, and can use its modeling to create high-fidelity detections of multiple types of spoofing attempts.

A brief summary of the common convention across Spain and much of Spanish-speaking America: most people are given one or two given names (e.g. Roberto, Juan, María, Natalia), and their surnames are the first surname of their father, followed by the first surname of their mother. While there are various exceptions to this norm, the below graphic Wikipedia [1][2] highlights the general rule.

Example Spanish naming convention for father “José García Torres” and mother “María Acosta Gómez” for child “Pablo García Acosta”. If shortened to one surname, the convention holds the child would be referred to as “Pablo García”
Figure 1: Example Spanish naming convention for father “José García Torres” and mother “María Acosta Gómez” for child “Pablo García Acosta”. If shortened to one surname, the convention holds the child would be referred to as “Pablo García” [1].

Detection of improper name usage

Implicit in the above comment that shortening to one surname follows the convention of using the first surname, shortening to the second surname is often a tell-tale sign of someone unfamiliar with the person or their broader culture. This can be a useful corroborating feature in detecting a spoof attempt – analogous to a spelling error.

In the case of a Spanish customer, this misuse of name shortening contributed to the detection of a spoof attempt trying to solicit a response by impersonating an internal user forwarding information about ‘Data Protection’.

Figure 2: The Cyber AI Analyst summary of the Darktrace / EMAIL detections shows the use of the Gmail sender impersonating Isabel Maria Fulano Mengano, but incorrectly uses the second surname Mengano.

While the limited communication history from the sender and the nature of the text content already marks the mail as suspicious, Darktrace / EMAIL notes the personal name used in the email is similar to a high-value user (‘whale’ to use the terminology of spearphishing). The additional context provided by the detection of the attempted spoof prompted more severe actioning of this email, leading to a ‘Hold’ action instead of a less-severe ‘Unspoof’ action via a banner on the email.

The content summary of the sender showing the ‘Personal’ field of the email being ‘Isabel Mengano’, breaking from the standard name-shortening convention. The additional metrics identify features that might be anomalous about the sender.
Figure 3: The content summary of the sender showing the ‘Personal’ field of the email being ‘Isabel Mengano’, breaking from the standard name-shortening convention. The additional metrics identify features that might be anomalous about the sender.

Malicious email properly using both surnames

Misusing the name-shortening convention is not the only way that Darktrace / EMAIL can detect spoofing attempts. In the case of another Spanish customer,  Darktrace observed a whale impersonation being sent to 230 users with solicitation content, but no links or attachments. Although the name was modeled internally in the “Surname, Given-name” format, Darktrace identified the spoofing attempt targeting a high-value user and took action, blocking the series of emails from reaching end-user inboxes to prevent unsuspecting users from responding.

Cyber AI Analyst summary of a suspicious email
Figure 4: Cyber AI Analyst summary of a suspicious email. The personal field is visible as ‘juan fulano mengano’, which is consistent with the reverse-order modelled user ‘fulano mengano, juan’. The subject line ‘Urgent Request’ sent to 230 users gives an intuitive indicator of the emails potentially being part of a malicious solicitation campaign.

In Summary: A case of onomastics gymnastics

The variety in valid usage of human language can be a barrier to evaluating when a given text is benign or malicious. Despite this, Darktrace / EMAIL is designed to manage this variety, as exemplified by the detections of two spoofing attempts seen against organizations using the distinct Spanish-speaking world’s common naming convention. The scope of this design as seen in this onomastic context, extends to a wide range of detections surrounding emails and their behavioral anomalies.

Credit to Roberto Romeu (Principal Cyber Analyst), Justin Torres (Senior Cyber Analyst) and Natalia Sánchez Rocafort (Senior Analyst Consultant).

Darktrace / Email solution brief screenshot

Secure Your Inbox with Cutting-Edge AI Email Protection

Discover the most advanced cloud-native AI email security solution to protect your domain and brand while preventing phishing, novel social engineering, business email compromise, account takeover, and data loss.

  • Gain up to 13 days of earlier threat detection and maximize ROI on your current email security
  • Experience 20-25% more threat blocking power with Darktrace / EMAIL
  • Stop the 58% of threats bypassing traditional email security

References

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_customs_of_Hispanic_America

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_naming_customs

Continue reading
About the author
Roberto Romeu
Senior SOC Analyst

Blog

/

October 31, 2024

/

OT

Understanding the NERC-CIP015 Internal Network Security Monitoring (INSM) Requirements

Default blog imageDefault blog image

Background: NERC CIP-015

In January of 2023 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) released FERC Order 887 which addresses a critical security gap in Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards, the lack of internal network security monitoring (INSM).

The current NERC CIP standards only require solutions that use traditional detection systems that identify malicious code based on known rules and signatures. The new legislation will now require electric cooperatives to implement INSMs to detect malicious activity in east-west network traffic. INSMs establish a baseline of network activity and detect anomalies that would bypass traditional detection systems, improving an organization’s ability to detect novel threats. Without INSM, organizations have limited visibility into malicious activities inside their networks, leaving them vulnerable if attackers breach initial defenses like firewalls and anti-virus software.

Implementation of NERC CIP-015

Once approved, Bulk Electronic Systems (BESs) will have 36 months to implement INSM, and medium-impact BESs with external routable connectivity (ERC) will have 60 months to do so.

While the approval of the NERC CIP-015 requirements have not been finalized, preparation on the part of electric cooperatives should start as soon as possible. Darktrace is committed to helping electric cooperatives meet the requirements for INSM and help reach compliance standards.

Why is internal network security monitoring important?

NERC CIP-015 aims to enhance the detection of anomalies or unauthorized network activity within CIP environments, underscoring the importance of monitoring East-West traffic within trust zones. This approach enables faster response and recovery times.

INSMs are essential to detecting threats that bypass traditional defenses. For example, insider threats, sophisticated new attack techniques, and threats that exploit compromised credentials—such as those obtained through phishing or other malicious activities—can easily bypass traditional firewalls and antivirus software. These threats either introduce novel methods or leverage legitimate access, making them difficult to detect.

INSMs don’t rely on rules and signatures to detect anomalous activity, they spot abnormalities in network traffic and create alerts based on this activity making them vital to detecting sophisticated threats. Additionally, INSM sits behind the firewall and provides detections utilizing the passive monitoring of east west and north south traffic within the enforcement boundary.

Buyers should be aware of the discrepancies between different INSMs. Some systems require constant tuning and updating, external connectivity forcing holes in segmentation or have intrusive deployments that put sensitive OT assets at risk.

What are the NERC CIP-015 requirements?

The goal of this directive is to ensure that cyber threats are identified early in the attack lifecycle by mandating implementation of security systems that detect and speed up mitigation of malicious activity.

The requirements are divided into three sections:

  • Network security monitoring
  • Data retention for anomalous activity
  • Data protection

NERC CIP-015 emphasizes the importance of having documented processes and evidence of implementation, with a focus on risk-based monitoring, anomaly detection, evaluation, retention of data, and protection against unauthorized access. Below is a breakdown of each requirement.

R1: Network Security Monitoring

The NERC CIP-015 requires the implementation of and a documented process for monitoring networks within Electronic Security Perimeters (ESPs) that contain high and medium impact BES Cyber Systems.

Key parts:

Part 1.1: Use a risk-based rationale to implement network data feeds that monitor connections, devices, and communications.

Part 1.2: Detect anomalous network activity using the data feeds.

Part 1.3: Evaluate the anomalous activity to determine necessary actions.

M1: Evidence for R1 Implementation: Documentation of processes, including risk-based rationale for data collection, detection events, configuration settings, and network baselines.

Incorporating automated solutions for network baselining is essential for effective internal monitoring, especially in diverse environments like substations and control centers. Each environment requires unique baselines—what’s typical for a substation may differ significantly from a control center, making manual monitoring impractical.

A continuous internal monitoring solution powered by artificial intelligence (AI) simplifies this challenge by instantly detecting all connected assets, dynamically learning the environment’s baseline behavior, and identifying anomalies in real-time. Unlike traditional methods, Darktrace’s AI-driven approach requires no external connectivity or repeated tuning, offering a seamless, adaptive solution for maintaining secure operations across all environments.

R2: Data Retention for Anomalous Activity

Documented processes must be in place to retain network security data related to detected anomalies until the required actions are completed.

Note: Data that does not relate to detected anomalies (Part 1.2) is not required to be retained.

M2: Evidence for Data Retention (R2): Documentation of data retention processes, system configurations, or reports showing compliance with R2.

R3: Data Protection: Implement documented processes to protect the collected security monitoring data from unauthorized deletion or modification.

M3: Evidence for Data Protection (R3): Documentation demonstrating how network security monitoring data is protected from unauthorized access or changes.

How to choose the right INSM for your organization?

Several vendors will offer INSM, but how do you choose the right solution for your organization?

Here are seven questions to help you get started evaluating potential INSM vendors:

  1. How does the solution help with ongoing compliance and reporting including CIP-015? Or any other regulations we comply with?
  2. Does the solution provide real-time monitoring of east-west traffic across critical systems? And what kind of threats has it proven capable of finding?
  3. How deep is the traffic visibility—does it offer Layer 7 (application) insights, or is it limited to Layers 3-4?
  4. Is the solution compatible with our existing infrastructure (firewalls, IDS/IPS, SIEM, OT networks)?
  5. Is this solution inline, passive, or hybrid? What impact will it have on network latency?
  6. Does the vendor have experience with electric utilities or critical infrastructure environments?
  7. Where and how are logs and monitoring data stored?

How Darktrace helps electric utilities with INSM requirements

Darktrace's ActiveAI Security Platform is uniquely designed to continuously monitor network activity and detect anomalous activity across both IT and OT environments successfully detecting insider threats and novel ransomware, while accelerating time to detection and incident reporting.

Most INSM solutions require repeated baselining, which creates more work and increases the likelihood of false positives, as even minor deviations trigger alerts. Since networks are constantly changing, baselines need to adjust in real time. Unlike these solutions, Darktrace does not depend on external connectivity or cloud access over the public internet. Our passive network analysis requires no agents or intrusive scanning, minimizing disruptions and reducing risks to OT systems.

Darktrace's AI-driven threat detection, asset management, and incident response capabilities can help organizations comply with the requirements of NERC CIP-015 for internal network security monitoring and data protection. Built specifically to deploy in OT environments, Darktrace / OT comprehensively manages, detects, evaluates, and protects network activity and anomalous events across IT and OT environments, facilitating adherence to regulatory requirements like data retention and anomaly management.

See how INSM with Darktrace can enhance your security operations, schedule a personalized demo today.

Disclaimer

The information provided in this blog is intended for informational purposes only and reflects Darktrace’s understanding of the NERC CIP-015 INSM requirements as of the publication date. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the content, Darktrace makes no warranties or representations regarding its accuracy, completeness, or applicability to specific situations. This blog does not constitute legal or compliance advice and readers are encouraged to consult with qualified professionals for guidance specific to their circumstances. Darktrace disclaims any liability for actions taken or not taken based on the information contained herein.

References

1.     https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/CIP-015-1.pdf

Continue reading
About the author
Daniel Simonds
Director of Operational Technology
Your data. Our AI.
Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI