Integrating Attack Simulation with Intelligence to Provide Actionable Outcomes with CrossCountry Consulting

In Episode 84 of TheCyber5, we are joined by members of the CrossCountry Consulting team:  Brian Chamberlain, Offensive R&D Lead, Eric Eames, Associate Director, and Gary Barnabo, Director, Cyber and Privacy. 

Here are five topics we discuss in this episode:

• Adversary Emulation vs. Simulation and Use of Threat Intelligence

Replaying attacks from adversaries is considered adversary emulation. The pros of emulation are you can react and defend against threat intelligence and the actual techniques during a penetration test. The cons are that many times these are yesterday’s threats. Simulation is the art of coming up with new attack vectors with nuanced penetration testers. The pros are that these attacks give blue teams new ways to think ahead and adapt their defenses before threat actors do. The cons are that these attacks aren’t yet in the wild and the probability of such attacks are not known. 

• Values of Threat Intelligence with Red Teams

Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) are immediately relevant with something that is actionable even though the value of IOCs is overcome by events (OBE) in hours. Threat intelligence IOCs are not relevant to heuristics of sophisticated adversaries and that is what sophisticated adversary simulation and threat intelligence combined attempts to overcome. For example, if an enterprise can defend against Malicious HTML Applications (HTAs), that protects them against any sort of adversary using that vector. Another example would be to have a simulated ransomware event, based on threat intel, that drops in several places and simulates everything that six different ransomware families would do (up until encryption). 

• Tools Are Not Enough

Enterprises struggle to defend if a security product does not catch an actor in the environment nor how to react in a way that forensically preserves the attacker’s initial access vector. Training incident response and conducting external threat hunting are critical elements to defend and react when an attacker creates a new way to penetrate an environment. 

• Satisfying a Chief Financial Officer’s Appetite for Security

In today’s information technology environments, CFOs need to be conversant in cyber security, not experts. Some considerations should be:

1. A considerable accountability on security tooling needs to be considered by CFOs because there is an overconsumption of tooling that simply does not make an impact. 
2. Further, corporate development, merger and acquisition strategy, and payments to vendors, are critical business aspects a CFO should be concerned to protect.
3. A CFO should be empowered to initiate a penetration test unbeknownst to the security team. Adversary simulations are often highly political as a result but this kind of dialogue is beneficial for understanding incident response preparation and threat intelligence of how to defend against certain threat actors. 
4. If a company is in growth mode and over $1B in annual revenue, and if IT cannot integrate acquisitions quick enough, more should be spent on security. If a company is in profitability mode, streamlining security is probably more important. If companies are under $1B in annual revenue, spending on security is always challenging and managed services and consulting come more into play. 

• Benchmarks Can Be Challenging

Many companies want benchmarks on how they stack up to industry peers. Every company is different and no two environments are the same so stacking up against industries like third party risk “scores” is challenging and not advisable.