Dynamic cyber-incident response

Permission to make digital or hard copies of this publication for internal use within NATO and for personal or educational use when for non-profi t or non-commercial purposes is granted providing that copies bear this notice and a full citation on the first page. Any other reproduction or transmission requires prior written permission by NATO CCD COE.Traditional cyber-incident response models have not changed significantly since the early days of the Computer Incident Response with even the most recent incident response life cycle model advocated by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (Cichonski, Millar, Grance, & Scarfone, 2012) bearing a striking resemblance to the models proposed by early leaders in the field e.g. Carnegie-Mellon University (West-Brown, et al., 2003) and the SANS Institute (Northcutt, 2003). Whilst serving the purpose of producing coherent and effective response plans, these models appear to be created from the perspectives of Computer Security professionals with no referenced academic grounding. They attempt to defend against, halt and recover from a cyber-attack as quickly as possible. However, other actors inside an organisation may have priorities which conflict with these traditional approaches and may ultimately better serve the longer-term goals and objectives of an organisation

Rethinking Security Incident Response: The Integration of Agile Principles

In today's globally networked environment, information security incidents can inflict staggering financial losses on organizations. Industry reports indicate that fundamental problems exist with the application of current linear plan-driven security incident response approaches being applied in many organizations. Researchers argue that traditional approaches value containment and eradication over incident learning. While previous security incident response research focused on best practice development, linear plan-driven approaches and the technical aspects of security incident response, very little research investigates the integration of agile principles and practices into the security incident response process. This paper proposes that the integration of disciplined agile principles and practices into the security incident response process is a practical solution to strengthening an organization's security incident response posture.Comment: Paper presented at the 20th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2014), Savannah, Georgi

Incident Response Practices Across National CSIRTs: Results from an Online Survey

The aim of this study is to obtain operational insights of real-world practices across national CSIRTs, concerning cyber incident reporting channels, ticketing tools, incident classification schemes, and ways to identify appropriate responses. An online survey involving 19 staff members of 17 national CSIRTs was conducted, leading to four major findings. First, multiple reporting channels are provided by national CSIRTs for prompt incident reporting. Second, free and open-source ticketing tools are popular among national CSIRTs for tracking reported incidents. Third, different incident classification schemes are used across national CSIRTs, indicating a lack of standardised approaches that can have important implications (for example, difficulties in cross-CSIRT information sharing). Fourth, for classifying incidents and identifying appropriate responses, manual approaches are used more than automated ones. We conclude that more cross-CSIRT efforts are needed to define a more standardised cyber incident classification scheme, and to develop more automated tools to support national CSIRTs' operations

Enhancing security incident response follow-up efforts with lightweight agile retrospectives

Security incidents detected by organizations are escalating in both scale and complexity. As a result, security incident response has become a critical mechanism for organizations in an effort to minimize the damage from security incidents. The final phase within many security incident response approaches is the feedback/follow-up phase. It is within this phase that an organization is expected to use information collected during an investigation in order to learn from an incident, improve its security incident response process and positively impact the wider security environment. However, recent research and security incident reports argue that organizations find it difficult to learn from incidents. A contributing factor to this learning deficiency is that industry focused security incident response approaches, typically, provide very little practical information about tools or techniques that can be used to extract lessons learned from an investigation. As a result, organizations focus on improving technical security controls and not examining or reassessing the effectiveness or efficiency of internal policies and procedures. An additional hindrance, to encouraging improvement assessments, is the absence of tools and/or techniques that organizations can implement to evaluate the impact of implemented enhancements in the wider organization. Hence, this research investigates the integration of lightweight agile retrospectives and meta-retrospectives, in a security incident response process, to enhance feedback and/or follow-up efforts. The research contribution of this paper is twofold. First, it presents an approach based on lightweight retrospectives as a means of enhancing security incident response follow-up efforts. Second, it presents an empirical evaluation of this lightweight approach in a Fortune 500 Financial organization's security incident response team

Towards Scientific Incident Response

A scientific incident analysis is one with a methodical, justifiable approach to the human decision-making process. Incident analysis is a good target for additional rigor because it is the most human-intensive part of incident response. Our goal is to provide the tools necessary for specifying precisely the reasoning process in incident analysis. Such tools are lacking, and are a necessary (though not sufficient) component of a more scientific analysis process. To reach this goal, we adapt tools from program verification that can capture and test abductive reasoning. As Charles Peirce coined the term in 1900, “Abduction is the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis. It is the only logical operation which introduces any new idea.” We reference canonical examples as paradigms of decision-making during analysis. With these examples in mind, we design a logic capable of expressing decision-making during incident analysis. The result is that we can express, in machine-readable and precise language, the abductive hypotheses than an analyst makes, and the results of evaluating them. This result is beneficial because it opens up the opportunity of genuinely comparing analyst processes without revealing sensitive system details, as well as opening an opportunity towards improved decision-support via limited automation