Where does CTI data come from?
Purveyors of CTI collect and analyze data from data sources. There are many potential sources of data that CTI providers can use. For example, data on malware threats can come from anti-malware products and services running on endpoints, networks, email servers, web browsers, cloud services, honey pots, etc. Data on weak, leaked, and stolen credentials can come not only from identity providers like Microsoft Azure Active Directory, Google’s identity offerings, and Okta, but also from monitoring illicit forums where such credentials are bought and sold. Data on social engineering attacks can come from phishing and spam filtering services, as well as social networking services.
There is also Open Source Threat Intelligence (OSINT) that leverages publicly available data sources such as social media, news feeds, court filings and arrest records, attackers’ disclosed information on their victims, activity in illicit forums, and many others. OSINT can help defenders in at least a couple of ways. First, it can help notify you that your IT environment has been compromised. Observing attackers offering your data for sale or chattering about illicit access to your network can be leading indicators of a breach that has gone undetected. Another way many organizations use OSINT is for researching attackers and the tactics they use.
Of course, attackers can use OSINT to research and perform reconnaissance on their potential targets. There are a plethora of tools to help find OSINT including Maltego, Shodan, theHarvester, and many others.
Purveyors of CTI can use data sources that they own and operate, CTI data procured from third parties, and OSINT data sources. For example, anti-malware vendors that operate their own research and response labs collect malware for analysis and operate various anti-malware offerings. Their customers agree to submit malware samples that they encounter, and the vendors’ products and services generate data from detections, installation blocking, and disinfections in the course of operating. All this data can be collected, aggregated, and analyzed to provide the vendor insight into how their products and services are operating and steer future research and response activities and investments.
Many vendors also publish threat intelligence reports and provide CTI to their customers via web portals and emails, but also integrate it into APIs, products, and services. Examples of vendors that do this include CrowdStrike, Google, Mandiant, McAfee, Microsoft, Recorded Future, Sophos, Symantec, and many others. They do this to share their CTI and help organizations understand what is happening in the threat landscape. But they also do this to generate new business by demonstrating the breadth and depth of their CTI. Many vendors like to claim they provide better visibility than their competitors, and thus better protection from threats. This is where scale can be a differentiator.
When I worked at Microsoft, some anti-malware vendors would make claims like this. However, hundreds of millions of Windows users around the world agreed to share threat data with Microsoft. Layer in data from web browsers, the Bing internet search engine, the world’s most popular productivity suite, and enterprise identity products and services, and the CTI generated is impressive. This massive reach enabled Microsoft to develop an excellent understanding of the global threat landscape and share it with their customers via the SIR, blogs, whitepapers, products, services, and APIs. I demonstrate the reach of such data sources, in detail, in Chapter 4, The Evolution of Malware.
Some CTI vendors differentiate themselves not necessarily by scale, but by the quality of their data and analysis. They are able to correlate data they have to specific industries and to specific customers within those industries and provide more actionable insights than high-level, anonymized, global trends will typically enable.
For example, if I’m a CISO of an organization in the healthcare industry, I am likely interested in CTI from a vendor that really understands my industry and its unique challenges and has data on attackers and their attacks in the healthcare industry, and in the geographic locations my organization does business. This combination will help me understand the threats specifically impacting my industry and better prepare for them in a healthcare context that potentially includes heavy regulation, a big focus on patient privacy, expensive equipment certification requirements, and risk to human life. I’m always looking for insights into what other organizations similar to mine are doing to protect, detect, and respond to these threats. This information will inform some of my efforts and make it easier to convince the business I support to provide the budget and resources I need.
Some CTI vendors tout their abilities to perform attribution and their knowledge of nation-state attackers. They have coined sometimes fun, but always intriguing names for such attack groups. Examples include Lazarus Group, Sandworm Team, PHOSPHORUS, and many others. It can be very interesting to get some insight into how well-funded attackers operate. It doesn’t take long for other attackers to try to mimic the tactics and techniques that the professionals use once they are revealed via CTI. In this way, nation-state threat actors have been lowering the barrier to entry for criminals for decades. However, in my experience advising many organizations over the years, the threat of nation-state actors can skew the approach security teams take in a way that isn’t helpful. Focusing on threat actors that potentially have unlimited resources (governments can print money) can distract CISOs and security teams from focusing on the cybersecurity fundamentals. After all, no matter how well funded attackers are, they will use one or more of the Cybersecurity Usual Suspects to initially compromise their target’s IT environment, just like common criminals will. CISOs need to ask themselves, “Do we really need to be concerned with these nation-state threat actors now or do we have more fundamental challenges to address first?” After all, becoming excellent at the cybersecurity fundamentals will drive down the ROI for all potential threat actors that target your organization.
Don’t get me wrong, I have talked with plenty of security teams at public sector and private sector organizations where paying attention to nation-state threat actors is not optional due to their organizations’ own charters or the intellectual property they possess. But even in these cases, focusing on the cybersecurity fundamentals can pay big dividends.
