In September 2017, Equifax experienced an enormous data breach resulting from a cyberattack, with over 148 million people’s sensitive, personally-identifying information exposed. The hack that impacted Equifax resulted from a “failure to use well-known security best practices and a lack of internal controls and routine security reviews,” wrote Fortune.1
Just a few years before, in 2014, JP Morgan Chase experienced "the largest theft of customer data from a U.S. financial institution in history" up to that date, according to then-US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara.2 This hack was executed by exploiting known vulnerabilities in computer programs used by the company in order to access valuable customer data. As a result of this hack, close to 76 million customers had their sensitive data jeopardized.3
The Equifax and JP Morgan Chase cyberattacks, although extraordinarily large, are just some of a large number of attacks targeted towards financial institutions in recent years. Financial services organizations are, of course, a primary target for cyberattacks. Adversaries are looking to profit from their attacks, and so hacking banks, credit card companies, and other financial institutions is a common goal. As Forbes reported earlier this year, “Cyberattacks cost financial services firms more to address than firms in any other industry,” and “the typical American financial services firm is attacked a staggering 1 billion times per year.”4
As a result, cybersecurity has become an essential part of doing business in the financial services industry. Across the industry firms are stepping up their game when it comes to cybersecurity. These companies are deploying more and more resources towards cutting-edge technologies like machine learning, artificial intelligence, and orchestration.
An important question to consider, though, is to what strategic ends are these cutting-edge technologies being put. Are they simply bolstering traditional methods of cybersecurity, or are they being used for methods of cybersecurity that are new and innovative, instead of simply faster or more efficient versions of the same product?
The Incident Response Approach to Cybersecurity
Traditional cybersecurity approaches are focused on reporting about intrusions after the fact, in what is known as an “incident response.” What this means is that an adversary – commonly referred to as a “hacker” – finds some way to gain access to a target and compromises it. The target can be accessed through vulnerabilities in web frameworks, internet browsers, or internet
infrastructure such as routers and modems. Regardless of how they gain access, once an attacker is discovered, the forensics about the attack, including basic information known as Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) like IP addresses, domain names, or malware hashes, are shared across the cybersecurity community. These IOCs are then used broadly to thwart future attacks.
The problems with this approach are twofold: like a canary in a coalmine, someone has to be a victim first so that IOCs can be derived and shared with others; additionally, blocking IOCs has a very short half-life. Most adversaries subscribe to the very feeds that companies subscribe to in order to quickly learn if they have been exposed. All an adversary has to do is come from a new IP address or recompile their malware so that it has a new hash value (both of which are extremely trivial) and their attacks will sail through defenses that depend on IOCs. This after-the-fact methodology consumes a lot of resources and generates a lot of seemingly valuable metrics, but it is ultimately flawed.
Cybersecurity teams and adversaries are trapped in an endless loop where the adversary always has the advantage. As hackers repeatedly gain access to valuable systems and data using the same methods, cybersecurity teams continue to chase after them to secure compromised systems. While a great deal of effort is put towards understanding as much as possible about the adversary and his methods, only a small amount of that understanding is used, and only to perform the very basic actions described above. Adversaries continue to play chess, strategizing about how to slip past cybersecurity teams unnoticed, while those same teams act as though the game is more like tic-tac-toe. Very little cybersecurity effort is put towards addressing the methods used by adversaries; instead, security teams are locked in a pattern of waiting for inevitable attacks, trying to minimize the damage they cause, ensuring that remediation occurs as quickly as possible, and blocking only exactly identical attacks.
Planning for the Future of Cybersecurity
As is readily apparent, these current, standard methods of cybersecurity are fundamentally flawed. Incident response only helps prevent attacks that exactly replicate past ones. To stem the flow of cyberattacks and to truly protect against them, the cybersecurity industry needs to embrace a paradigm shift. Rather than rely solely on the incident response and recovery methods that have been used for many years, a more proactive, sophisticated approach is needed. It will need to be designed to successfully recognize adversary methodology (and all the manners in which an adversary attempts to obfuscate their methodology) before attacks occur and at a meaningful scale. This kind of approach, when paired with incident response tactics, could provide true security to vulnerable, critical networks.
If the cybersecurity world wants to halt dangerous, costly attacks, there is a great need to shift attention towards prevention. Instead of seeking discrete, static IoCs based solely on what has already occurred, proactive cybersecurity analysts can instead use the intelligence they have derived about adversaries’ methodologies – commonly referred to as tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP). From these TTPs, analysts can identify the general form and components of an adversary campaign. In addition, they can determine abstract indicators like how the adversary is attempting to hide his actions. A proactive cybersecurity tool would be able to
recognize possible adversary TTPs and indicators that describe a threat (or threatening behavior) in general terms. The system would then act on any traffic which met this pattern before it reaches inside a network, as the attack occurs, and do so in a way invisible to adversaries. Using this basic model, a cybersecurity tool could truly prevent common exploits before they were executed, and could even predict and protect against future, not yet seen exploits. In addition, this prevention plus response method of cybersecurity enables teams to truly take advantage of new, cutting-edge technologies in ways that change the game, instead of simply adding speed (and cost).
A TTP-based cybersecurity tool would work in concert with existing incident response, internally-focused cybersecurity efforts, adding a layer of prevention over the top of this vital but flawed process.
With these two methods employed hand-in-hand, cybersecurity teams can make headway in reducing the number of attacks, and can more quickly and productively respond to attacks that do prove effective.
Megan Berkowitz is a writer and researcher based in the United States
- The Fintech Capital: UK vs US
- Lessons Learned: What Other Countries Can Teach the U.S. About Open Banking
- What Bankers Can Learn From Voice Assistants
- Cybersecurity Start-Up Secures $23 Million in Funding Led by Intel Capital
- Banks and Other Financial Corporations Provide Double the Pension Contributions of Other Industries