[BreachExchange] The 3 hidden costs of incident response
audrey at riskbasedsecurity.com
Thu May 10 19:05:21 EDT 2018
Even for well-run security organizations, justifying expenditures can be
Sometimes it takes a significant event – the proverbial learning moment –
before security teams see a needed increase in budget for staff, training
and tools. This happens because it’s straightforward to analyze the costs
to a business stemming from a breach that causes an outage, loss of data,
or even adversely impacts a stock price.
However, there are many hidden costs to cybersecurity. Sometimes these are
overlooked because they are harder to quantify but illuminating these costs
can go a long way to helping justify security budgets. In the process, we
hope we avoid a disastrous incident and the high cost of a breach
Here’s a look at the three hidden costs of incident response.
1. The cost of false positives
Most security organizations rely on security scanning tools to generate
alerts, which requires investigation by the incident response team.
Historically signatures were the primary means of detection and were
reliable and accurate.
That’s clearly changed, as threats have become more sophisticated, they are
capable of morphing and slipping past signature defenses. As a result,
detection techniques evolved and now include the added protection of
Behavior-based detection alone isn’t a panacea because it’s prone
false-positives – alerts for behaviors that are suspicious, but not
necessarily malicious. Naturally, most security organizations would prefer
this sensitivity to suspicious behavior, versus permitting the occasional
threat to pass.
Still, the activity of sorting through suspicious alerts takes up time and
effort – and may distract from examining the truly malicious alerts. This
drags on security efficiency and inhibits optimal organizational
performance, which bears a cost.
2. The cost of trivial-true positives
Like false positives, a trivial-true positive is an alert that is
technically correct but largely irrelevant. For example, a detection system
may trigger an alert over an email attachment that contains a 10-year-old
virus. It is technically correct. However, if your system is updated to
Windows 10, and has an even moderately updated virus scanner, the chances
of this becoming a serious problem is low.
Unfortunately, trivial-true positives can sometimes be more disruptive than
false positives. This is because determining the context to properly triage
these is time-consuming. In my experience, a trivial true positive take
upwards of two or three times longer to triage than a false positive.
3. The costs of discovery dwell time
Dwell time is the period between the time of the attack, breach, or
compromise – and the time of detection. Each minute that occurs from that
moment of the attack provides the adversary the opportunity to:
- Perform reconnaissance;
- Spread laterally;
- Establish a wider foothold to prevent eradication;
- Encrypt data;
- Exfiltrate data; and
- Vandalize the network and potentially cause costly damage.
This is a problem because, as a recent study indicated, attacks often exist
for upwards of 90 days or longer before they are detected. As an adversary
on your network, there is little that they couldn’t do in that time frame.
As a result, dwell time is inextricably linked to false positives and
trivial-true positives. Every moment wasted investigating erroneous alerts
contributes to the length of time it takes to discover actual hidden
threats on your network. Time wasted on these pursuits is time that could
be spent reacting to actual threats, proactively scoping threats or even
hunting down hidden threats.
Strategies to overcome these hidden costs
An analyst survey last year helps to place a price tag of some of these
hidden costs context. It found that 60% of financial services organizations
receive 100,000 alerts per day and about half of respondents said just one
in five alerts are related to a unique security event.
If we conservatively estimate it takes 15 minutes to investigate an alert,
assuming the standard 40-hour week, the math works out to hundreds of weeks
of investigatory work that are generated every day. The analyst that
conducted the survey called this “unsustainable” and while the number of
erroneous alerts will vary by vertical market, suffice to say the volume is
Eliminating false positives entirely is probably not realistic, so I
recommend focusing on reducing the false-positive-to-detection and
trivial-true-positive-to-detection ratio. The baseline ratio I’d suggest is
10:1 which means for every 10 alerts identified only one should be
trivial-true positive or false-positive.
Improving that ratio – and reducing the hidden costs – requires an
integrated effort across people, process and technology. Here are several
tips for achieving that goal:
- Audit and discard systems that generate too much distracting noise. Your
team can’t afford to waste their time with them;
- Collect relevant contextual information and have it on hand to better
triage and safely ignore irrelevant alerts;
- Develop methods and train your staff to quickly evaluate events so they
can focus on what is important, and ignore what isn’t;
- Effectively scope actual events to avoid addressing initial targets but
miss potential lateral spread of threats that came along for the ride; and
- Assume that your detection systems have missed something and devote some
amount of time to threat hunting; this can double as a professional
As a community, security tends to think of our challenges in terms of
threats, but costs and budgets merit a place on the list of top challenges.
Every business function seeks to apply finite resources to maximum benefit,
and to do that effectively in security, like threats, requires a keen
understanding of those costs that are known and those that are hiding.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the BreachExchange