[BreachExchange] What Do Self-Driving Cars Have to Do with Machine Learning for Cybersecurity?
audrey at riskbasedsecurity.com
Mon May 21 19:30:02 EDT 2018
The global surge in ransomware and zero-day malware has ushered in an
explosion of innovation in the area of machine learning as a cybersecurity
defense strategy. Often used interchangeably with “analytics” and
“artificial intelligence (AI),” the term “machine learning” has also
engendered a great deal of confusion.
In essence, machine learning and analytics transform data into insights
that enable better decision-making. In the cybersecurity realm, these
math-based processes collect and interpret security event data in various
formats from multiple sources with the aim of identifying specific threat
characteristics. Ultimately, machine learning can be summed up in two
words: statistical comparison. Vast amounts of data are churned by
computers using algorithms that compares features. The results of machine
learning-based statistical comparison help security analysts decide whether
something is malicious or benign, determine whether it has the potential to
cause harm, and, if so, take appropriate action.
To clarify exactly how machine learning can facilitate cybersecurity
decision-making, let’s compare autonomous, or self-driving, cars to
malware. Imagine a world where these vehicles are commonplace and could be
misappropriated by criminals to do nefarious deeds, such as kidnap people,
drop off bombs or engage in theft operations. For example, what if an Uber
request was intercepted by a bad actor who sent out a programmable,
driverless car to pick up a passenger and kept the passenger locked in the
vehicle? Let’s add that their mobile phone couldn’t communicate out, so
they were really trapped. How would you track these cars down and keep them
from doing harm?
In our fictitious sphere, we’ll say that all robot cars are manufactured at
the same plant, just as most malware uses the same or similar toolkits. One
of the ways to identify and catch these cars would be to look at static
characteristics—things that criminals are not likely to alter every time
they initiate an attack. These attributes can be determined when the car is
parked—things like the year, make, model, configuration, where and when it
was built, and GPS settings.
Looking at static characteristics won’t allow us to catch all malicious
cars, however. We can gain additional insights from how the programmed car
behaves when it’s in operation. These behaviors may include the
destination, the route it took, whether it picked up or dropped off
passengers or packages, whether it received or sent radio messages, whether
it used radar or a police scanner to evade detection and more.
Getting back to how malware is much like our autonomous car, let’s look at
behaviors that are at the root of today’s stealthiest attacks and pervade
the threat landscape:
- Zero-day, file-based malware can hide using obfuscation, much like
criminals can alter license plates or VIN numbers on robot cars.
- Malware can be sandbox-aware, behaving like cars that use radar or police
- Malware can evade detection by piggybacking on a known clean application,
similar to an autonomous car that hides under a harmless, unsuspecting semi
- Malware can bypass traditional security detection tools by misusing a
legitimate application, which is like reprogramming a benign car to do bad
Machine learning can be used effectively to unmask these malware attacks,
and even limit their impact. It can go a along way toward helping to
separate the good from the bad. A swift-acting, signature-less
machine-learning solution can consistently accomplish this if it has the
- Look at things that do not change.
- Analyze both static and dynamic behavioral features.
- Reveal evasion techniques before or while the malware is on the targeted
- Curb or eliminate damage to endpoints, saving “patient zero,” or the
first machine under attack.
Machine learning can be of great value in our constant struggle to keep
pace with rapidly evolving threats. Our autonomous car analogy clearly
illustrates that there’s a difference between “things you can figure out
when the car isn’t running” and “things you can figure out when the car is
running.” When it comes to catching malware—or our hypothetical, malicious
robot cars—you really need both static detection and dynamic detection. One
without the other can only steer you down the wrong path, and, in today’s
accelerated threat landscape, no one can afford to take unnecessary detours
or end up in a blind alley.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the BreachExchange