|
|
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
| Defining Information
Threats |
| Felix Mohan, CEO
- SecureSynergy |
| Posted on 31 Oct
2003 |
| |
| |
|
Enterprise Information Infrastructures have
become critical 'centres of gravity'. A collapse of the information
infrastructure can lead to collapse of the enterprise. This
makes them attractive targets for potential adversaries.
Potential adversaries could either be malicious or non-malicious.
Among the malicious adversaries are nation states, hackers
(including phreakers, crackers, trashers, and pirates), terrorists/cyber-terrorists,
organized crime, other criminal elements, industrial competitors,
and disgruntled employees. On the other hand, careless or
poorly trained employees are non-malicious adversaries, who,
either through lack of training, lack of concern, or lack
of attentiveness pose a threat to information systems.
Adversaries employ attack techniques that could be classified
under passive, active, insider, close-in or distribution attacks.
Passive attacks involve passive monitoring of communications
sent over public media, and include monitoring plaintext,
decrypting weakly encrypted traffic, password sniffing, and
traffic analysis. Countermeasures against these attacks include
the use of VPNs, cryptographically protected networks, and
use of protected distribution networks (e.g. physically protected/alarmed
wire-line distribution network).
|
| |
| Active
attacks include attempts to: |
 |
Circumvent or break security features |
 |
Introduce malicious code (such as computer
viruses) |
 |
Subvert data or system integrity |
 |
Modify data in transit |
 |
Replay (insertion of data) |
 |
Hijack sessions |
 |
Masquerade as authorised user |
 |
Exploit vulnerabilities in software that
runs with system privileges |
 |
Exploit network trust |
 |
Insert and exploit malicious code (Trojans,
backdoors, virus, worms etc) |
 |
Set in denial of service |
|
| |
| Typical
countermeasures include: |
 |
Strong enclave boundary protection (e.g.,
firewalls and guards) |
 |
Access control based on authenticated identities
for network management interactions |
 |
Protected remote access |
 |
Quality security administration |
 |
Automated virus detection tools |
 |
Audit |
 |
Intrusion detection |
|
| |
|
In close-in attacks an unauthorized individual
gains close physical proximity to networks, systems, or facilities
for the purpose of modifying, gathering, or denying access
to, information. Gaining such proximity is accomplished through
surreptitious entry, open access, or both. Close-in attacks
include modification of data, information gathering, system
tampering, and physical destruction of the local system.
A person who either is authorized to be within the physical
boundaries of the information security processing system or
has direct access to the information security processing system
performs insider attacks. Insider attacks can be malicious,
and non-malicious (caused due to carelessness or ignorance
of the user). The non-malicious case is considered an attack
because of the security consequences of the user's action.
Insider attacks are often the most difficult to detect and
to defend against. Sources of insider attacks can include
maintenance staff working during after-working hours, authorized
(privileged to login) system users, and system administrators
with malicious intent. Often it is difficult to prevent individuals
who have legitimate access to a system from transgressing
into more private areas where they have no authorization.
Insider attacks may focus on compromise of data or access
and can include modification of system protection measures.
A malicious insider may use covert channels to signal private
information outside of an otherwise protected network.
Distribution attacks maliciously modify hardware or software
between the time of its production by a developer and its
installation, or when it is in transit from one site to another.
These attacks, that include chipping, are usually complex
requiring industry-government collusion, and are used as information
warfare initiatives by nation states.
Considering the myriad of techniques that potential adversaries
have at their disposal to cause harm; and considering the
inexorable increase in the dependency of business processes
on information systems, implementing robust information security
controls in the enterprise is no longer a matter of choice!
|
| |
| |
| |
| Posted on 31 Oct
2003 |
| |
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
REPRINT INFORMATION
The above article may be reproduced in its entirety
in any medium on the condition that the content remains
unaltered (including author credit) and the following
line is displayed prominently as a link
"Content courtesy: www.securesynergy.com".
Please fill the 'Request for Reprint' form by
clicking here.
|
|
| |
| |
| |
 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|