The cybersecurity industry has spent a lot of time talking about improving the analyst experience without making significant improvements. Much of the effort has been too focused on trying to find a silver bullet solution. Combine that with a global pandemic and things are just getting worse.
Artificial intelligence has been (and continues to be) a popular topic of discussion in areas ranging from science fiction to cybersecurity. But as much fun as it might be to discuss my favorite sci-fi AI stories, let’s set aside the works of Asimov, Bradbury and other storytellers to focus on the role of AI in cybersecurity.
Let me tell you a story. Not a bedtime story or the sort of happy-ending story you’d read to your kids. This is a darker, much more serious story. It’s a story about cybersecurity. Specifically, it’s a story about attack stories. You may be asking yourself, what is an attack story? Every cyberattack has a story. And that story consists of a sequence of steps adversaries take to learn, access and control the resources and data of the victims they’re pursuing.
According to the 2021 Devo SOC Performance ReportTM — which is based on the results of a survey of more than 1,000 security practitioners — having an understaffed SOC or constant turnover of security talent can cripple an organization’s security posture. Let’s look at some of the root causes that can lead to these two interconnected problems.
According to the 2021 Devo SOC Performance ReportTM — which is based on the results of a survey of more than 1,000 security practitioners — having an understaffed SOC or constant turnover of security talent can cripple an organization’s security posture. Let’s look at some of the root causes that can lead to these two interconnected problems.
Editor’s note: Latest update, April 6, 2022, 7:30 p.m. U.S. EDT — This post now includes an example query to aid SOC teams in generating alerts for their specific WAF data sources. See the section “Create New Web Application Firewall (WAF) Rules” for details. A critical zero-day vulnerability in Java’s popular Spring Core Framework is being actively targeted, according to multiple reports submitted to Bleeping Computer.
This is the third post in the Threat-Based Methodology blog series. In the first post, we introduced Threat Based Methodology and the analysis conducted by the FedRAMP PMO and NIST. In that post, we ended by listing the top seven controls based on their Protection Value. The second post explored configuration settings in greater depth and explained how Devo supports the ability to meet the CM-6 control.
As revealed in the 2021 Devo SOC Performance ReportTM — which is based on the results of a survey of more than 1,000 security practitioners — organizations are frustrated with their SOC’s lack of effectiveness in performing its vital work. To combat the concerns the survey identified, it’s important for SOCs to refine how they operate.
This is the second post in the Threat-Based Methodology series. The first post introduced Threat-Based Methodology and the analysis conducted by the FedRAMP PMO and NIST. That post concluded with a list of the top seven controls based on their Protection Value. This post will explore CM-6 in greater depth and explain how Devo supports the ability to meet this control. CM-6, Configuration Settings, was determined to provide the most Protection Value with a score of 208.86.
Building an in-house security operations center represents a significant commitment, both financially and strategically, to securing your enterprise. According to the 2021 Devo SOC Performance ReportTM — which is based on the results of a survey of more than 1,000 security practitioners — 73% of respondents said their SOC was “very important” or “essential” to their organization’s overall cybersecurity strategy.
