Last month, we hosted a webinar, Hunting for persistence using Elastic Security, where we examined some techniques that attackers use in the wild to maintain presence in their victim’s environment. In this two-part blog series, we’ll share the details of what was covered during our webinar with the goal of helping security practitioners improve their visibility of these offensive persistence techniques and help to undermine the efficacy of these attacks against their organization.

This is the third and final post of a three-part series on understanding kernel extension frameworks for Mac systems. In part 1, we reviewed the existing kernel extension frameworks and the information that these frameworks can provide. In part 2 we covered techniques that could be used in kernel to gather even more details on system events. In this post, we will go into the new EndpointSecurity and SystemExtensions frameworks.

The AT&T Cybersecurity Alien Labs team is in charge of writing correlation rules and releasing threat intelligence updates on a day-to-day basis. When researchers in the team find new malware families or threats, we always try to find the best approach to keep our customers protected. In this blog, we will look into some of the differences between signatures and correlation rules.

Today’s cyber threat landscape is diverse – new threats are emerging every day and cyber criminals are being sophisticated in terms of their covert nature and ability to launch attacks in massive frequency with minimal chances of detection.

When it comes to having visibility and detecting threats on macOS, one of the best sources of information for file system events, process events, and network events is the kernel. MacOS kernel extensions provide the ability to receive data about these events in real time with great detail. This is good for providing quick visibility into detecting anomalies and identifying possible threats.

Over 90% of data breach is attributed to human error costing a company anywhere from $1.25 million to $8.19 million. Tackling cybersecurity does not only entail non-physical risks, but also includes an assessment of physical threats such as human, internal, and external hazards. Only then can an appropriate and effective security plan to dissuade hackers and thieves be devised.

Undoubtedly, today’s cyber threats are very fast and sophisticated. Even their detection and prevention is no longer an easy task. To prevent organizations from being a victim of cyber threats and attacks, a proactive cybersecurity approach must be used. That is the reason the Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) framework comes into place. CTI has become a critical tool for organizations trying to protect their networks and infrastructure.

Alien Labs and the Open Threat Exchange (OTX) development team have been hard at work, continuing our development of the OTX platform. As some of you may have noticed, we’ve added some exciting new features and capabilities this last year to improve understanding within the OTX community of evolving and emerging threats.

Phishing attacks don’t show any sign of slowing down. Per its 2019 Phishing Trends and Intelligence Report, PhishLabs found that total phishing volume rose 40.9 percent over the course of 2018. These attacks targeted a range of organizations, especially financial service companies, email and online service providers and cloud/file hosting firms.

This spring, as the product and security operations teams at AT&T Cybersecurity prepared for the launch of our Managed Threat Detection and Response service, it became obvious to us that the market has many different understandings of what “response” could (and should) mean when evaluating an MDR solution. Customers typically want to know: What incident response capabilities does the underlying technology platform enable?