Quality Over Quantity: Determining Your CTI Detection Efficacy

You’ve collected a lot of IOCs, but is your Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) process serving you well? Quantity alone doesn’t tell the whole story. What kinds of intel are you collecting and how useful is it for identifying incidents? What are your strongest areas and where are your gaps? Do you know enough about your priority threats to feel confident in your detection stance against them? These are hard questions to answer, and there’s little existing guidance for answering them.

Taking a case study approach, this session will teach attendees how to use models such as the MITRE ATT&CK framework and the Pyramid of Pain to analyze and visualize the quality of their collected CTI information, not just it’s quantity.

Attendees will learn:
1) How to load, normalize, and merge IOC data from disparate sources in your environment to make it ready for analysis
2) How to enrich the data with information from the Pyramid of Pain and the ATT&CK framework
3) How to visualize your collected threat intel to validate your collection strategy, to identify CTI strengths, and to prioritize closing collection gaps
4) Why you should do these things on a regular basis

Transcript

2. “ ” I’d like you to review and identify gaps in what we know about our high priority threat actors going into peak [retail season].
3. • • • •
4. Clean Merge Dump Extract Visualize IOCs TTPs
5. • • • • •
6. Assigning the IOCs and TTPs to phases in MITRE’s ATT&CK™ lifecycle model allows us to see “where” in the lifecycle we know the most. Source: attack.mitre.org
7. Most of our CTI centers around the attacker’s process for gaining a foothold in the environment. We know little about what happens before or after.
8. Assigning IOCs to the appropriate Pyramid level helps describe their potential volatility and replaceability. Put another way, we want to maximize our ability to increase the adversary’s cost of action against us. Source: http://detect-respond.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-pyramid-of-pain.html
9. We’re doing pretty well covering most of the Pyramid. Looks like we need more info about their toolset, though.
10. Good Good Best Plotting the lifecycle phase vs. Pyramid level can reveal not only current strengths, but also opportunities for improvement.
11. Box plot of IOC age reveals your balance between currency and history. ”Banding” on the left reveals patterns of collection. Oldest Median Newest
12. Breaking down the ages by lifecycle phase gives more info about how current we are for each.
13. Analyzing it by Pyramid level is also useful in comparing IOC ages to volatility. The lower the level, the fresher your IOCs need to be.
14. Mapping the known TTPs to the ATT&CK Enterprise Matrix quickly shows strengths and weaknesses. White doesn’t imply a gap. Maybe the actor doesn’t do that thing. I’d like to find something better.
15. Challenge What we did CTI data in multiple repositories • Developed custom extraction for each and merging/deduplication logic • Manual review of priority actor wiki pages Data tracked by different repos is inconsistent, sometimes even when it looks the same (e.g., timestamps mean different things) • Analyzed using estimates and approximations when necessary • Custom merging/deduplication logic Converting a one-time analysis into a repeatable, automatable process • Captured code, documentation and graphs in a Jupyter Notebook • Work is still ongoing…
16. • • • • • •
17. “ ”