DSD wins US Cybersecurity Innovation Award

Aussie strategy is groundbreaking, game-changing, simple, cheap

Australia's Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) has won the 2011 US National Cybersecurity Innovation Award for identifying four simple security controls that can prevent 85 percent of targeted intrusions.

DSD is responsible for protecting Australia's government networks, both civilian and military. A team led by Steve Mcleod and Chris Brookes studied all known targeted intrusions against government systems to see what would have stopped them spreading.

While they identified 35 controls that would be valuable and provided detailed explanations, these four specific controls, alone, must be implemented if organisations are to have any hope of defending their systems:

  • Patch applications such as PDF readers, Microsoft Office, Java, Flash Player and web browsers.
  • Patch operating system vulnerabilities.
  • Minimise the number of users with administrative privileges.
  • Use application whitelisting to help prevent malicious software and other unapproved programs from running.

"The cost of implementing these four controls is a tiny fraction of the cost of implementing the average US federal government agency cybersecurity program," wrote the SANS Institute in a media release announcing the win.

"Since the impact of this low-cost approach is much better security than what US agencies are experiencing, the Australian innovation changes the game."

In agencies that have implemented these controls, the spread of targeted attacks is no longer a significant problem.

"Although these controls will not stop the most sophisticated attackers, they do stop the targeted attackers with medium and low sophistication, the ones that cause the greatest amount of information loss," SANS wrote.

SANS congratulated defence secretary Dr Ian Watt for his "extraordinary leadership" in advocating that all cabinet agencies implement the four controls (nicknamed the "sweet spot") and making sure they were doing it.

"This is a great way for security people to become security heroes," said Alan Paller, director of research at the SANS Institute.

"Auditors who are not checking for these four being fully implemented should refund their salaries because they are looking at the wrong things."

Contact Stilgherrian at Stil@stilgherrian.com or follow him on Twitter at @stilgherrian

Tags: 2011 US National Cybersecurity Innovation Award, Australia's Defence Signals Directorate (DSD), Defence Signals Directorate (DSD), security

Comments

1

Anonymous

Thu 27/10/2011 - 13:18

And who has actually implemented any of these in particular proper 3rd party patching and application whitelisting?

2

Gabriel

Fri 28/10/2011 - 04:02

To every organisation that has not yet implemented proper security measures: C'est la condition humaine. You just have to wait for another big attack that gets in the world news, to have enough managment support and resources for IT-security.
Except of course when the IT-auditor is asked to be the next CIO :)

3

B Rivers

Sat 29/10/2011 - 21:00

It this sort of perpetuated nonsense that is leaving systems wide open. One Govt authority backing up another with ridiculous inefectuals claims. The main problem is phishing attacks and none of this will stop phishing attacks. None of this is innovative, the competition was a joke and a waste of public funds.

4

Orr

Wed 02/11/2011 - 06:17

I disagree with B Rivers. Phishing is one form of an attack. It usually involves social engineering to get a user to open a document, click a link, deliver information, or take some action. Other forms of social engineering involve the same methods for the same or similar ends, though in-person social engineering also targets hardware.

Effective whitelisting can prevent the loading of unapproved applications and connection of unapproved hardware. In other words, whitelisting is effective against phishing and other forms of social engineering. It is not 100 percent effective, but still effective.

In other words, it prevents many payloads.

Patching prevents many exploits from working against known vulnerabilities. Though it won't prevent 0-day vulnerabilities from being exploited, most exploits use known vulnerabilities.

Finally, if users do not have the administrative permission level to install applications, additional exploits are needed to elevate priviledges to the point of allowing installs, increases the chance of detection and prevention.

5

roy997

Thu 03/11/2011 - 01:00

This article has caused widespread hilarity, and disbelief, in the security circles I mix in, as it seems to be a statement of the blindingly obvious, scarcely meriting any kind of award.

But perhaps this is based on the edited reports of the top four items, which don't detail the work that has obviously gone into the full 35-item report.

However, closer examination of this report shows firewall only mentioned at 13, and antivirus only at 21. This seems counter-intuitive surely these are the first lines of defence, and should be at 1 and 2?

Perhaps it's only that these counter-measures are already so widespread that makes them seem less important? But I look in vain for any quantitative information that the report is based on, so it's hard to tell.

Re the new top item, though, I see that this is now 'Patch 3rd-party applications', and the Maintenance cost has gone from Medium to High, joining the Upfront Cost as High.

I don't know if the team looked at potential solutions here, but it seems to me that it merits careful consideration of Secunia CSI:-

http://secunia.com/vulnerability_scanning/

as at least one way of tackling this No 1 issue in a way that will mitigate thes two cost categories.

Please note, by the way, that I am mentioning, not promoting, Secunia CSI; I have no connection with Secunia other than as a very satisfied user of their software. And it may well be that comparable products for this exist, and these should be investigated also; but I am unable to speak for these.

6

Glen Turner

Tue 08/11/2011 - 15:11

In a sense they are laughable. But making recommendations is the easy part. If they've actually got those four things deployed across all of the Australian Government, then that's a prize-worthy achievement.

Also, I like the that they provide ammunition against vendor sales pitches. It's a list of the basics, and vendor pitches can be evaluated against their performance on that prioritised list. That's a step better than a lot of the current practice in security acquisition.

It's also a considerable help with TCO calculations. Those calculations usually use a bare vendor platform which doesn't meet the DSD's basics. By including those into the TCO agencies can have a better understanding of the security costs of the products they are evaluating.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Users posting comments agree to the CSO comments policy.
Login or register to link comments to your user profile, or you may also post a comment without being logged in.
CSO Corporate Partners
  • FirEye
  • Clear Swift
  • Trend Micro
  • Sophos
  • NetIQ
rhs_login_lockGet exclusive access to CSO, invitation only events, reports & analysis.
CSO Directory

Cloud Security and Compliance Solutions

Manage and visualize the security and compliance of VMware, physical, and hybrid-cloud infrastructure from the RSA Archer eGRC Platform.

Security Awareness Tip
Clearswift tips: Guidelines for introducing and policing an effective IT Policy

1. Make it clear that the policy is not about playing ‘Big Brother’ but to ensure the security of employees, company information and data and to safeguard the company’s reputation.
2. Invest time to get buy-in from managers and their teams.
3. Convey the message of flexibility – with regard to social media, it is not about blocking staff usage but working in everyone’s interests to ensure that threats are contained.
4. Introduce a regular company-wide training programme that everyone attends at regular intervals throughout the year, not merely as part of an induction programme.
5. Within the training programme make sure that there are specific examples to demonstrate each rule or regulation, and that there is a clear explanation of the dangers of casual or careless talk on social networking sites. Again use examples, employees need to understand the consequences of raising a throwaway comment that has negative connotations for the business, as much as they need to be aware of dangers of making a more direct but ill-considered attack on a competitor, regulator or even a fellow colleague. They need to be clearly advised on any impact on the company and/or legal action or inquires that may be raised as a result.
6. Alert employees to any changes in policy through regular clear communication.
7. Reinforce the operational policy guidelines regularly, cover everything from blogging to Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.
8. Ensure that the rules are fair and that they apply throughout the business.
9. Enforce the rules – if there is a deliberate or malicious contravening, disciplinary action needs to be taken. A policy isn’t worth having if it is seen to be lax and unenforced.
10. Review the policy regularly to ensure you keep up to date with new systems and technology.

Phil Vasic is Regional Director, APAC, at Clearswift, the software security company www.clearswift.com
Security ABC Guides

7 Ways to Protect Your Business Printers

Can a hacker burn down your business by remotely setting one of your printers on fire? Researchers at Columbia University have recently proposed such a scenario, although HP quickly denied that it's possible. However, even if your printers can't be used as remote firestarters, there are many risks involved in networking a printer.