Thanks to all that showed up for this presentation.
And thanks very much for all of the post-presentation positive feedback!
As promised here’s a copy of the slides. Share as you like!
Thanks to all that showed up for this presentation.
And thanks very much for all of the post-presentation positive feedback!
As promised here’s a copy of the slides. Share as you like!
And I’m talking real smoking guns, not crappy anomaly alerts.
From my experience, the most effective use cases for threat detection are those which simply:
So:
Here’s an example for logic that would provide good use cases involving malicious intent:
The ‘direction’ of the action might also be important, eg:
Inbound > outbound detection with validation of sustained activity.
Here’s a couple of specific examples:
Additional thoughts:
Validations do not have to be part of the SIEM threat detection. They can be added from SOAR playbook(s) and apply ‘tags’ to the alert, which can in turn be used by other correlations or SOAR playbooks. Eg. tag: EDR_distinct_threats=2, callback_distinct_count=2
This means the correlations become VERY simple and the validation or ‘recorrelations’ steps are done by the SOAR action.
By using SOAR you can provide full automation of an action by isolating a machine, disabling a user etc.
There should be pressure put on vendors to provide a ‘metric of confidence’ on specific detections. i.e. does ‘High’ really mean High? This makes it easier to create use cases with clear malicious intent since you wouldn’t have to manually compile a list of high confidence detections.
Some thoughts on high confidence alerts:
(Including installing a windows agent so you have data to play with)
Done!