SecurityCertified

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Ponemon Institute Misses the Mark

Posted on 4:07 PM by Unknown
Today the Ponemon Institute announced results of a survey they conducted titled Growing Risk of Advanced Threats: Study of IT Practitioners in the United States. Unfortunately, this survey looks like it is mainly the blind asking the blind to describe a threat neither really understands. For example, the survey states:

While the definition of what constitutes an advanced threat still varies within the industry, for purposes of this research we have defined an advanced threat as a methodology employed to evade an organization’s present technical and process countermeasures which relies on a variety of attack techniques as opposed to one specific type.

The predominant majority of these threats are represented by unknown, zero-day attacks, but there are increasingly many instances where known attacks are being re-engineered and repackaged to extend their usefulness.


If this survey stuck with this definition, and didn't mention Advanced Persistent Threat, then I could possibly live with it. Unfortunately they veer off into the land of speculation and confusion with questions and answers like the following:

Q1d. What other terms are used to describe an advanced threat? Please select all that apply.

  • Advanced persistent threat (50%)

  • Emerging threat (41%)

  • Spear-phishing (38%)

  • SQL Injection (31%)

  • Cyber warfare (25%)

  • Continuous attack (21%)

  • Cyber terrorism (21%)

  • Denial of service attack (19%)



Please. No. Make it stop. It's bad enough to pollute the APT term with the "advanced threat" definition Ponemon manufactured, but now it includes SQL injection and DoS? And the statement "the predominant majority of these threats are represented by unknown, zero-day attacks" in no way describes how APT acts. They can elevate to research, weaponize, and use zero-day, but that does not define them.

The ultimate shame is seeing SearchSecurity.com fall for this with their article More firms targeted by advanced persistent threats, study finds:

Advanced persistent threats (APTs), which are carried out by organized cybercriminal groups, may be a growing trend as a new survey finds an increase in advanced threats over the last 12 months.

No. APT is not cybercrime.

While there might be some interesting survey data in the Ponemon results, please don't think for a second it has anything to do with APT whatsoever.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in apt | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • DojoCon Videos Online
    Props to Marcus Carey for live streaming talks from DojoCon . I appeared in my keynote , plus panels on incident response and cloud secur...
  • Bejtlich Speaking at TechTarget Emerging Threats Events in Seattle and New York
    I will be speaking at two events organized by TechTarget , for whom I used to write my Snort Report and Traffic Talk articles. The one-da...
  • SANS WhatWorks Summit in Forensics and Incident Response
    I wanted to remind everyone about the SANS WhatWorks Summit in Forensics and Incident Response in DC, 8-9 July 2010. The Agenda looks gre...
  • Sguil 0.7.0 on Ubuntu 9.10
    Today I installed a Sguil client on a fresh installation of Ubuntu 9.10. It was really easy with the exception of one issue I had to troubl...
  • Microsoft Updates MS09-048 to Show XP Vulnerable to 2 of 3 CVEs
    Microsoft published a Major Revision of MS09-048 to show that Windows XP Service Pack 2 and Windows XP Service Pack 3* are now Affected So...
  • BeyondTrust Report on Removing Administrator: Correct?
    Last week BeyondTrust published a report titled BeyondTrust 2009 Microsoft Vulnerability Analysis . The report offers several interesting ...
  • Human Language as the New Programming Language
    If you've read the blog for a while you know I promote threat-centric security in addition to vulnerability-centric security. I think ...
  • DNI Blair Leads with APT as a "Wake-Up Call"
    AFP is one of the few news outlets that correctly focused on the key aspect of testimony by US Director of National Intelligence Dennis Bla...
  • SANS Forensics and Incident Response 2009
    The agenda for the second SANS WhatWorks Summit in Forensics and Incident Response has been posted. I am really happy to see I am speakin...
  • NYCBSDCon 2010 Registration Open
    Registration for NYCBSDCon 2010 is now open. As usual George and friends have assembled a great schedule ! If you're in the New York...

Categories

  • afcert
  • Air Force
  • analysis
  • announcement
  • apt
  • attribution
  • bestbook
  • blackhat
  • books
  • breakers
  • bro
  • bruins
  • certification
  • china
  • cisco
  • cissp
  • cloud
  • clowns
  • commodore
  • conferences
  • controls
  • correlation
  • counterintelligence
  • cybercommand
  • cyberwar
  • dfm
  • education
  • engineering
  • feds
  • fisma
  • freebsd
  • GE
  • ge-cirt
  • hakin9
  • history
  • impressions
  • information warfare
  • ipv6
  • law
  • leadership
  • malware
  • mandiant
  • microsoft
  • mssp
  • nsm
  • offense
  • oisf
  • packetstash
  • philosophy
  • pirates
  • powerpoint
  • press
  • psirt
  • reading
  • redteam
  • reviews
  • russia
  • sans
  • sec
  • sguil
  • snorby
  • spying
  • threat model
  • threats
  • Traffic Talk
  • training
  • tufte
  • tv
  • ubuntu
  • usenix
  • verizon
  • vulnerabilities
  • wisdom
  • writing

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (16)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2012 (60)
    • ►  December (4)
    • ►  November (5)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (10)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (6)
    • ►  June (6)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (9)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2011 (108)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  October (11)
    • ►  September (9)
    • ►  August (18)
    • ►  July (10)
    • ►  June (5)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  April (13)
    • ►  March (17)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (9)
  • ▼  2010 (193)
    • ►  December (14)
    • ►  November (11)
    • ►  October (6)
    • ►  September (16)
    • ►  August (15)
    • ▼  July (26)
      • Time Issues in Libpcap Traces
      • Review of Digital Forensics for Network, Internet,...
      • Review of Virtualization and Forensics Posted
      • Review of Digital Triage Forensics Posted
      • Dell Needs a PSIRT
      • Review of The Watchman Posted
      • Review of The Fugitive Game Posted
      • Review of At Large Posted
      • Review of The Cuckoo's Egg Posted
      • Review of Code Version 2.0 Posted
      • Review of Crypto Posted
      • Review of The Illusion of Due Diligence Posted
      • Human Language as the New Programming Language
      • Brief Thoughts on WEIS 2010
      • Brief Thoughts on SANS WhatWorks Summit in Forensi...
      • Network Forensics Vendors: Get in the Cloud!
      • Gartner on CSIRTs
      • My Article on Advanced Persistent Threat Posted
      • A Little More on Cyberwar, from Joint Pub 1
      • Thoughts on "Application SOC" and New MSSPs
      • Ponemon Institute Misses the Mark
      • Joint Strike Fighter -- Face of Cyberwar?
      • Cyberwar Is Real
      • Security Is Never Free -- Ask DNSSEC
      • Lessons from NETOPS vs CND
      • Secunia Survey of DEP and ASLR
    • ►  June (15)
    • ►  May (15)
    • ►  April (15)
    • ►  March (16)
    • ►  February (19)
    • ►  January (25)
  • ►  2009 (123)
    • ►  December (10)
    • ►  November (17)
    • ►  October (21)
    • ►  September (13)
    • ►  August (20)
    • ►  July (21)
    • ►  June (21)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile