Surveillance is everywhere and ingrained in our society. While privacy is a human right, we live in an era of Operational Security (OPSEC) and privacy fatigue. The technologies we use everyday collect more and more information, making many people feel hopeless about having control over their information. From painful opt-out processes to the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) that can be used to collect keystrokes, people can feel overwhelmed when they try to protect their information. 

In an attempt to protect data, many of us take steps like using proxy servers, virtual private networks (VPNs), or hardening our devices. Unfortunately, even taking these precautions may not be enough. A proxy server may not be better than a VPN if you don’t know who owns it. A VPN can have a vulnerability that compromises your ability to protect yourself, so  you need to stay aware and, possibly, shift tooling over time. Hardening your own devices may only protect you. Even if you opt out from having your data collected, most companies remove what they collected rather than altering their data collection strategies.

None of these precautions are guaranteed to work. The current environment cultivates this sense of no longer controlling your own information. However, the people who care about data protection need to keep on fighting and educating others because we do have control when we take the necessary steps. 

1. What are some ways to stay anonymous online?

No single bulletproof tool exists to help you stay anonymous online. Downloading a privacy-focused browser can help, but when someone else owns your entry or exit nodes, privacy becomes more complicated. For example, many people think that The Onion Router (Tor) is the most anonymous browser to use since it routes internet traffic through multiple volunteer-run servers to mask people’s IP addresses. However, Tor can be compromised on an exit node. 

While the Tor browser is known for its ability to anonymize traffic, you want to take a layered approach to privacy which includes finding different technologies that align with your threat profile, including:

• Browsers: Know how they collect and store data
• Email apps: Decide whether you’re ok with the provider scanning your emails to use artificial intelligence (AI) purposes
• Operating system: Understand the malware, ransomware, and encryption capabilities
• Domain Name Server (DNS): Learn about their capabilities blocking or allowing websites and services

2. What are some steps for protecting my Wi-Fi network from public discovery?

Every Wi-Fi network has a service set identifier (SSID), a unique, assigned name. Whether you change this from random numbers to something personalized like “My Iron Throne,” an app like WiGLE can compromise your privacy. For example, WiGLE is an application that takes user-submitted observations to show the different wireless networks in a given geographic location.

Tools like WiGLE only connect a Wi-Fi’s name with a geographic location. However, if you use the same SSID across multiple locations, a unique SSID increases your risk of being tracked. If you have a generic SSID like “home” compared to “My Iron Throne,” your SSID becomes more anonymous because it’s less creative. With all the different people who use “home” as an SSID, you have a name that makes pinpointing you more difficult since an app like WiGLE would have many more with that name. 

You may be using a unique SSID for a specific reason, but you should be able to explain your “why.” If your reason is “a unique SSID is more secure,” you want to focus more on having a strong password. If you want to mitigate exposure to being tracked as you travel, then having a generic SSID is likely a better option. 

3. How can I reduce risk from metadata stored in photos that I take?

Most cameras – whether they’re on a smartphone or a standalone camera – include metadata in the photo files that include the longitude and latitude of where you took the picture. If you’re taking photos and uploading them to a social media site without removing this information, then someone can find your exact location which can be important if you want to protect your physical security and privacy. 

The good news is that you can find apps that strip the metadata from the photos. One of the better apps I’ve found for metadata resistance is Session Messenger, a decentralized way to deliver messages. While Session is really good at stripping metadata to make sure that no one can use it against you to locate you, you should remember that metadata is a part of your data ecosystem. If you have a metadata leak, then someone can find you by tracking it or build a profile against you. 

4. Should I use a proprietary or DIY solution for OPSEC?

Choosing between a proprietary solution like Apple or Windows and a DIY approach relies on two things:

• Your threat profile
• Your technical capabilities

For example, if you use Apple devices and install the Proton email application, you’re using proprietary solutions. These are easy to set up, but they can have negative OPSEC consequences. If a government agency asks for the data, the company could – and should by law – provide the information. Proton mail uses end-to-end encryption, meaning that they never have unencrypted access to any of your information. While you can set this up quickly, you still have some risk from unencrypted information in iCloud or other Apple owned storage locations. 

If you take a DIY approach, you have control over data because you’re configuring and managing the technology. However, now you have to manage your own email server which is a nightmare of its own. It is extremely complicated since you need to manage reputation, sending emails, and making sure you backup everything. These challenges often mean that the privacy end doesn’t justify the work and time it takes. 

5. What are the differences between enterprise and personal emails, like Gmail and Outlook?

When we talk about enterprise and personal email applications, we really need to look at two different types of protections:

• Protecting your information from the email provider, like Gmail using it for AI integrations
• Protecting your information from the enterprise that owns a corporate email account

Protecting from the Email Provider

When you want to protect your information from an email provider, you need to start with the username. Usernames are a great way for someone to connect you to multiple accounts across different websites. For example, tools like Linkook can look up a username and all the different permutations of it to track all your accounts online. These types of tools mean that someone who starts connecting your username to different accounts could trace things back to personal information, like a seemingly anonymous Bluesky account connected with a LinkedIn account that has your name and general location. 

Next, someone could hunt through passwords to figure out who you are. In this case, if you use the same password everywhere, which we don’t recommend, they can tie it back to a username and, ultimately, your identity. 

You can reinforce good password hygiene by using a password manager, like Bitwarden, Keepass, or 1Password. If you’re evaluating different password managers to see which one fits best with your threat profile, you should be asking:

• Are they using encryption?
• What are they integrated into?

While a complex password is one step, multi-factor authentication (MFA) is better. With MFA, the application sends you a challenge question to make sure you are who you say you are. Some options for MFA can be via:

• Text message (SMS) 
• One-time password (OTP), sent as an email or text
• Authentication application, like Google Authenticator or Microsoft Authenticator, that provides a short-term, one use number to validate you

While a lot of debate can happen around best MFA options, an OTP can be a more secure option if you know the email address you’re using hasn’t been compromised. While you can use a text message to receive an OTP, this is less secure since someone can spoof and trick the recipient more easily. 

Flare Academy and OPSEC

Want to know more about OPSEC? We covered this topic in our Flare Academy training: “Deep Privacy in the Age of the Panopticon: OPSEC Fundamentals.” Join the Flare Academy Discord Community for access to the training recording and slides.

The Discord community is an educational hub designed to democratize cybersecurity knowledge with free, online training models led by subject matter experts.

You can also check out our upcoming Flare Academy trainings and register for them here.

The post 5 Questions On OPSEC Fundamentals appeared first on Flare | Cyber Threat Intel | Digital Risk Protection.

Flare recently hosted our first Threat Intel Workshop with Senior Threat Intelligence Researcher Tammy Harper. Below are some of the questions Tammy covered in improving threat intelligence collection practices.

1. How does the disruption to Telegram affect threat actors?

After the arrest of Telegram CEO in August 2024, the messaging platform that has been popular with threat actors, has begun to collaborate with law enforcement in an effort to cut down on criminal activities on the app. 

Over the last few years, threat actors have shifted their operations from traditional dark web forums so that Telegram serves as a complement or popular alternative. Now that Telegram is working with law enforcement, how does this change the cybercrime landscape?

Malicious actors are seeking out other platforms like Signal, Sessions, Matrix, Simplex, and more, but they do not have the same user experience as Telegram. For example, when comparing Telegram and Signal, Telegram is more community-forum oriented, making it easier for participants to find each other and supports social features, like stickers, that build community. From a malicious actor perspective, the file support capabilities make sharing and storing stolen information easier, too. Meanwhile, a look at Matrix shows that it has a higher potential for honeypotting which can deter threat actors. 

There are some other questions on what this change will cause, such as: will Telegram truly increase cooperation with authorities? Will Telegram become a more moderated app? But for now it may be too early to have definite answers.

2. The infrastructure and IoCs you collect, are they often this “noisy”? Often the IoCs collected by our team are clean with no reports found, making it more difficult to detect during the monitoring phase.

Security teams use IoCs in two different ways:

• Threat hunting: looking for specific forensic information or investigating an incident
• Threat intelligence gathering: looking for information on the dark web that can be linked to the organization’s IT infrastructure

When security teams collect IoCs for incident response and forensics, they take a targeted, reactive approach asking questions about:

• What machine was compromised?
• Was information exfiltrated?
• What network(s) did an attacker traverse?
• What vulnerabilities did the attacker exploit?

The IoC data is similarly streamlined, as it more likely focuses on evidence that the teams can observe in or collect from their systems like:

• Abnormal network traffic and activity detected by network monitoring tools
• Suspicious activity on specific computers or systems detected by Endpoint Detect and Response (EDR) tools
• File-based modifications indicating malicious files or malware detected from file-scanning tools
• Anomalous user or entity behavior detected through Identity and Access Management (IAM) or User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) tools

When collecting dark web threat intelligence for red teaming, security analysts are looking for clues to identify threats proactively. With a broader purpose, the valuable information is more varied and can include:

• Information about attacks targeting specific individuals, organizations, industries, or geographic regions
• Exposed credentials linked to users or organizations, including stealer logs from initial access brokers
• Data about attacks targeting zero day vulnerabilities
• Lists of compromised devices as a part of botnets for sale

In the workshop example, we reviewed a specific log belonging to a threat actor. Since the purpose was proactive identification across a system, all of the information was relevant. 

3. How much time do you spend to dwell for each threat hunting?

Gathering threat intelligence during the threat hunting process should be focused around the core question: “So what?”

With the large amount of threat intelligence available from the dark web, security analysts need to take a structured approach to their gathering and analysis so that they can remain productive without falling into rabbit holes. 

Actionable threat intelligence collection and analysis distills data into insights that enhance risk management by enabling security teams to implement proactive measures against potential attacks. For every investigation, the primary questions that security analysts should ask include:

• What does this information tell me about the potential damage the attacker can do to my organization?
• How does this information help me understand the likelihood of an attack against my organization?
• How does this information help me allocate resources required to mitigate the risks?

Asking “so what?” might feel harsh, but it helps researchers stay focused on their main goal to ensure they find relevant information that furthers the investigation. 

4. How do you determine what, who, and where you will research? Is it in response to an investigation, incident, event or out of your own interest? 

Security researchers generally build effective intelligence requirements that ask:

• What information do I need?
• Why do I need this information?
• How will this support decision-making processes?

As they build out their requirements, they should consider these three essential components:

• Subject: What specific area of interest best fits the business objectives?
• Purpose: Why is this information important to the organization’s strategic objectives? 
• Justification: How does this requirement contribute to improving cybersecurity efforts in a way that makes it a priority?

At Flare, we follow the same process, triggering investigations based on what customers need. To stay one step ahead of trends, we tailor our research to provide insights about meaningful dark web activities that help improve cybersecurity and strategic business outcomes, like:

• Changes in the ransomware ecosystem, especially as law enforcement activities interrupt large cybercriminal organizations like LockBit
• Ransomware trends,like the move to third extortion tactics where cybercriminals target the people whose data was stolen
• Evolving strategies for commodifying and monetizing attacks, like crowdsourcing a DDoS attack 

5. Do you track card leaks as well? How do you map the observed TTPs or IoCs like how do you differentiate between legitimate behavior?

The foundation of threat intelligence gathering and threat hunting are twofold:

• Use as many sources as possible
• Follow the evidence to reduce confirmation bias

Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) is publicly available information that can be categorized as:

• Passive: easily, publicly available, typically on the clear web
• Active: Publicly but less easily available, like infiltrating dark web forums that require special access, permissions, or skills

Security researchers have access to clear web OSINT that includes known:

• Vulnerabilities
• Attack tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs)
• Third-party vendor breaches
• Security alerts, like from the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Dark web threat intelligence provides contextual insight into:

• Current illicit activities and trends
• New TTPs
• Attacker motivations

By combining these different data points, security researchers can build profiles around these IPs to determine which ones are likely associated with the observed activities. 

6. Do you track card leaks? How are new sources good/validated?

Flare has a built-in capability for tracking card leaks. 

At Flare, we review the threat intelligence sources the way a security research team would, by reviewing investigational benefit and value. Some considerations include:

• How many active participants a forum, market, or illicit Telegram channel has
• How many transactions occur across a forum, market, or illicit Telegram channel
• Whether admins or mods are related to other, high profile forums, markets, or illicit Telegram channels
• How recent the latest activity was
• How often other cybercriminals discuss a new forum, market, or illicit Telegram channel

Dig Further into Threat Intel with Flare Academy

Interested in following more cybercrime research? Check out Flare Academy’s training sessions, which are led by cybersecurity researchers. Check out the upcoming sessions here.

We also offer the Flare Academy Discord Community, where you can connect with peers and access training resources from the Flare Academy training.

Can’t wait to see you there!

The post 6 Things to Know About Improving Threat Intelligence Collection appeared first on Flare | Cyber Threat Intel | Digital Risk Protection.

In today’s expanded attack surface, new technologies create new opportunities for businesses and malicious actors. Attackers can use the same artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) that companies use, often in the same way. In both cases, these technologies reduce the time spent on repetitive, manual tasks. For example, organizations may use LLMs, like ChatGPT, to write documentation faster. Similarly, malicious actors use these technologies to write more realistic and compelling phishing emails. 

Where malicious actors historically needed sophisticated technical skills, new technologies reduce the criminal skills gap, enabling less technically experienced cybercriminals the ability to deploy attacks. To navigate the modern cyber threat landscape, offensive and defense security practitioners should understand how today’s malicious actors use new underground cybercriminal business models to deploy attacks more efficiently. 

To watch the full webinar check out Navigating the Cyber Threat Landscape.

The Reality of Modern Credential Operations

The cybersecurity industry often focuses on sophisticated attacks, making people assume that most arise from nation state actors, zero day vulnerabilities, reverse engineering, or other paths that require a lot of skills. However, modern red teaming means looking at modern credential operations. When reviewing publicly available research, attacks that led to a breach often follow an order of operations that begin with methods requiring little technical skill. 

As modern cybercrime increasingly becomes a business, attackers become more pragmatic, looking for an easy way to compromise corporate systems and networks. Adversaries are shifting their attacks left, frontloading campaigns with reconnaissance more than before. They need an incredibly small amount of information to compromise an organization’s critical assets, as long as they have the right information to get in and out quickly and easily. The proliferation of cloud-based infrastructure changes the logging landscape, especially as organizations have more applications connected to the public internet which increases the number of attack paths. Meanwhile, as organizations add more domains and subdomains, they often lose track of resources and their security reviews, or lack of review. 

The Different Levels of Attack Methods

A good way to think about these different operations is leveling up in a video game. 

In a video game, players start with the easiest skills to master then move through the game, “leveling up” as they add new capabilities. Attackers work similarly because the easiest to complete activities give them a higher return on investment. Thinking like a business, spending fewer hours on an attack means that the malicious actors make more money per hour from the illicit activity. 

Looking at the levels, this financial “return on investment” mentality makes more sense. 

• At Level 1, cybercriminals use leaked credentials available on the public web, like from Pastebin, torrent, dehashed, or GitHub. Although these may not be the freshest credentials, gathering them is a minimal time and financial resources expenditure. 
• At Level 2, the attackers start using dark web forums channels.
• Level 3 brings them to the Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) ecosystem while 

These low barriers to entry attack methods remain the norm until Levels 7 to 9. At these higher levels, nation states and sophisticated attackers start spending the time and financial resources to identify new zero day attacks or engage in corporate espionage. 

Identifying Trends

Additionally, many advanced persistent threats (APTs), like sophisticated ransomware groups, start with these low resource strategies for two main reasons. 

First, log documentation often fails to identify these early attack methods. An organization can be logging from every on-premises and cloud source, but malicious actors can easily evade detection when they download stealer logs from Telegram to use an employee’s single sign-on (SSO) credentials. Event and system logs often fail to document Level 1 through Level 4 attack methods, meaning that the security incident and event management (SIEM) tools fail to detect them. 

Second, these attack methods are extremely simple. A teenager with access to a YouTube tutorial can easily pull a pair of credentials off Telegram, meaning that the barrier to entry for cybercrime has lowered radically. 

Breaking through the Noise

Organizations rely on the logs that their IT stack generates. However, cloud technologies, like cloud-hosted portals, produce high volumes of log, even for a mid-sized, standard organization. This noise increases the number of false alerts, increasing security analyst alert fatigue. 

How Attackers Can Hide

If attackers purchase a web token or cookies from a Telegram group, the most likely detection exists at the system or browser level where someone configured a correlation rule to detect a change in location during the same session. To detect these attacks, organizations need to create specific rules based on the use cases which can become time-consuming and cost ineffective. 

While the detections might capture a high-volume credential based attack, malicious actors can easily blend in a small credential stuffing or password spray in ways that hide within typical internet traffic metrics. Some large organizations may not be alerting on this level of sophistication while some smaller teams may have these capabilities. 

Reducing the Power of the Cookie

While an organization might be able to detect malicious actors using stolen credentials, it is less likely to identify cybercriminals injecting cookies into a browser. Recognizing the ability to evade detection, cybercriminals increasingly purchase these stealer logs from the dark web or illicit Telegram channels. 

Problematically for attackers, collecting and placing these stealer logs on the cybercriminal market takes at least 24 hours. To mitigate risk, organizations can implement a complete cookie refresh every 24 hours. However, this protection comes with increased end-user frustration and burdens by requiring them to go through the login and multi-factor authentication processes every day. 

Security practitioners are likely to see new solutions that respond to users’ need for session continuation while mitigating these risks. For example, Google recently announced a new feature that seeks to bind authentication sessions to a user’s device, hoping to disrupt the cookie theft malware industry. 

Automating Credential Operations

The 24-hour cookie theft attack lifecycle typically includes the following processes:

• Distributing malware
• Installing infostealer malware on an endpoint
• Extracting data
• Sending the stolen credentials to a command and control (C2) server
• Populating a back-end with the data, like session cookies or credential in the browser
• Uploading and selling the data on the dark web or an illicit Telegram channel

However, increasingly, threat actors automate some of these tasks, like using the Telegram API to populate their channels. 

Additionally, this automation means that cybercriminal operations often collect, sell, and repackage credentials. Malicious actors might pay for early access to the credentials, but as the data becomes public, it often reaches a broader audience. With greater access to these credentials, commodity adversaries use scripts to pull the credentials and automate the attacks. 

Initial Access Brokers in the Cyber Threat Supply Chain

Initial access brokers (IABs) are threat actors who parlay corporate access, like access to corporate networks, to ransomware affiliates and other groups who may want it. They establish initial access, then sell it in an auction-style format on three main forums:

• Exploit
• XSS
• Ramp

This subgroup of cybercriminals will often buy bulk stealer logs so that they can identify the ones with corporate access. Essentially, IABs engage in due diligence for other cybercriminals, vetting the data from the stealer logs and selling the instructions for how to deploy the attack. 

In a modern threat landscape, credential operations and credential sales become one in the same. These attacks become less sophisticated, often lacking a structured C2. As offensive security teams emulate adversaries, they need to consider this new lack of sophistication so that the defenders can implement meaningful detections. 

A Browser and A Dream

Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) applications modernize the attack surface, changing how cybercriminals attack organizations. Since logs often fail to record these attack methods, security teams need to update their monitoring and detection strategies. 

For example, traditional penetration tests focused on getting domain administrator access. However, this approach likely triggers a detection. Modern attackers will break through an organization’s hard armor, gaining initial access to the VPN and the internal network so that they remain undetected. 

As security teams work to proactively mitigate risk, they should consider the various ways that cybercriminals can exploit new technologies. 

SaaS Applications

In 2023, Flare research found that at least 1.91% of stealer logs contained leaked corporate credentials for commonly used business applications, like Salesforce, Hubspot, AWS, Google Cloud Platform, Okta, and DocuSign. Additionally, more than 200,000 stealer logs contained access to OpenAI credentials, representing 1% of all analyzed data. 

For offensive security teams, infrastructure mind-mapping tools, like Miro, can lead to data leaks when users add credentials to graphics with network diagrams. These SaaS platforms provide useful tools, but they often come with additional security risks like:

• Lack of robust logging
• Additional costs for enabling two-factor authentication or SSO

AI Models

Many companies train their models internally, typically using open-source software. These web applications connect to the internal LAN, but they often lack authentication, placing the internal data used to train the AI at risk. 

AI Applications

As organizations implement AI applications, they may not be able to appropriately configure them. For example, some use blob storage or buckets for managing the log history of people’s prompts and the response data that search engines can index. These can expose credentials, similar to regular web application data leaks. For example, developers may paste secrets into code assist applications, exposing things like API tokens or credentials. 

Data Exposure Beyond Credentials

As companies adopt cloud-delivered services, they need to consider additional data leakages that can impact their overarching security. 

The Collaboration Tool Problem

With more organizations using cloud-native collaboration tools, corporate resource data leaks become increasingly important to cybersecurity. For example, internal users often share information using misconfigured file shares on web resources, like SharePoint directories or Google Drives. Once the user shares the file to “anyone with the link,” Google and other search engines can index them. 

Malicious actors can do a search for:

• Domain: companyname.com
• File type: PDF, spreadsheet, XLSX

If the search engine has indexed the domain, then it can return documents that should otherwise be kept private. Collaboration suites like Google Docs and SharePoint use the companies Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IAAS) provider to host content, but they are also risky because users can control the sharing settings, leading to accidental data leaks. 

To mitigate risks, organizations should disable public link sharing, requiring users to share with a specific identity to maintain the file’s security and data privacy. 

The Open-Source Repository Problem

Increasingly, malicious actors have focused on publicly available code libraries and repositories. As companies adopt infrastructure-as-code (IAC), data leaks expand beyond the organization’s typical security monitoring. 

For example, attackers can scan these open source libraries to identify data leaks like:

• Hard coded secrets: API keys or passwords included in source code
• Proprietary code: custom code accidentally uploaded to the Docker marketplace
• Files: documents or spreadsheets exposed in a Jenkins server

The Future of AI

As AI continues to mature, security practitioners will need to understand the use cases that make sense and the risks that the technology creates. 

Breaking Bad

Offensive security practitioners have already been hard at work trying to and succeeding at breaking the current consumer models. Additionally, while few news stories exist, attackers do appear to be using AI effectively. Some examples include:

• Using voice cloning software to perpetrate fraud
• Selling models with full-blown ChatGPT, sophisticated chatbot interfaces 
• Parsing info stealer data faster to more effectively apply it to campaigns
• Writing more realistic, convincing phishing emails

Bringing AI to the Table

For every criminal AI use case, a defender opportunity exists. AI can supercharge various areas of an organization’s security program by:

• Providing example code and explaining a vulnerability
• Creating scanners that identify issues
• Generating documentation and development guides

About Flare

The Flare Threat Exposure Management (TEM) solution empowers organizations to proactively detect, prioritize, and mitigate the types of exposures commonly exploited by threat actors. Our platform automatically scans the clear & dark web and illicit Telegram channels 24/7 to discover unknown events, prioritize risks, and deliver actionable intelligence you can use instantly to improve security.

Flare integrates into your security program in 30 minutes and often replaces several SaaS and open source tools.

Want to learn more about monitoring for relevant threats with Flare? Check out our free trial.

The post Red Teaming the Modern Attack Landscape appeared first on Flare | Cyber Threat Intel | Digital Risk Protection.

In a world of increasingly powerful data analytics, security researchers continue to develop new uses for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). In security, predictive analytics offer insight into how a company should prioritize its activities. With more vulnerabilities detected daily, vulnerability management teams become overwhelmed, unable to patch or remediate everything all at once. 

By predicting which vulnerabilities threat actors are most likely to exploit, security teams can prioritize their remediation activities, focusing on vulnerabilities that potentially have the most impact. As researchers refine their use of predictive analytics, they fill in gaps created by those who came before them. 

In “Threat Class Predictor: An explainable framework for predicting vulnerability threat using topic and trend modeling,” François Labrèche and Serge-Olivier Paquette train a natural language processing (NLP) model on a robust dataset, then leverage clear & dark web social media to predict exploitability. 

The researchers accessed Flare’s API to observe cybercriminal activities on the clear & dark web for their research. 

Keep reading for the highlights and make sure to read Threat Class Predictor: An explainable framework for predicting vulnerability Threat using topic and trend modeling to learn more about the research.

Limitations of the Previous Research: Class Imbalance and Lack of Interpretability

Researchers have attempted to predict the vulnerabilities threat actors will most likely exploit over the years. Some examples of this research include:

• Using neural networks trained on the National Vulnerability Database (NVD) and exploit database data
• Combining NLP models with Twitter posts
• Analyzing spam lists and patching activities to determine whether these adequately responded to real-world vulnerability exploits.

While useful, much of the previous research had issues with their datasets that led to class imbalance (defined as an unequal distribution of classes, which can lead to bias in the model), ultimately undermining the analytics models’ validity and practicality. 

To understand class imbalance, you can think of the datasets used as a table. In the chart below, the hypothetical researchers built a model around response to color saturation:

In the Scores column, the Poor responses far outweigh the Good or Excellent. In data analytics, this is called a “class-imbalanced dataset” because one type of outcome far outweighs the others. 

When this happens, the dataset size needs to be adjusted. In the above chart, the dataset lacks too few Good and Excellent classes. Simultaneously, it only contains one Light Saturation and one Dark Saturation data point. Researchers might want to adjust their dataset by adding more variety of data points, like Light Green or Dark Blue. 

In response to the previous research’s class imbalance, Labrèche and Paquette’s research combined an NLP analytics model with an expanded dataset that does not only include publicly disclosed exploit databases, but also other sources such as Github, ClamAV, PacketStorm and threat intelligence feeds. 

Building a New Predictive Model

Labrèche and Paquette’s predictive analytics model is more reliable and interpretable than previous models for several reasons. 

Expanded Threat Data

Similar to the previous research, Labrèche and Paquette began training their NLP with NVD data using descriptions of 152,585 vulnerabilities published between January 1, 2008, and August 1, 2022. The researchers funneled all those descriptions into a topic model that acts as a sort of word cloud builder. This model uncovered salient groups of words used to describe vulnerabilities, ultimately generating 30 basic types of vulnerability, six of which we present below. 

After establishing these thirty vulnerability types, they moved on to identifying associated auxiliary features by analyzing:

• The length of the description
• The number of references available for the vulnerability at the time of publication,
• The number of software configurations affected by this vulnerability
• The CVSSv2 score
• The CVSSv2 metrics

This expanded vulnerability dataset enabled them to build a robust threat class prediction model.

Expanded Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT): Dark Web Data

Past research focused on two ways to identify threat actor exploits. Researchers used exploit databases to identify vulnerabilities used by existing threat actors and Twitter API to collect real-world conversations about exploits in-the-wild easily. However, exploit databases only provided visibility into already-available malware, meaning they lacked the real-time data element. While tweets offered the real-time element, they focused primarily on security researchers rather than threat actors.

To expand their real-time online discussion dataset, Labrèche and Paquette added an important OSINT source: the Flare API. The Flare API enabled the researchers to crawl 90 clear & dark web forums, amongst them:

• Exploit.in
• xss.is 
• pediy 
• nulled.to 
• RaidForums

Across both the clear & dark web, Labrèche and Paquette searched for common vulnerability and exposure (CVE) mentions across a range beginning with CVE-2013 and ending with CVE-2022. For Twitter, the team tracked the following hashtags, alone and in pairs:

• #infosec 
• #vulnerability 
• #infosec 
• #exploit

From this research, they identified the following:

• 13,114 dark web forum posts
• 36,598 Reddit posts
• 512,347 tweets

Labrèche and Paquette applied their NLP model to the collected OSINT data, enabling them to identify the vulnerabilities that the information security community and threat actors were discussing, ultimately creating a model that predicts the communication patterns associated with vulnerability disclosure. 

Combining Technical and Human for Better Predictive Analytics

By analyzing online discussions combined with vulnerability data, Labrèche and Paquette’s model could predict the vulnerabilities that attackers were more likely to exploit and vulnerabilities that analysts are most likely to overlook. 

The researchers analyzed two threat classes: exploit publication and malware inclusion. Although some vulnerability characteristics overlaps exist between these, the researchers were able to isolate ones unique to each. 

Exploit Publication

When predicting whether threat actors would leverage an exploit around a vulnerability, the analytics model found that the combination of discussions and technical characteristics included:

• Parameter, Plugins and SQL injections
• Google and OAuth Vulnerabilities
• Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities
• Denial of Service (DOS) vulnerabilities
• Web vulnerabilities
• Vulnerabilities centered around network attacks

Since these exploits focus on gaining unauthorized access to web-based applications, code- and web-based weaknesses, like command injection vulnerabilities, make sense. 

Malware Inclusion

Meanwhile, when predicting attackers would use a vulnerability in their malware, the top characteristics were:

• Vulnerabilities including the use of Windows handles
• PDF vulnerabilities
• Heap and buffer overflow vulnerabilities

Since malware typically installs on devices, device- and software-based vulnerabilities make sense here. 

Predictive Threat Score Models Enable Remediation Prioritization

At the time of publication, Labrèche and Paquettte’s predictive models correctly identified that attackers would publish exploits using them:

• CVE-2022-34265 
• CVE-2022-34918 
• CVE-2022-31795

Further their models correctly identified that the following vulnerabilities would be used in malware:

• CVE-2022-22047

By incorporating dark web forum data into the threat score, predictive models become more accurate and more context-aware. With data about the vulnerabilities that threat actors find interesting, these models can combine the attacker’s human side with the attack’s technical side. By enhancing these predictive data models with dark web monitoring, security researchers can explore a vulnerability or set of vulnerabilities likely to be included in real-world attacks that are otherwise overlooked by the information security community. 

CTI and Flare

The Flare Threat Exposure Management (TEM) solution empowers organizations to proactively detect, prioritize, and mitigate the types of exposures commonly exploited by threat actors. Our platform automatically scans the clear & dark web and illicit Telegram channels 24/7 to discover unknown events, prioritize risks, and deliver actionable intelligence you can use instantly to improve security.

Flare integrates into your security program in 30 minutes and often replaces several SaaS and open source tools.  Learn more by signing up for our free trial.

The post Using CTI to Help Predict Vulnerability Exploitability appeared first on Flare | Cyber Threat Intel | Digital Risk Protection.

The Network Information Systems Directive (NIS2) and its predecessor NIS focus on risk management for organizations. The EU states that the NIS is the first piece of EU-wide legislation on cybersecurity with the goal of achieving a high common level of cybersecurity across the member states. The NIS2 will be quite impactful, especially as it expands on the NIS and includes more industries, new reporting requirements, and greater penalties.

NIS2 will especially shift how organizations approach and manage supply chain security, as part of a holistic approach to cybersecurity across EU member states (and beyond). By securing every part of the supply chain, the directive will foster a robust, unified cybersecurity front across the EU.

Current State of Supply Chain Security

Ransomware will cost victims about $42 billion USD in 2024, which has more than doubled from $20 billion USD in 2021, with threat actors conducting an attack every two seconds (according to Cybersecurity Ventures).

Specifically, data extortion ransomware attacks increased at an annualized rate of more than 112% in 2023. In our research, we observed that threat actors attacked the manufacturing, information technology, and professional services industries the most in 2023.

All sectors, including critical ones such as energy, finance, health, and transportation, are further integrating and becoming dependent on digital infrastructure. This is incredibly effective in modernization, but also exposes weaknesses to ever-evolving threats. The coronavirus pandemic also exacerbated this issue as organizations rushed to offer digital services.

Over the past few years, threat actors are becoming more sophisticated in conducting cybercrime. They are improving their cyberattacks to gain efficiency by shifting to a model similar to legitimate modern supply chains with niche specialization. This “as a Service” (aaS) business model allows easier and convenient access to advanced tools without each threat actor having to be proficient in every aspect of carrying out attacks.

As threat actors establish their own supply chain of attacks, organizations must improve their security posture to holistically fortify the legitimate supply chain.

NIS vs NIS2: What are the Differences?

The NIS2 seeks to expand the scope of NIS. So what exactly are the differences between the two regulations?

NIS

The EU published the compliance law NIS in 2016, and it went into effect in 2018. This mandated covered entities establish basic cybersecurity hygiene processes and practices. NIS categorized organizations as:

• “Essential” 
• “Digital services providers”
• or “Not covered” 

and assigned requirements accordingly. 

Member states also had to ensure that entities covered by NIS would proactively report incidents to their respective countries’ computer security incident response team (CSIRT) to receive guidance based on the incident impact and severity.

However this NIS left room for interpretation, which then led to different implementation outcomes across member states.

NIS2

The EU published the successor to NIS, NIS2, in 2022, and the deadline for member states to incorporate NIS2 into their national law is 2024. 

Generally, the requirements in NIS2 are more specific than in NIS, and there is a greater scope.

What NIS2 Expands 

Industries Covered by NIS2

NIS2 increases the industries of “Important Entities,” with these newly included sectors:

• Waste management
• Manufacturing
• IT & Security Services Providers
• Postal & Courier Services
• Chemicals Companies
• Food Processing
• Research Organizations
• Social Networks and Digital Providers

Enforcement

NIS had limited enforcement and fines, while NIS2 sets several measures for enforcement including fines, liability to management, and inspections & supervision. 

The fines can be up to 10 million euros or 2% of the total global annual turnover for essential entities, and up to 7 million euros or 1.4% of the total annual turnover for important entities. 

Consistency and Cooperation 

The NIS2 sets a baseline for cybersecurity measures to ensure holistic consistency across member states’ cybersecurity postures. This includes risk management and reporting measures. 
In addition, there are greater collaborations set in place such as the EU CyCLONe (European cyber liaison organization network), cyber policy peer review, and vulnerability disclosure.

What NIS2 Does for Supply Chain Security

With the NIS2, there is a greater focus on different aspects of cybersecurity, such as business continuity management, incident response, and supply chain security. 

NIS2 broadly requires strengthening supply chain security. It mandates organizations to:

• Assess and understand relevant risks
• Establish relationships with high-risk third-party service partners/providers/vendors and make them aware of risks 
• Update security measures continuously

Article(2)(d) of the NIS2 outlines organizations’ responsibilities in ensuring supply chain security. There are three general areas that contribute to improving supply chain security:

1. EU-level risk assessment: Assess the level of risk of a specific supply chain at the EU level.
2. National risk assessment: Member states can expand the scope of the directive to include entities originally outside of it.
3. Internal risk assessment: Covered entities must consider vulnerabilities and cybersecurity practices for each third-party service provider/supplier/vendor.

These areas work together to create a comprehensive protection plan, and have some differing implications on supply chain security.

EU-Level Risk Assessment and Supply Chain Security

Organizations have to continuously monitor their efforts and corresponding results to stay in compliance, and effectively contribute to international supply chain security. 

It’s important to note that NIS2 takes into account not only the requirements of Article 21 (which lists details of coordinated risk assessment), but also the results. This means that even if an organization follows the requirements, if the results do not also align with the NIS2, the organization can be considered non-compliant, and face financial penalties.

In addition, even if a given organization follows the NIS2, if there is a high-risk third-party in the supply chain, that can jeopardize the NIS2 assessment of the given organization. Therefore, it is the responsibility of covered entities to ensure the third-party organizations in their supply chain, even if that itself is not a covered entity, improves their cybersecurity posture.

National Risk Assessment and Supply Chain Security

There are various powers of member states that allow them to expand the scope of the NIS2 within their laws, and applies the directive to:

• Entities that are the sole provider in a member state of an essential service, defined as required for maintenance of critical economic/social activities
• Entities that are the service provider for something that if disrupted can significantly harm public health, safety, or security
• Entities that are the service provider for something that if disrupted could lead to major system risk, especially in sectors which have cross-border involvement 
• Entities that are critical because of its importance at the national/regional level for a certain sector/service (or for interdependent sectors within the nation)

Though the NIS2 expands its scope in covered entities, there are some organizations that are not included. However, the powers of these member states defined above could loop in a previously un-covered entity if any of the conditions above apply to it.

Internal Risk Assessment and Supply Chain Security

Covered entities should follow member states’ national cybersecurity strategy, also taking into account the powers of the CSIRT to inform their internal practices. 

Covered entities must stringently vet third-party partners/suppliers/vendors, and encourage those that they work with to mitigate their risks to boost the entire supply chain’s security. Utilizing software to automate compliance management can be a significant help in meeting complex requirements.

Please note that this blog is not intended to educate on basic requirements in NIS2 and is not a substitute for legal advice. If you are concerned with NIS2 or believe that it might apply to your organization we encourage you to contact a qualified attorney.

Supply Chain Security and Flare

The Flare Threat Exposure Management (TEM) solution empowers organizations to proactively detect, prioritize, and mitigate the types of exposures commonly exploited by threat actors. Our platform automatically and constantly scans the clear & dark web and illicit Telegram channels to discover unknown events, automatically prioritize risks, and deliver actionable intelligence you can use instantly to improve security across your supply chain.

With Flare Supply Chain Ransomware Exposure Monitoring, gain unique visibility and proactive security across your extended supply chain to efficiently mitigate threat exposures that exist within ransomware data leaks. Learn more by signing up for our free trial.

The post Supply Chain Security and NIS2: What You Need to Know appeared first on Flare | Cyber Threat Intel | Digital Risk Protection.

Third-parties are an important part of your extended enterprise. They’re your vendors, your partners, and your suppliers. They provide some of your business’s most critical services: billing, data storage, or sales. Unfortunately, vendors and suppliers also come along with significant third party cybersecurity risk.

Early in January, Gartner named third-party risk cyber management (TPCRM) a top trend for 2024. This year, it’s expected that security teams will implement new third-party cybersecurity risk techniques to adopt more proactive risk-management measures.

How Likely is a Third-Party-Related Breach?

Third parties have become increasingly attractive targets for threat actors over the past few years. The reasons for this unwanted popularity are simple: vendors have access to their clients’ data and systems, and many third parties do business with multiple enterprises. If a criminal can compromise a vendor, they can access much more data for a fraction of the work it would take to attack every enterprise separately. The fact that third-party attacks are on the rise shows that many criminals have done this math for themselves. 

Many organizations have already faced third-party breaches and attacks. According to the ITRC, supply chain breaches reached an all-time high in 2023, including one of the largest ever third-party breaches. Out of 3205 breaches last year, 242 were third-party-related, affecting 2769 organizations and 54 million individual victims. The 2023 breaches included a large-scale attack on a third party; an attack on MOVEit file transfer software directly impacted 102 organizations. However, the data breach indirectly impacted many more entities; 1,271 organizations were indirectly affected when information stored in or accessed by a MOVEit product or service was compromised by their own vendors. 

With so many attacks, it’s not surprising that so many security teams have already dealt with supply chain attacks; a Gartner survey conducted in summer of 2023 found that 45% of all respondents had already experienced third-party related compromises. 

Aside from being a common occurrence, supply-side breaches also tend to have more of an impact than other types of branches. Because they are more difficult to detect, for example, they tend to last longer and cost more. According to a report from IBM and the Ponemon Institute, third party compromises cost an average of 12% more than a typical breach, and also take 13% longer to find and contain. 

New Approaches to Third-Party Risk 

Until recently, businesses have been focusing on due diligence as the means for managing third party risk: lengthy questionnaires, requiring certifications, and working with vendors to confirm security controls have all been part of cyber risk management programs. 

Gartner’s survey found that 65% of security leaders increased their third-party risk management budgets and 76% are spending more time on third-party cybersecurity risk management initiatives than they did two years ago. However, the extra time and money haven’t had the intended effect;  45% of respondents saw an increase in disruptions thanks to third-party-related incidents. 

For that reason, security leaders are turning to new ways of managing third-party risk with more of a focus on a resilience-driven, resource-efficient approach to TPCRM.

How Does this New Approach to Third-Party Management Look? 

1. Collaborative: Businesses are increasingly seeing third parties as their allies, rather than as risks to be contained. There are advantages to partneringwith key vendors to build security controls that work for everyone. Building strong relationships with vendors also means greater transparency and better collaboration if a breach occurs. 
2. Aligned with business goals: Effective TPCRM starts at the top. Without champions in the c-suite, it’s impossible to create a program that is able to holistically protect your data and systems. This also means business leaders must clearly be informed about the risk associated with doing business with a third party. By involving company leaders in third party risk management, security leaders are able to tie risk management to business goals, and also make better risk-based decisions more quickly.  Effectively tracking all decisions related to all third parties your organization is doing business with is important, so that cybersecurity teams can adjust controls for vendors that are particularly risky.
3. Consistent: Having a consistent set of policies and processes across your organization is critical for a strong TPCRM program. For example, creating a clear offboarding process for vendors to ensure that permissions are revoked and data is destroyed can help all departments limit the risk from previous partners and vendors.
4. Efficient: For a long time, businesses have attempted to control third party risk by creating increasingly long, complex questionnaires. This wasn’t efficient for the vendors (who had to fill them out) or for the companies (who had to review the responses). Lately security leaders are pulling back on long questionnaires, opting instead to use standard questionnaires, such as the Standardized Information Gathering (SIG) Questionnaire. This approach channels the energy that might have been spent on due diligence into higher-value activities, such as planning for incident response and improving controls. 
5. Tailored to each vendor: Rather than rely on due diligence alone, it’s recommended that recommends security leaders create scenario-based materials, using vendor-specific playbooks and tabletop exercises to plan for possible breaches. Security teams should also be working with less mature vendors to improve their security controls. 

How Does this New Approach to Third-Party Management Look? 

1. Collaborative: Businesses are increasingly seeing third parties as their allies, rather than as risks to be contained. There are advantages to partneringwith key vendors to build security controls that work for everyone. Building strong relationships with vendors also means greater transparency and better collaboration if a breach occurs. 
2. Aligned with business goals: Effective TPCRM starts at the top. Without champions in the c-suite, it’s impossible to create a program that is able to holistically protect your data and systems. This also means business leaders must clearly be informed about the risk associated with doing business with a third party. By involving company leaders in third party risk management, security leaders are able to tie risk management to business goals, and also make better risk-based decisions more quickly.  Effectively tracking all decisions related to all third parties your organization is doing business with is important, so that cybersecurity teams can adjust controls for vendors that are particularly risky.
3. Consistent: Having a consistent set of policies and processes across your organization is critical for a strong TPCRM program. For example, creating a clear off-boarding process for vendors to ensure that permissions are revoked and data is destroyed can help all departments limit the risk from previous partners and vendors.
4. Efficient: For a long time, businesses have attempted to control third party risk by creating increasingly long, complex questionnaires. This wasn’t efficient for the vendors (who had to fill them out) or for the companies (who had to review the responses). Lately security teams are pulling back on long questionnaires, opting instead to use standard questionnaires, such as the Standardized Information Gathering (SIG) Questionnaire. This approach channels the energy that might have been spent on due diligence into higher-value activities, such as planning for incident response and improving controls. 
5. Tailored to each vendor: Rather than rely on due diligence alone, It’s recommended that recommends security leaders create scenario-based materials, using vendor-specific playbooks and tabletop exercises to plan for possible breaches. Security teams should also be working with less mature vendors to improve their security controls.

Third-Party Cyber Risk Management with Flare

The Flare Threat Exposure Management (TEM) solution empowers organizations to proactively detect, prioritize, and mitigate the types of exposures commonly exploited by threat actors. Our platform automatically scans the clear & dark web and illicit Telegram channels 24/7 to discover unknown events, prioritize risks, and deliver actionable intelligence on your organization’s extended attack surface, which you can use instantly to improve security. Use this actionable intelligence to work with your third-party partners/suppliers/vendors to improve their security controls.

With Flare Supply Chain Ransomware Exposure Monitoring, gain unique visibility and proactive security across your extended supply chain to efficiently mitigate threat exposures that exist within ransomware data leaks. Learn more by signing up for our free trial.

The post Third-Party Cybersecurity Risk Management: A Short Guide for 2024 appeared first on Flare | Cyber Threat Intel | Digital Risk Protection.

The Network Information Systems Directive (NIS) was published in 2016 and required EU critical infrastructure sectors to meet basic cybersecurity compliance requirements. In October 2024 the second iteration of the Network Information Systems Directive (NIS2) will be going into effect, which will both substantially expand the number of entities required to be compliant in addition to creating additional penalties for non-compliance.

It’s important to note that EU regulation works by mandating that member states enshrine requirements into their own laws. NIS2 is a regulation propagated by the EU parliament requiring that member states use the fundamental requirements contained to create and maintain their own law codes which will be based on, and incorporate all requirements found in NIS2. 

We will start by covering NIS before moving onto updated requirements in NIS2.

Key Goals of NIS2

Under NIS2 covered EU organizations will be required to meet specific operational security requirements, report incidents to their national CSIRT teams, and create continuous improvement in security procedures. NIS2 introduces personal liability for the “management bodies” of companies that fail to comply and involves fines the greater of €7,000,000 or 10% of gross turnover.

What is NIS?

NIS stands for the Network Information Systems Directive and was an EU compliance law published in 2016 and went into effect on 10 May 2018. NIS mandated that covered entities create basic cybersecurity hygiene processes and practices. NIS was originally intended to apply to critical infrastructure (labeled “essential services”), and was focused on creating reporting requirements as well as basic system hardening. Under NIS organizations are categorized as either “essential” or as “digital services providers” or “not covered” with specific requirements for each. 

The directive mandates that organizations EU member states publish regulations meeting the following standard for essential services:

Member States shall ensure that operators of essential services take appropriate and proportionate technical and or organizational measures to manage the risks posed to the security of network and information systems which they use in their operations. Having regard to the state of the art, those measures shall ensure a level of security of network and information systems appropriate to the risk posed.

EU nations were instructed to create additional legal requirements for “Digital Services Providers” in which they were required to have the following:

(a) the security of systems and facilities;

(b) incident handling;

(c) business continuity management;

(d) monitoring, auditing and testing;

(e) compliance with international standards.

Additionally member states had to require that entities covered by the regulation proactively report incidents to their nations computer security incident response team (CSIRT) which would provide guidance based on the severity and impact of the incident.

NIS2: Expanded Scope & Mandate

Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2) is the successor directive to NIS and dramatically expands both the entities covered under the regulation and the specific requirements that organizations need to operate under. Like the original NIS directive, NIS2 is broad and will require all EU member states to implement their own version of the regulation. However, NIS2 is quite specific that EU Member states will need to:

Ensure that essential and important entities take appropriate and proportionate technical, operational and organizational measures to manage the risks posed to the security of network and information systems which those entities use for their operations or for the provision of their services, and to prevent or minimize the impact of incidents on recipients of their services and on other services.

NIS2 then lays out specific requirements that member states will need to require from covered organizations including:

The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on an all-hazards approach that aims to protect network and information systems and the physical environment of those systems from incidents, and shall include at least the following:

(a) policies on risk analysis and information system security;

(b) incident handling;

(c) business continuity, such as backup management and disaster recovery, and crisis management;

(d) supply chain security, including security-related aspects concerning the relationships between each entity and its direct suppliers or service providers;

(e) security in network and information systems acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling and disclosure;

(f) policies and procedures to assess the effectiveness of cybersecurity risk-management measures;

(g) basic cyber hygiene practices and cybersecurity training;

(h) policies and procedures regarding the use of cryptography and, where appropriate, encryption;

(i) human resources security, access control policies and asset management;

(j) the use of multi-factor authentication or continuous authentication solutions, secured voice, video and text communications and secured emergency communication systems within the entity, where appropriate.

Notice how specific the requirements have become in NIS2 compared to the original NIS, with specific operational level details being spelled out in the regulation. Additional requirements for “Digital services providers” will be explored and incorporated later.

NIS vs NIS2: What is Covered?

Under NIS the two primary categories of covered entities were operators of essential services (OES) and relevant digital services providers (RDSPs). RDSPs had additional requirements compared to OESs. NIS lays out a framework for member states to identify RDSPs and OESs. Annex II provides a specific list of covered entities to include:

• Electricity Companies
• Oil Companies
• Gas Companies
• Air Transport
• Rail Transport
• Road Transport
• Healthcare 
• Banking 
• Financial Markets
• Drinking and Water Supply
• Digital Infrastructure

NIS2 dramatically expands the scope of companies that are covered by the law by adding a category for “Important Entities” which are required to also meet key requirements. Newly added sectors include:

• Waste management
• Manufacturing
• IT & Security Services Providers
• Postal & Courier Services
• Chemicals Companies
• Food Processing
• Research Organizations
• Social Networks and Digital Providers

Industries that NIS vs NIS2 cover

NIS2 and Supply Chain Risk Management

Supply chain risk management is a critical component of NIS2. Notably NIS2 goes substantially further than other cybersecurity regulations by mandating companies evaluate their extended supply chain and additionally that organizations identify specific vulnerabilities related to third-party suppliers. Ideally you can identify a way to use a platform to funnel critical supplier vulnerabilities directly back into your own security program. >back into your own security program.

Member States shall ensure that, when considering which measures referred to in paragraph 2, point (d), of this Article are appropriate, entities take into account the vulnerabilities specific to each direct supplier and service provider and the overall quality of products and cybersecurity practices of their suppliers and service providers, including their secure development procedures. Member States shall also ensure that, when considering which measures referred to in that point are appropriate, entities are required to take into account the results of the coordinated security risk assessments of critical supply chains carried out in accordance with Article

In addition organizations are mandated to consider risks related to their downstream supply chain, although without the requirement to identify specific vulnerabilities. While other requirements cover things like offboarding employees in a secure manner, NIST2 has a more “governance” focused approach that focuses on putting in place the proper pieces for a well managed security program.

Penalties for Non Compliance with NIS2

NIS2 requires EU member states to impose steep penalties for non-compliance. Member states are required to impose a fine of €10,000,000 Euros of 2% of global annual turnover for entities defined as “critical” and € 7,000,000 or 1.4% of global turnover for entities defined as important.

Corporate Management Liability

An approach to cybersecurity that directly involves the “management bodies” of organizations is a key element of NIS2. The EU is clearly attempting to create a legal and business practice that requires CEOs, boards of directors, and senior management to take a direct part in the organization’s cyber risk management plan. NIS2 states

Member States shall ensure that the management bodies of essential and important entities approve the cybersecurity risk-management measures taken by those entities in order to comply with Article 21, oversee its implementation and can be held liable for infringements by the entities of that Article.

The inclusion of personal liability for management is a stark departure from U.S. cybersecurity regulations and previous EU regulations.

What Else is Included in NIS2?

NIS2 is not just focused on business but also on ensuring that EU member states improve their national cybersecurity postures. As a result NIS2 incorporates several requirements that apply to EU member states and are focused on creating a more collective defense.

NIS2 and Incident Reporting Requirements

Expanded incident reporting is a critical aspect of NIS2. Under the regulation organizations will be required to report incidents within 24 hours, and provide a more complete report by the end of the third day of the incident.

Mandates for CSIRT Teams

CSIRT teams take center stage in NIS2. EU Nation CSIRT teams are tasked with acting as a central repository for covered entity incident reporting. In addition CSIRT teams are instructed to provide incident guidance for covered entities that report an incident to them. 

EU Vulnerability Database

NIS2 is focused not only on improving the cybersecurity of individual companies but also on creating better EU cyber readiness. To this end NIS2 mandates that the EU create a vulnerability database where information to catalog vulnerability data and enable seamless sharing between various national governments.

The Bottom Line: NIS2 & Corporate Cybersecurity

NIS2 is going to remake much of the EU cybersecurity landscape. The EU is pushing organizations and national governments to prioritize information security as a core element of national security. NIS2 represents a break from previous EU-wide cybersecurity regulations by mandating personal liability for corporate executives, specific requirements that covered entities must follow, and by requiring unprecedented coordination between national governments. 

The supply chain requirements in NIS2 are also fairly unique. Requiring organizations to identify specific vulnerabilities related to third-party suppliers represents a substantial break from previous supply chain risk management practices which typically just required evaluating potential suppliers for adequate cybersecurity.

NIS2 represents a significant enhancement of existing EU and global cybersecurity regulation which will likely be further enhanced in coming years – particularly for organizations classified as digital services providers. Organizations would do well to adopt robust, defensible, and aggressive cybersecurity regimes that allow them to demonstrate proactive compliance that not only meets, but exceeds auditor expectations.

Please note that this blog is not intended to educate on basic requirements in NIS2 and is not a substitute for legal advice. If you are concerned with NIS2 or believe that it might apply to your organization we encourage you to contact a qualified attorney.

Corporate Cybersecurity with Flare

Flare is a Threat Exposure Management (TEM) solution that automatically detects threats across the clear & dark web and illicit Telegram channels that cause organizations to suffer data breaches. Our platform automatically monitors your and third-party organizations so you can act quickly on remediation based on our prioritized alerts.

With Flare Supply Chain Ransomware Exposure Monitoring, gain unique visibility and proactive security across your extended supply chain to efficiently mitigate threat exposures that exist within ransomware data leaks. Learn more by signing up for our free trial.

The post NIS2 Compliance: Updated for 2024,  Complete Guide appeared first on Flare | Cyber Threat Intel | Digital Risk Protection.

Among the various tools and frameworks available for cyber threat intelligence (CTI), STIX and TAXII stand out due to their robustness and interoperability. We present a quick guide to STIX (Structured Threat Information eXpression) and TAXII (Trusted Automated eXchange of Intelligence Information). 

These protocols facilitate systematic sharing, correlation, and management of cyber threat intelligence, and they are increasingly being adopted by organizations worldwide.

Introduction to STIX and TAXII: Pioneering Standards in Cyber Threat Intelligence

As cyber threats continue to evolve in both scale and sophistication, there’s an escalating need for robust tools to identify, analyze, and mitigate them effectively. Within this rapidly shifting landscape, the introduction of STIX and TAXII has transformed how organizations approach CTI. 

STIX (Structured Threat Information eXpression) and TAXII (Trusted Automated eXchange of Indicator Information) are pioneering standards developed under the Cyber Threat Intelligence Technical Committee, aiming to foster collaboration, standardization, and automation within the field of CTI.

What is STIX?

STIX is a standardized language that allows for the detailed representation and contextualization of cyber threat information. By providing a structured format, STIX ensures a unified way of describing diverse cyber threat information, thereby facilitating more effective communication, analysis, and application of this information.

What is TAXII?

On the other hand, TAXII is a communication protocol that supports the exchange of cyber threat information, including STIX data, in a secure and automated manner. It outlines how to transport these data, regardless of the method or mechanism, ensuring the safe, reliable, and efficient exchange of information.

Together, STIX and TAXII have come to form the backbone of modern CTI practices, facilitating interoperability, and enhancing the ability to detect, understand, and counteract cyber threats in a more unified and streamlined manner. The following sections delve deeper into the workings of STIX and TAXII, their benefits, and how they are leveraged in practical cybersecurity scenarios.

How STIX Facilitates Structured Cyber Threat Information Expression

STIX, or Structured Threat Information eXpression, plays a crucial role in the efficient exchange and understanding of cyber threat intelligence. By establishing a standardized language and structured data model, STIX enables organizations to consistently describe, capture, and visualize a wide array of cyber threat information in a unified, comprehensible manner.

STIX is designed to represent everything from basic cyber observables to higher-level constructs including:

• IP addresses
• Files
• Threat actor profiles
• Attack patterns
• Incident response tactics

STIX’s model is composed of several key components, each serving a unique function in capturing different aspects of cyber threat intelligence. 

Components of STIX

These components, or domain objects, include:

Observables

These are stateful properties or measurable events that occur in the system or network, such as a detected malware hash or suspicious IP address.

Indicators

Indicators provide details on the specific patterns of observables or behaviors associated with cyber threats, along with relevant context such as confidence levels and the related threat types.

Incidents

This component records specific instances of a cyber event, providing a comprehensive picture of the event’s details, impact, related threats, and the response activities.

Adversary Behavior

This covers the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) used by threat actors, facilitating better understanding and prediction of potential future threats.

Threat Actors

This object encapsulates information about the actors behind cyber threats, including their: 

• Identity
• Motivations
• Capabilities
• Objectives

By providing a consistent language to express these different facets of cyber threat information, STIX enables enhanced interoperability, data sharing, and collaboration among different cybersecurity tools and teams. 

This is not only instrumental in forming a cohesive and comprehensive understanding of the cyber threat landscape but also in developing proactive defense strategies to counteract emerging threats effectively. 

Unveiling the Role of TAXII in Trusted Automated Intelligence Exchange

While STIX provides a structured format for expressing cyber threat information, TAXII, or Trusted Automated eXchange of Intelligence Information, serves as the dedicated transport mechanism for sharing this information. TAXII complements STIX’s structured language by facilitating automated and secure exchange of STIX content across different networks and platforms.

At its core, TAXII is a protocol defined by a set of services and message exchanges that enable organizations to share cyber threat intelligence in a secure and automated manner. TAXII is agnostic to the type of information shared, meaning it can transport any type of cyber threat information that adheres to the STIX format.

Components of TAXI

TAXII defines several key services that control how information is exchanged, including:

Discovery Service

This allows a TAXII client to locate services provided by a TAXII server. It serves as the initial interaction point between a client and a server.

Collection Management Service

This service provides an overview of the available data collections that a client can subscribe to or from which it can request information.

Inbox Service

This enables a client to send information to a server or another client. It’s used for pushing information.

Poll Service

This is the opposite of the Inbox Service. It allows a client to request information from a server. It’s used for pulling information.

TAXII’s secure and automated exchange mechanism not only improves the efficiency of intelligence sharing but also minimizes the chances of human error. By utilizing HTTPS for its message transport, TAXII ensures that the threat intelligence shared is secured and integrity-protected.

The integration of STIX and TAXII offers a powerful combination for cybersecurity—STIX allows different parties to express what they want to say in a standard language, and TAXII provides the means to convey this information in a trusted and automated manner. This enables organizations to gain a broader and more comprehensive understanding of the cyber threat landscape, fostering a more proactive and informed approach to cybersecurity.

Leveraging STIX and TAXII for Enhanced Cybersecurity: Practical Applications and Benefits

Implementing STIX and TAXII into your cybersecurity strategy opens up a world of possibilities for enhanced protection. By leveraging these two resources, organizations can create a comprehensive, well-rounded approach to identifying and mitigating threats.

One of the most significant benefits of STIX and TAXII is the increased visibility into the cybersecurity landscape. By communicating threat information in a standardized format, organizations can glean insights from multiple sources, resulting in a more detailed understanding of potential threats and their indicators.

Practical Applications of STIX and TAXII

These technologies are not only applicable for threat detection, but also for incident response, threat analysis, and cyber defense enhancement. 

Threat Detection and Prevention

Organizations can use STIX and TAXII to share information about newly discovered threats, allowing for the rapid deployment of preventative measures across various platforms.

Incident Response

When a cyber incident occurs, quickly understanding the nature of the attack is crucial. STIX-formatted threat intelligence enables responders to understand the threat’s tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), facilitating quicker and more effective responses.

Risk Management

STIX threat intelligence can also be used to inform risk assessments and management processes, providing organizations with a more accurate view of their security posture and the potential impacts of identified threats.

Automated Defense Systems

The structured nature of STIX and the automated transport mechanism of TAXII enable the automation of certain cyber defense tasks, such as the updating of firewall rules or the deployment of intrusion detection systems (IDS).

The integration of STIX and TAXII into cybersecurity strategies can significantly enhance an organization’s ability to identify, understand, and respond to cyber threats. Their standardized, automated nature enables swift communication and action, while their widespread adoption ensures a broad community of users contributing to the shared intelligence pool. With these tools at their disposal, organizations are better equipped to protect their systems and data from the ever-evolving landscape of cyber threats.

Navigating Cyber Threats with Flare

In summary, the integration of STIX and TAXII in a cybersecurity strategy is pivotal in navigating the increasingly complex landscape of cyber threats. These pioneering standards of STIX and TAXII provide a structured, standardized, and automated framework for sharing, correlating, and managing cyber threat intelligence. This results in greater visibility into potential threats and faster action for remediation. 

Flare monitors billions of data points in illicit communities across the clear & dark web and illicit Telegram channels. With automated external threat management, your team can respond more effectively, without the noise. Start your free trial today to see how Flare can fit into your cyber strategy. 

The post STIX & TAXII Threat Intelligence: A Quick Guide appeared first on Flare | Cyber Threat Intel | Digital Risk Protection.

CTI represents a proactive and strategic approach to cybersecurity, providing organizations with the insights needed to identify and combat potential cyber threats. These CTI frameworks are evolving, adapting to the changing threat landscape and leveraging cutting-edge technologies to enhance their effectiveness.

Understanding the Evolution of Cyber Threat Intelligence Frameworks

The digital landscape is ever-evolving, with organizations constantly vying to protect their assets from a ceaseless stream of cyber threats. Amid this, cyber threat intelligence (CTI) has emerged as an indispensable defensive tool. 

CTI frameworks, in particular, are increasingly gaining traction for their role in equipping businesses with the knowledge and strategies required to anticipate and counter cyber attacks. But to truly appreciate the importance of the latest CTI frameworks, it’s crucial to understand their evolution.

A Brief History of Cyber Threat Intelligence

The genesis of CTI frameworks can be traced back to the dawn of the internet era, where the basic security measures were reactive in nature, focusing largely on detecting and mitigating threats post-breach. 

Over time, as cyber threats proliferated and evolved in sophistication, reactive measures proved inadequate. This led to the advent of CTI, offering a proactive, strategic approach that involved: 

• Identifying
• Understanding
• Preparing for potential threats before they could exploit vulnerabilities

Early CTI frameworks were relatively rudimentary, often constrained by limited data sources and manual analysis. As technological advancements made it possible to amass large volumes of data from diverse sources, the frameworks started incorporating elements of big data analytics and machine learning. This shift allowed for the automated collection and analysis of threat intelligence, enabling security teams to more efficiently sift through vast quantities of data to pinpoint potential threats.

In the last few years, CTI frameworks have further matured, buoyed by advancements in AI, predictive analytics, and cloud computing. Today’s frameworks can leverage these technologies to:

• Provide real-time threat intelligence
• Detect patterns
• Predict potential future threats

to fortify organizational defenses like never before.

In 2023, the focus is on creating robust CTI frameworks that are increasingly automated, real-time, predictive, and integrated. 

The integration of CTI with other areas of security, such as risk management and incident response, is paramount, paving the way for a more unified and comprehensive approach to cybersecurity.

Key Components of Leading CTI Frameworks

Organizations are leveraging sophisticated CTI frameworks to safeguard their digital assets effectively. Driven by cutting-edge technology and a proactive approach, these CTI frameworks have several key components that differentiate them from their predecessors and equip businesses with a robust defensive mechanism. Let’s explore these components in detail:

Advanced Threat Intelligence Gathering

CTI frameworks harness the power of AI to automate the process of threat intelligence gathering. They collect data from a multitude of sources to identify potential threats and indicators of compromise (IoCs), including:

• System logs
• Cloud environments
• IoT devices
• External threat intelligence feeds

Real-Time Threat Analysis

The leading CTI frameworks emphasize real-time analysis of collected data. With the aid of machine learning algorithms, they can sift through vast quantities of data, detect patterns, and flag potential threats instantly, freeing up resources for threat analysts to respond swiftly to emerging threats.

Predictive Threat Intelligence

The frameworks use predictive analytics to forecast likely future threats based on current trends and historical data. This component provides organizations a forward-looking view of their threat landscape, enabling them to prepare for and possibly prevent future cyber attacks.

Contextual Threat Evaluation

Contextual analysis is a critical aspect of contemporary CTI frameworks. They assess the relevance of detected threats in relation to the specific context of an organization. This includes factors such as the nature of an organization’s data, its digital infrastructure, industry, and even geopolitical factors.

Integrated Cyber Risk Management

CTI frameworks are no longer standalone entities but integrate seamlessly with broader cyber risk management and incident response strategies. This alignment ensures a comprehensive, coordinated approach to cybersecurity, reducing potential blind spots and enhancing the effectiveness of defensive measures.

Dynamic Adaptability

One of the defining features of leading CTI frameworks is their dynamic adaptability. These frameworks evolve to stay ahead of ever-changing cyber threats. Regular updates, driven by machine learning and AI, enable them to keep up with emerging cyber threats, ensuring that businesses stay one step ahead of potential attackers.

Scalability

Modern CTI frameworks are designed to scale as per the needs of an organization. Regardless of a company’s size, these frameworks offer robust and effective threat analysis capabilities, ensuring that cybersecurity measures remain effective as the organization grows.

These components come together to form a well-rounded, efficient CTI framework that not only detects and neutralizes threats but also anticipates them. 

The power of such frameworks lies in their comprehensive approach, leaving no stone unturned in the pursuit of comprehensive cybersecurity.

The Role of Advanced Technologies in Enhancing CTI Frameworks

In the evolving landscape of cybersecurity, advanced technologies play a pivotal role in the enhancement of CTI frameworks. Leveraging technology has become an imperative in 2023, driving efficiency, precision, and proactive threat mitigation. Here’s how some of these technologies are reshaping the capabilities of CTI frameworks:

AI and Machine Learning

These technologies have revolutionized the way we approach threat intelligence. AI helps automate the process of data collection, parsing through vast quantities of data from various sources to identify potential threats. ML algorithms, on the other hand, learn from the data, helping to detect patterns and anomalies that indicate potential cyber threats. This ability to ‘learn’ from past incidents enables the CTI framework to predict and prepare for possible future attacks. 

This is greatly beneficial in aiding threat analysts, so that they aren’t overwhelmed by manually reviewing large amounts of information. 

Big Data Analytics

The magnitude of data generated by digital activities is enormous. Big data analytics technology allows CTI frameworks to process this data effectively, providing insightful analyses that can identify subtle patterns and correlations. These insights enable organizations to anticipate threats and adopt proactive defense strategies.

Cloud Computing

With the flexibility and scalability provided by cloud computing, CTI frameworks can efficiently manage large datasets and deploy resource-intensive tasks. This technology also facilitates the integration of CTI frameworks with other cloud-based systems, allowing for a seamless flow of intelligence across various security apparatuses.

Natural Language Processing (NLP)

NLP has a unique role in enhancing CTI frameworks. It aids in analyzing unstructured data, such as social media posts or blogs, to extract relevant threat intelligence. NLP can identify potential threats concealed in text data, broadening the scope of threat detection.

Internet of Things (IoT)

As IoT devices permeate many industries, they have become potential entry points for cyber threats. Advanced CTI frameworks are incorporating IoT-focused threat intelligence to identify and mitigate threats specific to these devices, enhancing overall cybersecurity.

Automation

Automation technology is a core enabler in modern CTI frameworks. It aids in automating repetitive tasks such as data collection and preliminary analysis, speeding up the threat intelligence process and allowing security teams to focus on strategic decision-making.

By integrating these advanced technologies, CTI frameworks are set to deliver more sophisticated, efficient, and proactive cyber threat intelligence. The successful amalgamation of technology and cybersecurity paves the way for a safer and more secure digital ecosystem, empowering organizations to keep their digital assets secure while staying ahead of emerging threats.

Implementing and Benefiting from CTI Frameworks in Your Organization

Implementing a robust CTI framework has become an absolute necessity for all organizations, regardless of their size or industry. 

Steps to Implement CTI Frameworks

These are the steps to implement advanced CTI frameworks and the benefits that come along with their adoption:

1. Assess Your Current Security Posture 

Begin by examining your existing cybersecurity infrastructure. Identify any gaps or weaknesses, and understand where and how a CTI framework can provide enhancements.

2. Choose a Suitable CTI Framework

Different CTI frameworks come with varying features and strengths. Choose a framework that aligns with your organization’s unique needs, security objectives, and technological capabilities.

3. Integrate the Framework

Implement the chosen CTI framework into your existing cybersecurity structure. This step may require technical expertise to ensure seamless integration and interoperability with your existing systems.

4. Train Your Security Team

Equip your cybersecurity team with the skills and knowledge to effectively operate the new CTI framework. This might involve technical training sessions or workshops.

5. Continuously Update and Review

Cyber threats are continually evolving, and so should your CTI framework. Regular updates and reviews are necessary to ensure that your threat intelligence remains relevant and effective.

Benefits of Implementing CTI Frameworks

Enhanced Threat Visibility

A CTI framework provides a comprehensive view of potential cyber threats, offering insights that extend beyond your organizational boundaries. This visibility enables you to detect and address threats proactively rather than reactively.

Efficient Resource Utilization

By helping you prioritize threats based on their severity and potential impact, a CTI framework ensures your security resources are used most effectively.

Improved Decision Making

The intelligence provided by CTI frameworks informs strategic decisions, helping you design a more secure digital architecture and adopt effective threat mitigation strategies.

Reduced Response Time

With real-time threat intelligence, CTI frameworks enable faster detection of threats, allowing for a quicker and more effective response.

Regulatory Compliance

Many CTI frameworks incorporate regulatory compliance features, aiding organizations in meeting cybersecurity regulations and standards.

Cost Efficiency

By preventing successful cyber attacks, a CTI framework can save your organization the substantial costs associated with data breaches and system downtimes.

Implementing an advanced CTI framework is a strategic move that brings about numerous benefits that take in the adaptive nature of threats today and the sophistication of CTI tools to mitigate and prevent those threats.

CTI with Flare

Aiming for a proactive stance in cybersecurity, these advanced CTI frameworks integrate state-of-the-art technologies, ensuring real-time threat detection and predictive capabilities. Key components like advanced threat intelligence gathering, real-time threat analysis, predictive threat intelligence, and dynamic adaptability fortify these frameworks, making them an essential asset in any cybersecurity strategy. 

Flare’s developing alongside emerging technologies to ensure that customers stay ahead of threat actors. Our AI Powered Assistant enables CTI teams to:

• Translate & contextualize dark web & illicit Telegram posts in seconds
• Automatically takedown lookalike domains and public GitHub repository
• Analyze a threat actor’s complete post history and create a detailed summary

Sign up for a free trial to learn how we can support your CTI team.

The post Cyber Threat Intelligence Frameworks: What You Need to Know appeared first on Flare | Cyber Threat Intel | Digital Risk Protection.

Whether it’s trademark infringement, counterfeit goods, data breaches, or damaging chatter in the dark corners of the internet, these threats can seriously undermine your brand’s integrity and bottom line. Vigilant and comprehensive digital brand protection strategies are an absolute necessity. 

Wherever it appears, your digital brand should remain secure, credible, and trustworthy.

Understanding the Importance of Digital Brand Protection

In the digital age, your brand’s reputation is more vulnerable than ever. With consumers flocking to the online realm for purchasing decisions, reviews, and brand experiences, safeguarding your brand’s digital identity is of utmost importance. Digital brand protection is no longer a choice, but an essential strategy for any business looking to thrive in the digital economy.

What is Digital Brand Protection?

It involves a comprehensive suite of strategies and actions aimed at protecting a brand’s online identity, reputation, and value from various digital threats. This encompasses a wide array of potential harms, including:

• Intellectual property theft
• Phishing attacks
• Counterfeit product listings
• Brand impersonation
• Damaging online content

3 Reasons Why Digital Brand Protection is Important

The importance of digital brand protection extends far beyond safeguarding the brand’s image. 

1. Improved Customer Trust and Loyalty

Consumers are assured of their safety when interacting with your brand online. It can also secure your revenue stream by thwarting counterfeiters and unauthorized sellers who divert potential sales away from your legitimate channels.

2. Compliance with Regulatory Requirements

Non-compliance can lead to hefty fines and legal complications, not to mention the potential reputational damage.

3. Valuable Insights into Brand’s Digital Exposure

By constantly monitoring your online presence across various digital landscapes—including the clear & dark web—you gain a better understanding of:

• How consumers perceive your brand
• The threats it faces
• How to enhance your digital strategy to foster growth and resilience

In the next sections, we will delve into the specifics of brand monitoring on the clear & dark web, exploring the unique challenges each landscape presents and the strategies you can employ to protect your brand across these domains.

Exploring Threats to Your Brand on the Clear Web

The clear web constitutes the part of the internet that is indexed by search engines and openly accessible to the general public. While it is essential for companies to have a strong presence on the clear web, it also exposes them to a range of brand-related threats. 

Let’s examine some of the most common threats to your brand on the clear web.

Counterfeit Products and Unauthorized Selling

With the proliferation of e-commerce platforms, counterfeit products and unauthorized selling have become significant threats to brands. Unscrupulous sellers may exploit your brand’s reputation, selling imitation products under your brand name, leading to lost sales and reputational damage.

Brand Impersonation and Phishing

Cybercriminals often impersonate brands to trick consumers into revealing sensitive data, like login credentials or credit card details. This tactic, known as phishing, can lead to significant financial loss for consumers and damage the trust they have in your brand.

Trademark and Intellectual Property Infringement

The online world is ripe with instances of trademark and intellectual property infringement, which can dilute your brand value. This could involve other companies using similar logos, slogans, or brand names, or illegally sharing your copyrighted material.

Defamatory Content and Negative Reviews

In today’s digital landscape, a single negative review or damaging blog post can rapidly go viral, causing considerable harm to your brand reputation. While genuine customer feedback should always be addressed, instances of false negative reviews or defamatory content require immediate action to minimize potential harm.

Data Breaches

Data breaches involving customer information can inflict severe damage to a brand’s reputation. In an era where data privacy is highly valued, any perceived negligence in data security can lead to a loss of customer trust and legal repercussions.

Ad Fraud

In the realm of online advertising, ad fraud, including domain hijacking and click fraud, can lead to wasted marketing spend and distorted analytics, affecting your brand’s online strategy and ROI.

Fraudulent Deepfakes & AI Evolution

AI continues to evolve, and though there are helpful use cases for it, including in cybersecurity, manipulating it can become dangerous. Deepfake content refers to a form of AI that creates convincing videos, images, and sounds. For example, this is a more lighthearted deepfake content of an AI-generated voice of Johnny Cash covering Taylor Swift’s “Blank Space.” However, deepfake videos could propel misinformation, for example, if it portrays a trusted leader stating something false. 

Monitoring and mitigating these threats requires a robust digital brand protection strategy, combining proactive measures like trademark registration and secure data handling, with reactive strategies such as swift action against counterfeiters and defamatory content. Tools and services that provide automated monitoring of the clear web can play a crucial role in detecting threats early and protecting your brand reputation.

Navigating the Dark Web for Brand Monitoring

While the clear web presents its own set of brand-related threats, the dark web adds another layer of complexity to digital brand protection. This portion of the internet, inaccessible through standard browsers and unindexed by search engines, serves as a hotbed for illicit activities, including cybercrime and identity theft.

Stolen Information

One of the main threats to brands on the dark web comes from the sale of stolen data. Cybercriminals often sell personal information, including login credentials, credit card details, and other sensitive data, that they have harvested through data breaches. 

This information can be used to commit

• Identity theft
• Financial fraud
• Targeted spear phishing attacks

These can damage your brand’s reputation and erode customer trust.

Dark Web Forum Hacking Strategy Sharing

Dark web forums often host detailed discussions and tutorials on hacking strategies and exploits, including those specifically targeted at certain organizations or software. These forums can provide early indications of planned attacks against your brand or vulnerabilities in software that your organization uses.

Counterfeit Goods and Intellectual Property

High-quality counterfeits or stolen digital products, like software or media content, can be found on numerous dark web markets, causing revenue losses and damaging your brand’s image.

Given the concealed nature of the dark web, monitoring your brand’s presence and protecting it from threats becomes challenging. However, it’s not an insurmountable task. Specialized cybersecurity firms and advanced threat intelligence platforms can delve into the dark web, identify potential threats, and provide actionable insights.

These solutions leverage technology like web crawlers, machine learning, and artificial intelligence to scan dark web markets, forums, and private networks, identifying instances where threat actors mention your brand or sell your data. 

By proactively monitoring the dark web, your organization can get ahead of potential threats, mitigate risks, and take the necessary steps to protect your digital assets and brand reputation.

Navigating the dark web for brand monitoring can be a powerful element of a comprehensive digital brand protection strategy.

Strategies for Effective Brand Protection Across Both Web Landscapes

Ensuring brand protection across both the clear web and the dark web is a multifaceted process, necessitating a strategic approach that integrates technology, people, and processes. Let’s explore several effective strategies your organization can adopt to safeguard its digital presence and reputation across both these landscapes.

1. Leverage Advanced Cyber Threat Intelligence Platforms

A cyber threat intelligence platform can be an invaluable asset in your digital brand protection strategy. Such platforms can scan, analyze, and monitor data across the clear web, deep web, and dark web, enabling you to detect potential threats against your brand promptly. 

These platforms also utilize machine learning and AI to analyze patterns and predict potential risks, helping your organization stay a step ahead of malicious actors.

2. Establish a Robust Digital Asset Management System

Managing your digital assets effectively is key to preventing unauthorized use and protecting your brand’s image. Implement a system that keeps track of where and how your digital assets are in use online, including:

• Logos
• Images
• Videos
• Copyrighted content

Regular audits can help ensure your assets are used appropriately and help identify any potential intellectual property infringements.

3. Implement Strong Data Security Measures

The best way to prevent your customer’s data from being sold on the dark web is to protect it from breaches in the first place. Implementing robust data security measures can significantly reduce the risk of data breaches:

• Encryption
• Multi-factor authentication
• Secure password policies
• Regular security audits

4. Monitor Social Media and Online Discussions

Online discussions, social media, forums, and review sites on the clear web can be breeding grounds for brand impersonation, defamation, and false information. Monitoring these platforms for mentions of your brand can help you detect potential issues early, allowing you to respond promptly and appropriately to protect your brand reputation.

5. Regularly Update and Patch Systems

Exploits and vulnerabilities in your software and systems can be discussed and traded on the dark web. Keeping your systems up to date with the latest patches and updates can help close these vulnerabilities and prevent potential attacks.

6. Engage Legal Assistance

In the event of brand impersonation, copyright infringement, or the unauthorized use of your digital assets, legal action may be necessary. Collaborate closely with your legal team or advisor to understand your options and take the necessary actions to protect your brand.

By integrating these strategies into your digital brand protection plan, your organization can establish a proactive and comprehensive approach to safeguarding its digital assets and reputation on both the clear web and the dark web. 

Digital Brand Protection with Flare

The Flare Threat Exposure Management (TEM) solution empowers organizations to proactively detect, prioritize, and mitigate the types of exposures commonly exploited by threat actors. Our platform automatically scans the clear & dark web and prominent threat actor communities 24/7 to discover unknown events, prioritize risks, and deliver actionable intelligence you can use instantly to improve security.

Flare integrates into your security program in 30 minutes and often replaces several SaaS and open source tools. Learn more by signing up for our free trial.

The post Digital Brand Protection: Monitoring Your Brand Across the Clear & Dark Web appeared first on Flare | Cyber Threat Intel | Digital Risk Protection.