Re: True definition of Intrusion Prevention

From: George Capehart (gwc_at_acm.org)
Date: 01/02/04

  • Next message: Bohling James CONT JBC: "RE: True definition of Intrusion Prevention"
    To: "Teicher, Mark (Mark)" <teicher@avaya.com>
    Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:08:02 -0500
    
    

    On Friday 02 January 2004 11:08 am, Teicher, Mark (Mark) wrote:
    > -----Original Message-----

    <snip>

    > OK, The process of correlating network based attacks is ultimately
    > flawed, since a MSP is dependent on the underlying technology and the
    > skill set they employ to properly categorize an "intrusion" and then
    > have defined processes and procedures in place to properly respond.
    > IDS/IPS technology can differentiate between known and unknown. The
    > "unknown" or "leftover" then has to be hand analyzed by skilled
    > people or not so-skilled people in order to feed that knowledge back
    > into the underlying technology.
    >
    > It becomes the "feeding the machine" type thing, until one arrives at
    > a ftp >300 buffer overflow, and it turns out to be a Kerberos login
    > authentication packet. Until the underlying technology can properly
    > analyze packets from various sources at reasonable speeds, categorize
    > them into the different buckets, exercise a quick little binary tree
    > to either "PERMIT" or "DENY" and then have some sort of quick manual
    > override. The Intrusion Prevention (TM) process has a long way to
    > go.

    Yes, I agree. I'm going to go a bit astray here, and I don't know
    whether it will survive moderation, but here goes:

    I guess I'd like to take a step back and re-examine the way we are
    thinking about things and put a slightly different spin on them. I see
    intrusion detection as a monitoring behavior which may trigger a
    reactive behavior/response. It is a process that looks for things it
    shouldn't be seeing. I see Intrusion Prevention (TM) (whatever that
    turns out to be) as a proactive process the goal of which is to
    implement and operate a System which presents an attack surface that
    approaches zero. The idea is to field a system in which the number of
    real attacks reported by IDSs approaches zero. There would be much
    more to Intrusion Prevention (TM) than analyzing packets and deciding
    what to do with them. In this utopian view, the IDS really wouldn't
    have much to do . . . How one would go about doing this is the hard
    part. It involves all aspects of the SDLC. It involves *really*
    knowing the systems in place, what their current vulnerabilities are
    and fixing them or putting them behind several layers of defense. It
    involves defense in depth. It involves white-listing. It is truly a
    Capital-S System-level collection of processes . . .

    I probably will not live to see it . . . ;->

    >
    > P.S. Someday, SecurityFocus might even post one of my articles, they
    > get some interesting stories from Mark Rasch all the time..:)

    Hope I live to see that, though . . . :-)

    /g

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


  • Next message: Bohling James CONT JBC: "RE: True definition of Intrusion Prevention"