ThreatARMOR Reduces Your Network’s Attack Surface

ThreatARMOR Reduces Your Network’s Attack Surface

2014 saw the creation of more than 317 million new pieces of malware. That means an average of nearly one million new threats were released each day.

Here at Ixia we’ve been collecting and organizing threat intelligence data for years to help test the industry’s top network security products. Our Application and Threat Intelligence (ATI) research center maintains one of the most comprehensive lists of malware, botnets, and network incursions for exactly this purpose. We’ve had many requests to leverage that data in support of enterprise security, and this week you are seeing the first product that uses ATI to boost the performance of existing security systems. Ixia’s ThreatARMOR continuously taps into the ATI research center’s list of bad IP sources around the world and blocks them.

Ixia’s ThreatARMOR represents another innovation and an extension for the company’s Visibility Architecture, reducing the ever-increasing size of their global network attack surface.

A network attack surface is the sum of every access avenue an individual can use to gain access to an enterprise network. The expanding enterprise security perimeter must address new classes of attack, advancing breeds of hackers, and an evolving regulatory landscape.

“What’s killing security is not technology, it’s operations,” stated Jon Oltsik, ESG senior principal analyst and the founder of the firm’s cybersecurity service. “Companies are looking for ways to reduce their overall operations requirements and need easy to use, high performance solutions, like ThreatARMOR, to help them do that.”

Spending on IT security is poised to grow tenfold in ten years. Enterprise security tools inspect all traffic, including traffic that shouldn’t be on the network in the first place: traffic from known malicious IPs, hijacked IPs, and unassigned or unused IP space/addresses. These devices, while needed, create a more work than a security team could possible handle. False security attack positives consume an inordinate amount of time and resources: enterprises spend approximately 21,000 hours per year on average dealing with false positive cyber security alerts per a Ponemon Institute report published January 2015. You need to reduce the attack surface in order to only focus on the traffic that needs to be inspected.

“ThreatARMOR delivers a new level of visibility and security by blocking unwanted traffic before many of these unnecessary security events are ever generated. And its protection is always up to date thanks to our Application and Threat Intelligence (ATI) program.” said Dennis Cox, Chief Product Officer at Ixia.

“The ATI program develops the threat intelligence for ThreatARMOR and a detailed ‘Rap Sheet’ that provides proof of malicious activity for all blocked IP addresses, supported with on-screen evidence of the activity such as malware distribution or phishing, including date of the most recent confirmation and screen shots.”

ThreatARMOR: your new front line of defense!

Additional Resources:

ThreatARMOR

Thanks to Ixia for the article.

The Network Design and Equipment Deployment Lifecycle

As we all know, technology has a life cycle of birth, early adoption, mainstream, and then obsoletion. Even the average consumer is very in touch with this lifecycle. However, within this overarching lifecycle there are “mini” lifecycles. One of these mini lifecycles that is particularly important to enterprises is the network design and equipment deployment lifecycle. This lifecycle is the basic roadmap of how equipment gets deployed within a company data network and key a topic of concern for IT personnel. While it’s its own lifecycle, it also aligns with the typical ITIL services of event management, incident management, IT operations management, and continual service improvement.

There are 5 primary stages to the network design and equipment deployment lifecycle: pre-deployment, installation and commissioning, assurance monitoring, troubleshooting, and decommissioning. I’ll disregard the decommissioning phase in this discussion as removing equipment is fairly straightforward. The other four phases are more interesting for the IT department.
The Network Design and Equipment Deployment LifecycleThe adjacent diagram shows a map of the four fundamental components within this lifecycle. The pre-deployment phase is typically concerned with lab verification of the equipment and/or point solution. During this phase, IT spends time and effort to ensure that the equipment/solution they are receiving will actually resolve the intended pain point.

During the installing and commissioning phase, the new equipment is installed, turned on, configured, connected to the network and validated to ensure that the equipment is functioning correctly. This is typically the least costly phase to find set-up problems. If those initial set-up problems are not caught and eliminated here, it is much harder and more costly to isolate those problems in the troubleshooting phase.

The assurance monitoring stage is the ongoing maintenance and administration phase. Equipment is monitored on an as-needed or routine basis (depending upon component criticality) to make sure that it’s functioning correctly. Just because alarms have not been triggered doesn’t mean the equipment is functioning optimally. Changes may have occurred in other equipment or the network that are propagating into other equipment downstream and causing problems. The assurance monitoring stage is often linked with proactive trend analysis, service level agreement validation, and quality of service inspections.

Troubleshooting is obviously the reactionary portion of the lifecycle devoted to fixing equipment and network problems so that the network can return to an optimized, steady state condition. Most IT personnel are extremely familiar with this stage as they battle equipment failures, security threats and network outages due to equipment problems and network programming changes.

Ixia understands this lifecycle well and it’s one of the reasons that it acquired Breaking Point and Anue Systems during 2012. We have capabilities to help the IT department in all four of the aspects of the network design and equipment deployment lifecycle. These tools and services are focused to directly attack key metrics for IT:

  • Decrease time-to-market for solutions to satisfy internal projects
  • Decrease mean-time-to-repair metrics
  • Decrease downtime metrics
  • Decrease security breach risks
  • Increase business competitiveness

The exact solution to achieve customer-desired results varies. Some simple examples include the following:

  • Using the NTO monitoring switch to give your monitoring tools the right information to gain the network visibility you need
  • Using the NTO simulator to test filtering and other changes before you deploy them on your network
  • Deploying the Ixia Storm product to assess your network security and also to simulate threats so that you can observe how your network will respond to security threats
  • Deploying various Ixia network testing tools (IxChariot, IxNetwork) to characterize the new equipment and network during the pre-deployment phase

Additional Resources:

Ixia Solutions

Network Monitoring

Related Products

Ixia Net Optics Network Taps Ixia Net Tool Optmizers
Ixia Network Tap
Ixia Net Optics network taps provide access for security and network management devices.
Net Tool Optimizers
Out-of-band traffic aggregation, filtering, dedup, load balancing

Thanks to Ixia for the article.

Don’t Be Lulled to Sleep with a Security Fable. . .

Don’t Be Lulled to Sleep with a Security Fable. . .Once upon a time, all you needed was a firewall to call yourself “secure.” But then, things changed. More networks are created every day, every network is visible to the others, and they connect with each other all the time—no matter how far away or how unrelated.

And malicious threats have taken notice . . .

As the Internet got bigger, anonymity got smaller. It’s impossible to go “unnoticed” on the Internet now. Everybody is a target.

Into today’s network landscape, every network is under the threat of attack all the time. In reaction to threats, the network “security perimeter” has expanded in reaction to new attacks, new breeds of hackers, more regions coming online, and emerging regulations.

Security innovation tracks threat innovation by creating more protection—but this comes with more complexity, more maintenance, and more to manage. Security investment rises with expanding requirements. Just a firewall doesn’t nearly cut it anymore.

Next-generation firewalls, IPS/IDS, antivirus software, SIEM, sandboxing, DPI: all of these tools have become part of the security perimeter in an effort to stop traffic from getting in (and out) of your network. And they are overloaded, and overloading your security teams.

In 2014, there were close to 42.8 million cyberattacks (roughly 117,339 attacks each day) in the United States alone. These days, the average North American enterprise fields around 10,000 alerts each day from its security systems—way more than their IT teams can possibly process—a Damballa analysis of traffic found.

Your network’s current attack surface is huge. It is the sum of every access avenue an attacker could use to enter your network (or take data out of your network). Basically, every connection to and/or from anywhere.

There are two types of traffic that hit every network: The traffic worth analyzing for threats, and the traffic not worth analyzing for threats that should be blocked immediately before any security resource is wasted inspecting or following up on it.

Any way to filter out traffic that is either known to be good or known to be bad, and doesn’t need to go through the security system screening, reduces the load on your security staff. With a reduced attack surface, your security resources can focus on a much tighter band of information, and not get distracted by non-threatening (or obviously threatening) noise.

Thanks to Ixia for the article.

The State of Enterprise Security Resilience – An Ixia Research Report

Ixia, an international leader in application performance and security resilience technology, conducted a survey to better understand how network security resilience solutions and techniques are used within the modern enterprise. While information exists on security products and threats, very little is available on how it is actually being used and the techniques and technology to ensure that security is completely integrated into the corporate network structure. This report presents the research we uncovered.

During this survey, there were three areas of emphasis exploring security and visibility architectures. One portion of the survey focused on understanding the product types and use. The second area of emphasis was on understanding the processes in use. The final area of emphasis was on understanding the people components of typical architectures.

This report features several key findings that include the following:

  • Many enterprises and carriers are still highly vulnerable to the effects of a security breach. This is due to concerns with lack of following best practices, process issues, lack of awareness, and lack of proper technology.
  • Lack of knowledge, not cost, is the primary barrier to security improvements. However, typical annual spend on network security is less than $100K worldwide.
  • Security resilience approaches are growing in worldwide adoption. A primary contributor is the merge of visibility and security architectures. Additional data shows that life-cycle security methodologies and security resilience testing are also positive contributors.
  • The top two main security concerns for IT are data loss and malware attacks.

These four key findings confirm that while there are still clear dangers to network security in the enterprise, there is some hope for improvement. The severity of the risk has not gone away, but it appears that some are managing it with the right combination of investment in technology, training, and processes.

To read more, download the report here.

The State of Enterprise Security Resilience - An Ixia Research Report

Thanks to Ixia for the article.

The Importance of State

Ixia recently added passive SSL decryption to the ATI Processor (ATIP). ATIP is an optional module in several of our Net Tool Optimizer (NTO) packet brokers that delivers application-level insight into your network with details such as application ID, user location, and handset and browser type. ATIP gives you this information via an intuitive real-time dashboard, filtered application forwarding, and rich NetFlow/IPFIX.

Adding SSL decryption to ATIP was a logical enhancement, given the increasing use of SSL for both enterprise applications and malware transfer – both things that you need to see in order to monitor and understand what’s going on. For security, especially, it made a lot of sense for us to decrypt traffic so that a security tool can focus on what it does best (such as malware detection).

When we were starting our work on this feature, we looked around at existing solutions in the market to understand how we could deliver something better. After working with both customers and our security partners, we realized we could offer added value by making our decrypted output easier to use.

Many of our security partners can either deploy their systems inline (traffic must pass through the security device, which can selectively drop packets) or out-of-band (the security device monitors a copy of the traffic and sends alerts on suspicious traffic). Their flexible ability to deploy in either topology means they’re built to handle fully stateful TCP connections, with full TCP handshake, sequence numbers, and checksums. In fact, many will flag an error if they see something that looks wrong. It turns out that many passive SSL solutions out there produce output that isn’t fully stateful and can flag errors or require disabling of certain checks.

What exactly does this mean? Well, a secure web connection starts with a 3-way TCP handshake (see this Wikipedia article for more details), typically on port 443, and both sides choose a random starting sequence (SEQ) number. This is followed by an additional TLS handshake that kicks off encryption for the application, exchanging encryption parameters. After the encryption is nailed up, the actual application starts and the client and server exchange application data.

When decrypting and forwarding the connection, some of the information from the original encrypted connection either doesn’t make sense or must be modified. Some information, of course, must be retained. For example, if the security device is expecting a full TCP connection, then it expects a full TCP handshake at the beginning of the connection – otherwise packets are just appearing out of nowhere, which is typically seen as a bad thing by security devices.

Next, in the original encrypted connection, there’s a TLS handshake that won’t make any sense at all if you’re reading a cleartext connection (note that ATIP does forward metadata about the original encryption, such as key length and cipher, in its NetFlow/IPFIX reporting). So when you forward the cleartext stream, the TLS handshake should be omitted. However, if you simply drop the TLS handshake packets from the stream, then the SEQ numbers (which keep count of transmitted packets from each side) must be adjusted to compensate for their omission. And every TCP packet includes a checksum that must also be recalculated around the new decrypted packet contents.

If you open up the decrypted output from ATIP, you can see all of this adjustment has taken place. Here’s a PCAP of an encrypted Netflix connection that has been decrypted by ATIP:

The Importance of State

You’ll see there are no out-of-sequence packets, and no indication of any dropped packets (from the TLS handshake) or invalid checksums. Also note that even though the encrypted connection was on port 443, this flow analysis shows a connection on port 80. Why? Because many analysis tools will expect encrypted traffic on port 443 and cleartext traffic on port 80. To make interoperability with these tools easier, ATIP lets you remap the cleartext output to the port of your choice (and a different output port for every encrypted input port). You might also note that Wireshark shows SEQ=0. That’s not the actual sequence number; Wireshark just displays a 0 for the first packet of any connection so you can use the displayed SEQ number to count packets.

The following ladder diagram might also help to make this clear:

The Importance of State

To make Ixia’s SSL decryption even more useful, we’ve also added a few other new features. In the 1.2.1 release, we added support for Diffie Helman keys (previously, we only supported RSA keys), as well as Elliptic Curve ciphers. We’ve also added reporting of key encryption metadata in our NetFlow/IPFIX reporting:

The Importance of State

As you can see, we’ve been busy working on our SSL solution, making sure we make it as useful, fast, and easy-to-use as possible. And there’s more great stuff on the way. So if you want to see new features, or want more information about our current products or features, just let us know and we’ll get on it.

More Information

ATI Processor Web Portal

Wikipedia Article: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)

Wikipedia Article: Transport Layer Security (TLS)

Thanks to Ixia for the article.

Don’t Miss the Forest for the Trees: Taps vs. SPAN

These days, your network is as important to your business as any other item—including your products. Whether your customers are internal or external, you need a dependable and secure network that grows with your business. Without one, you are dead in the water.

IT managers have a nearly impossible job. They must understand, manage, and secure the network all the time against all problems. Anything less than a 100 percent working network is a failure. There is a very familiar saying: Don’t miss the forest for the trees. Meaning don’t let the details prevent you from seeing the big picture. But what if the details ARE the big picture?

Today’s IT managers can’t miss the forest OR the trees!

Don’t Miss the Forest for the Trees: Taps vs. SPAN

Network visibility is a prime tool in properly monitoring your network. You need an end-to-end visibility architecture to truly see your network. This visibility architecture must reveal both the big picture and the smallest details to present a true view of what is happening in the network.

The first building-block to your visibility architecture is access to the data. To efficiently monitor a network, you must have complete visibility into that network. This means being able to reliably capture 100% of the network traffic under all network conditions.

To achieve this, devices need to be installed into the network to capture that data using “taps” or Switch Port Analyzers (SPANs).

A tap is a passive splitting mechanism placed between two network devices. It provides a monitoring connection. Using taps, you can easily connect monitoring devices such as protocol analyzers, RMON probes and intrusion detection and prevention systems to the network. The tap duplicates all traffic on the link and forwards this to the monitoring device. Any monitoring device connected to a tap receives the same traffic as if it were in-line. This includes all errors. Taps do not introduce delay, or alter the content or structure of the data. They also fail open so that traffic continues to flow between network devices, even if you remove a monitoring device or power to the device is lost.

A SPAN port – also known as a mirroring port – is a function of one or more ports on a switch in the network. Like a tap, monitoring devices can also be attached to this SPAN port.

So what are the advantages of taps vs SPAN?

  • A tap captures everything on the wire, including MAC and media errors. A SPAN port will drop those packets.
  • A tap is unaffected by bandwidth saturation. A SPAN port cannot handle heavily used full-duplex links without dropping packets.
  • A tap is simple to install. A SPAN port requires an engineer to configure the switch or switches.
  • A tap is not an addressable network device. It cannot be hacked. SPAN ports leave you vulnerable.
  • A tap doesn’t require you to dedicate a switch port to monitoring. It frees the monitoring port up for switching traffic.

Don’t Miss the Forest for the Trees: Taps vs. SPAN

Thanks to Ixia for the article.

Do You Have a Network Operations Center Strategy?

Do You Have a Network Operations Center Strategy?The working definition of a Network Operations Center (NOC) varies with each customer we talk with; however, the one point which remains unified is that the NOC should be the main point of visibility for key functions that combine to provide business services.

The level at which a NOC ‘product’ is interactive depends on individual customer goals and requirements. Major equipment vendors trying to increase revenue are delving into management and visibility solutions with acquisitions and mergers, and while their products may provide many good features; those features are focused on their own product lines. In mixed vendor environments this becomes challenging and expensive, if you have to increase the number of visibility islands.

One trend we have seen emerging is the desire for consolidation and simplification within the Operations Centre. In many cases our customers may have the information required to understand the root cause but, getting to that information quickly is a major challenge across multiple standalone tools. Let’s face it, there will never be one single solution that will fulfill absolutely all monitoring and business requirements, and having specialized tools is likely necessary.

The balance lies in finding a powerful, yet flexible solution; one that not only offers a solid core functionality and feature set, but also encourages the orchestration of niche tools. A NOC tool should provide a common point of visibility if you want to quickly identify which business service is affected; easily determine the root cause of that problem, and take measures to correct the problem. Promoting integration with existing business systems, such as CMDB and Helpdesk, both northbound and southbound, will ultimately expand the breadth of what you can accomplish within your overall business delivery strategy. Automated intelligent problem resolution, equipment provisioning, and Change and Configuration Management at the NOC level should also be considered as part of this strategy.

Many proven efficiencies are exposed when you fully explore tool consolidation with a goal of eliminating overlapping technologies and process related bottlenecks, or duplication. While internal tool review often brings forth resistance, it is necessary, and the end result can be enlightening from both a financial and a process aspect. Significant cost savings are easily achieved with fewer maintenance contracts, but with automation a large percent of the non-value adding activities of network engineers can be automated within a product, freeing network engineers to work on proactive new innovations and concepts.

b2ap3_thumbnail_Do_You_Have_a_NOC_Strategy_2.jpgThe ‘Dark Side’

Forward thinking companies are deploying innovative products which allow them to move towards unmanned Network Operations Center, or ‘Dark NOC’. Factors such as energy consumption, bricks and mortar costs, and other increasing operational expenditures strengthen the fact that their NOC may be located anywhere with a network connection and still provide full monitoring and visibility. Next generation tools are no longer a nice to have, but a reality in today’s dynamic environment! What is your strategy?