I'm back with another look at
security event correlation. This time it's a June 2008 review of SIEM technology by Greg Shipley titled
SIEM tools come up short. The majority of the article talk about non-correlation issues, but I found this section relevant to my ongoing analysis:
"Correlation" has long been the buzzword used around event reduction, and all of the products we tested contained a correlation engine of some sort. The engines vary in complexity, but they all allow for basic comparisons: if the engine sees A and also sees B or C, then it will go do X. Otherwise, file the event away in storage and move onto the next. We'd love to see someone attack the event reduction challenge with something creative like Bayesian filtering, but for now correlation-based event reduction appears to be the de facto standard...Ok, that sounds like "correlation" to me. Let's see an example.
For example, one of the use cases we tackled was the monitoring of login attempts from foreign countries. We wanted to keep a particularly close watch on successful logins from countries in which we don't normally have employees in. To do this, there are a few things that had to be in place: We had to have authentication logs from the majority of systems that would receive external logins (IPsec and SSL VPN concentrators, Web sites, any externally exposed *NIX systems); we had to have the ability to extract usernames and IP addresses from these logs; and, we had to have the ability to map an IP address to a country code. Not rocket science to do without a SIEM, but not entirely trivial, either.That doesn't quite seem to match. This use case says "if any system to which a user could log in registers a login from a foreign country, generate an alert." This is simply putting login records from a variety of sources in one place so that a generic policy ("watch for foreign logins") can be applied, after which an alert is generated. Do you really need a SIEM for that?
Here's a thought experiment for those who think "prevention" is the answer: why aren't foreign logins automatically blocked?
"If you can detect it, why can't you prevent it?" The key word in the example is "usually," meaning "we don't know our enterprise or business well enough to define normality, so we can't identify exceptions which indicate incidents. We can't block the activity, but we'd like to know when it happens, i.e., drop the P, put back the D between I and S.
Back to correlation -- I think a real correlation case would be "if you see a successful login, followed by access to a sensitive file, followed by the exfiltration of that file, fire an alert." Hold on, this is where it gets interesting.
There are three contact points here, assuming the foreign login is by an unauthorized party:
- Access via stolen credentials: If it's not the user, the credentials were stolen. However, you didn't stop it, because you don't know the credentials are stolen.
- Access to a sensitive file: How did you know it was sensitive? Because the intruder is impersonating a user whose status is assumed to permit access, you don't stop it.
- Exfiltration of the file: If this account (under legitimate or illegitimate control) shouldn't be removing this file, why is that allowed to happen? The answer is that you don't know beforehand that it's sensitive, and there is no real control at the file level for preventing its removal.
If you knew enough to identify that this activity is bad, at each contact point
you should have stopped it. If you're not stopping it, why? It's probably because you don't know any of these contact points are bad. You don't know the credentials are stolen (yet). The impersonated user probably has legitimate access to a file, so you're not going to block that. Legitimate users also probably can move files via authorized channels (such as would be the case via this "login"), so you don't block that.
In other words,
if you're not smart enough to handle this, why would correlation via a SIEM be any smarter? Cue my
Hawke vs the Machine post from almost two years ago:
Archangel: They haven't built a machine yet that could replace a good pilot, Hawke.
Hawke: Let's hope so.Back to Greg's case. It turns out that generic policy application against disparate devices appears to be the "win" here:
Q1 Labs' QRadar had all of the functionality to do this, and we were able to build a multi-staged rule that essentially said, "If you see a successful login event from any devices whose IP address does not originate from one of the following countries, generate an alert". Because of the normalization and categorization that occurs as events flow into the SIEM, it's possible to specify "successful login event" without getting into the nuances of Linux, Windows, IIS, VPN concentrators. This is the convenience that SIEM can offer. (emphasis added)
Is that worth the money?
Finally, I'm a little more suspicious about the following:
Most modern SIEM products also ship with at least a minimum set of bundled correlated rules, too. For example, when we brought a new Snort IDS box online, there was a deluge of alerts, the majority of them considered false-positives. Because of useful reduction logic, there was only one alert out of 6,000 that actually appeared on our console across all of the products tested. That alert was based on a predefined correlation rule that looked for a combination of "attack" activity and a successful set of logins within a set period of time. It's more likely the SIEMs considered the "deluge" events to be of lower priority, so they never appeared on screen. Think of the myriad of ICMP, UPnP, and other alerts generated by any stock IDS ruleset being "tuned down" as "informational" so they don't make the front of the dashboard. If I knew this SIEM test correlated vulnerability data with IDS attack indications, the useful reduction logic would make more sense. I can't be sure but you can guess which way I'm leaning.
Last year at this time I wrote a series of posts on security event correlation. I offered the following definition in the final post:
