Incident Management – an explanation and example

Advent IM Security Consultant, Del Brazil, offers some guidance on best practice in Incident Management.

Incident Management is defined by the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) is ‘To restore normal service operation as quickly as possible and minimise the impact on business operations, thus ensuring that agreed levels of service are maintained.’  Although this definition is very much aligned to the service delivery element of IT, organisations should translate it to all areas of the organisation to form the basis of any incident management strategy.

Any Incident Management process should include:-

Incident detection and recording – Ensuring that sufficient and appropriate means of both detecting and reporting of incidents is critical, as failure to report incidents can have a serious impact upon an organisation.  There maybe a legal requirement for incidents to be reported such as incidents associated with the loss of personal data or security breaches related to protectively marked information, although not applicable to every organisation.  Ensuring that an incident is correctly reported will facilitate the correct actions are taken in line with the incident management plan and thus ensure the correct allocation of resources.

An example maybe that an individual receives an email from an untrusted source and without realising any inherent risk, opens an attachment, which in turn causes their terminal to become unresponsive.  The individual contacts the IT department in the first instance in order to initiate some form of containment measures, whilst also documenting down how the incident occurred.

Classification and initial support – There are various levels of severity associated with different types of incident and ensuring that they are correctly classified will mean that the appropriate resources or emergency services are tasked accordingly.  These levels of severity range from low impact/minor incident requiring a limited number and type of resources, through to a major incident, which has the potential to impact on the whole organisation and requires a substantial amount of resources to manage or recover from.  In the early stages of any incident the support provided by a designated incident response team is vital as their initial actions can have potentially massive implications on the organisations ability to resume normal operations.

Following on from the previous example the incident may be classified as a low priority at this stage as only one terminal/user has been affected.  The IT department may have tasked a limited number of resources in tracking down the suspicious email on the mail server and then taken the appropriate quarantining and/or deleting procedures.

Investigation and diagnosis – Further and ongoing investigations into the incident may identify trends or patterns that could further impact on the organisation, once normal operations have been resumed.

Keeping in mind the example previously discussed, should the initial findings of the IT department reveal that the email has been received by a large number of users, then further impact analysis should be undertaken to establish the impact or effect on services before any additional resources are dedicated to resolving the issue.  This further investigation requires an organisation-wide broadcast, highlighting the incident and what actions should be taken in the event that users received suspicious emails or attachments.

Resolution and recovery – Ensuring that the correct rectification method is deployed is paramount, as no two incidents are the same and as such any incident management plan should have a degree of flexibility to accommodate potential variations.

Using our example scenario, the correct rectification solution in this instance would be to purge the mail server of any copies of the suspicious email and then to execute the scanning of the mail server with an anti-virus and/or anti-spam product.  Consideration should be given as to whether to take the mail server off line to perform the relevant scans, however any potential down time may impact on the output of the organisation.  In the event that the mail server is taken off line, it is imperative that communication is maintained with all staff, contractors, customers and third party suppliers etc.

Incident closure – The closure of an incident should be clearly communicated to all parties involved in managing or effecting rectification processes as should a statement stating ‘Business has resumed to normal’ to clearly indicate to all concerned that normal operations can continue.

In our example , it’s essential that all persons involved or impacted by the incident are informed accordingly which formally closes the incident.  This also reassures any interested parties that normal service has been resumed thus preventing any additional business continuity plan being invoked.

Incident ownership, monitoring, tracking and communication – An Incident Manager/Controller should take clear ownership of any incident so that all relevant information is communicated in an effective way to facilitate informed decisions to be made along with the correct allocation of resources.

As always, good communication is vital not only with staff, emergency services and the press but also with key suppliers and customers, as these may have to invoke their own business continuity plans as a result of the incident.  Business continuity plans ensure critical outputs are maintained but the invoking of a plan comes at a cost, whether it be financial or an impact to operational outputs.  It is therefore imperative that once an incident has been deemed formally closed then key suppliers and customers should be informed accordingly, this will  enable them to also return to normal operations.  Post incident analysis or ‘Lessons learnt’ meetings should be held after any incident to highlight any weaknesses or failings so that rectification measures can be introduced accordingly.  Likewise, should there be any good practices or solutions highlighted during the incident, then these should also be captured as they may be used in other areas of the organisation.

Now our example has been correctly identified, treated and business has returned to normal it is imperative that an incident ‘wash up’ meeting takes place to clearly identify those areas for improvement and those that performed well.  The correct allocation of resources during the initial stages of the incident to address what was deemed to be initially a minor incident, resulted minimal impact to not only business outputs, but also to customers or third party suppliers.  The findings of the ‘wash up ‘ meeting should be correctly recorded and analysed for any trends or patterns that may indicate a weakness in security.  In this instance the mail server’s spam filters may have been incorrectly configured or not updated resulting in a vulnerability being exploited.

Any incident management plan should be suitably tested and its effectiveness evaluated with any updates/amendments implemented accordingly.  It would be prudent to exercise any incident management plan annually or when there is a change in the key functions of the organisation.  It is also additionally recommended that all users are reminded of how to report incidents during any annual security awareness education  or training.

As organisations become ever increasingly reliant on internet and IT services, it is imperative that an effective, appropriate and fully tested, Incident Management Procedure is embedded within the organisation.  Failure to ensure this may result in an organisation struggling to deal with or recover from any kind of security incident.

Internet Explorer: Jan 12th will bring some changes…

A post from Advent IM Security Consultant, Chris Cope. 

Do you use Microsoft Internet Explorer?  Are you using a version of Windows older than 8.1?  If the answer to these questions is yes ,or even don’t know, then you need to keep on reading.

On 12 January 2016, Microsoft will only provide security updates to Internet Explorer 11; previous versions will no longer be supported.  Version 11 is the last release of Microsoft’s long running Internet Explorer browser, with Microsoft Edge now supplied by default on newer versions of Windows, version 10 onwards.  Internet Explorer 11 was made available for Windows 8.1 on 17 October 2013 and on 7 November 2013 for Windows 7, but for users who have been running Windows 7 for some time, an older version  of Internet Explorer may be installed, which could include versions 8, 9 and 10.  If you are using Microsoft Vista, or earlier, then you will definitely have a version of Internet Explorer which will no longer be supported.

What does this mean for home users and organisations?  Security updates from vendors such as Microsoft aim to deal with software vulnerabilities that are present in a wide range of applications.  Many applications are released with vulnerabilities which aren’t identified until after their official release, or become apparent following other in-service updates.  The vulnerabilities are identified by either the vendor company, or a third party, and the race is then on to ensure that the vulnerability can be patched before it is exploited by an attacker. These vulnerabilities can lead to a number of attacks, including buffer overflows, remote code execution and privilege escalation.  All of these attacks should be avoided by anyone who is serious about keeping their company, or personal, IT systems secure.

Without enduring support from Microsoft, any future vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer Version 8, 9 and 10 will not be treated.  It would be wrong to assume that just because Internet Explorer  has been in-service for a significant amount of time, all the vulnerabilities would have been identified and patched by now.  Vulnerabilities are routinely discovered on older, as well as newer, software.

So what do you need to do about this?  Organisations should confirm that if Internet Explorer is installed, it has been updated to Version 11.  Home users should do the same.  If you are using a Windows operating system that is older than 8.1, then it is highly likely that you are using an older version of Internet Explorer.  Visiting the Microsoft website will enable you to confirm the Internet Explorer version and upgrade, you can also check yourself by opening the browser, finding settings and clicking on ‘About Internet Explorer’.  If you have an older version, then upgrades are available from the Microsoft website.  Even if you don’t use Internet Explorer, if you have a Windows based computer, it is highly likely that Internet Explorer has been installed, even if another browser has been installed afterwards and is now used by default.  Even software which isn’t used can be a vulnerability which an attacker can exploit. Some organisations may find it difficult to update a particular piece of software across a network in a short time frame.  If Internet Explorer cannot be upgraded to version 11 by the 12th, then the potential risks that the organisation now faces should be properly assessed, with mitigating actions put in place.

Got a Drone for Christmas? Don’t forget Registration and Regulation

Whilst trying to contain my disappointment at not getting Millennium Falcon drone in my stocking, I asked Advent IM Security Consultant, Del Brazil, what the implications are for those of us who do have drones, Star Wars based or not…

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)

Image courtesy of Salvatore Vuono at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of Salvatore Vuono at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

As Christmas has been and gone many of us will now be the proud owner of a drone in some form or another.  The excitement and thrill of being in control of your own flying machine coupled with maybe a camera of some description is only matched by the recent hype related around the new Star Wars movie.  Some people including the author may disagree including; however some people may view the freedom of flying a drone quite a fun hobby but we all have our own vices.

The CAA defines a drone as an unmanned aircraft which unlike traditional remote controlled model aircraft, which have been used by enthusiasts for many years, have the potential to pose a greater risk to the general public and other aircraft.   Unlike manned or model aircraft there are currently no established operating guidelines so operators may not be aware of the potential dangers or indeed the responsibility they have towards avoiding collisions.  Anyone flying a drone either recreationally or commercially has to take responsibility for doing so safely.

The CAA’s focus is purely safety. For the criminal use of drones, including harassment, anti-social behaviour or damage to property, it is a police matter. If people have concerns about a drone being flown in public they should call the police, a CAA spokesman says. “Local police can assess the situation in real time and, if there is any evidence of breaching the air navigation order, they will pass on any information on to us.”

It has been reported that the CAA has prosecuted two Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) operators relating to safety breaches with another four investigations pending. The Association of Chief Police Officers was unable to say how many prosecutions the police have made over drones but there have been a few; although during the ongoing House of Lords select committee inquiry on remotely piloted aircraft systems, Chief Inspector Nick Aldworth of the Metropolitan Police said: “We do not have a criminal privacy law in this country, so it is not the concern of the police to try to develop or enforce it.”

Is there any other legislation that drone operators may fall foul of?  Well according to Chief Inspector Aldworth “The most obvious example to date is the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the specific offence of voyeurism.”

The number and frequency of incidents being report around the world is on the increase which include a Euro 2016 qualifier in Belgrade being stopped after a drone trailing an Albanian flag was flown over the stadium whilst in France a number of nuclear power stations were buzzed by drones in a number of mysterious incidents.

A number of associations affiliated with flying and/or airspace The British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) is campaigning for drones to be programmed not to enter certain airspace – known as geo-fencing. The Phantom series of drones, sold by manufacturer DJI, already includes geo-fencing. The GPS of the drone is programmed with the co-ordinates of thousands of airports around the world. It cannot enter these areas. If it tries to it will be forced to land. And within a 2km radius of a major airport its height will be capped at just 10m.

Another step that BALPA is calling for is that, just like with a car or television, people purchasing a drone would have to give their personal information to the retailer and that this information should be logged or that there is a requirement for users to register their drones with the relevant authority.  This has a twofold effect in that if a drone is apprehended the owner can be traced to ensure that it is returned to its rightful owner and that it may also assist in any investigation relating to illegal activity that may have been undertaken by the operator.

Another possible solution would be to build in strict height limitations just like the Phantom 2 which is limited to a height of 400 feet; although this is likely to be easily circumvented with software.

Regulations have just come into play in the United States which requires hobbyists to register drones as small unmanned aircraft systems on the Federal Aviation Administration website.  The online registration service is active but it is unclear as to the scale of uptake and amount of registrations that have actually taken place thus far.

In Ireland as of 21st December 2015 it is now mandatory for all drone operators to register any drone that weighs more than 1kg in accordance with the Small Unmanned Aircraft (Drones) and Rockets Order S.I. 563 of 2015.  There is clear ‘do’s and don’t guide’ available on the Ireland Aviation Authority (IAA) website.

At present there is no actual regulation in place within the UK that requires operators to register their drones; however that is likely to change as more incidents occur that not only threaten life but also privacy.  There are plans afoot within the House of Lords EU Committee for a drone register to be created which initially would capture business and professional operators and eventually normal consumers too.  There is an Official UK Drone Register but this is specifically for drone operators/owners who voluntarily add their details to a public register to aid in returning drones if they go astray.

The cyber-buck stops in the boardroom…

Advent IM Security Consultant, Del Brazil gives us his view of some of the comments and take-outs that ALL boards need to be aware of, following Dido Harding’s appearance before a parliamentary committee on the TalkTalk Breach.

The TalkTalk security breach continues to roll on with the TalkTalk CEO Dido Harding telling a parliamentary committee on 23.12.15 that she was responsible for security when the telecoms firm was hacked in October. Although there was indeed a dedicated security team in place within TalkTalk it is unrealistic to place the blame solely at the feet of the security team as security is a responsibility of the whole organisation.  It is fair to assume that in the event of an security related issue, as in this case, one person must take overall responsibility and be held to account for the potential lack of technical, procedural measure that may have prevented the breach occurring.

It is a fair assumption to make that in the event that the security breach can be attributed to a single individual then that is an internal disciplinary matter for TalkTalk to resolve unless there is a clear criminal intent associated with the individual concerned.

It is worth noting that although every effort maybe taken to implement the latest security techniques or measures that there is always the possibility that a hacker, like minded criminal organisation or even a disgruntled member of staff may find a way through or around them.

As long as an organisation can demonstrate that they have taken a positive approach to security and considered a number of possible attacks and taken steps to mitigate any potential attack, this may satisfy the ICO that the one of the key principles of the DPA has been considered.

Organisations should always consider reviewing their security measures and practices on a regular basis to ensure that they are best suited to the ever changing threat.  It is appreciated that no one organisation will ever be safe or un-hackable but as long as they conduct annual threat assessments and consider these threats in a clear documented risk assessment they can sleep at night knowing that they have taken all necessary steps to defeat, deter and/or detect any potential attack.

advent IM data protection blog

The TalkTalk security breach has highlighted a number of failings, in the opinion of the author and although they are deemed to be of a serious nature praise should go to the TalkTalk team for being open, honest and up front from the onset.  This has resulted in quite a lot of bad press from which TalkTalk are still feeling the effects from; although some people say that ‘all publicity is good publicity.’  It is clear that TalkTalk are taking the security breach very seriously and are fully engaged with the relevant investigation bodies whilst making every effort to bolster their current security posture.

It is very easy for board members to assume to the role of Director of Security without fully understanding the role or having any degree of training or background knowledge.  Any organisation should ensure that it employs or appoints staff with the correct level of knowledge and experience to specific posts thus facilitating the ‘best person for the best role’ approach.  Currently security, but more specifically IT Security, is seen as a secondary role that can be managed by a senior person from any area within an organisation; however it is finally becoming more apparent to organisations that the IT Security role warrants its own position within the organisational structure of the organisation. Pin Image courtesy of Master isolated images at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

In the author’s opinion it is the organisations that have yet to report security breaches that are more of a concern as no one knows what level of security is in place within these organisations.  It’s not that the author is skeptical that there is an insufficient amount of security in place within these organisations but the fact that they do not report or publicise any cyber security related incidents that is of concern.  No one organisation is that secure that a breach of cyber security or at least a cyber related security incident doesn’t occur.  It’s far better for organisations to highlight or publish any attempted or successful attacks to not only assist other organisations in defeating or detecting attacks but it also shows a degree of transparency to their customers.

Holding on to data is not good practice; A look at the Wetherspoons breach.

Del Brazil turns his well-experienced eye to the Wetherspoons customer data breach and asks some questions about how data was being managed, given how long some of this data had been retained by Wetherspoons. 

wetherspoonIt has been recently reported that the Pub chain JD Wetherspoon has admitted that card data of 100 customers has been stolen from a database after it was hacked.  Weatherspoon’s have stated that “Very limited” credit and debit card information was accessed in the hack in June and that the information could not be used as part of any attempted fraud.  Weatherspoon’s further stated that personal details, including names and email addresses may also have been stolen from more than 650,000 people.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has been notified of the breach, which only came to light recently and is investigating accordingly.

The hacked database contained customer’s details which included names, dates of birth, email addresses and phone numbers; however the 100 affected whose card data was stolen had apparently bought Wetherspoon vouchers online between January 2009 and August 2014.

Will a lead lined wallet be the only solution?

“Only the last four digits of payment cards were obtained in the hack as the remaining digits were not stored in Wetherspoon’s database” said John Hutson, Weatherspoon’s Chief executive.  None of the card data stored by Weatherspoon’s was encrypted because other associated details were not stored on the database.

A letter to those customers whose details may have been hacked advises them to “remain vigilant for any emails that they are not expecting that specifically ask you for personal or financial information, or request you to click on links or download information”.

Despite an email warning being received about the suspected breach little if anything was done to further investigate the possibility of a hack taking place.  The email warning may have been captured by a spam filter and either quarantined or automatically deleted dependent upon the settings of the relevant servers.

Mr Hutson said that the hack has occurred between 15th and 17th June and there was no evidence that fraudulent activity had taken place using the hacked data from the database.  Yo40 1jdHe added: “We have taken all necessary measures to make our website secure again following this attack. A forensic investigation into the breach is continuing.”

istock_000011991144medium.jpgSerious questions need to be asked of Wetherspoon’s as to why they were retaining customer data for such a long period time in fact well past the time for which it was intended to be used for.  Further investigation should establish as to how and why the data was retained for such a long period of time and again one of the main data protection principles is at the forefront of the author’s mind.   If the data was being retained for an appropriate reason and with the individual’s permission was there sufficient security measures in place to safe guard against and/or deter would be hackers.

Weatherspoon’s have already given a clear indication that they fully intend to keep their retention of personal data to a minimum, as stated by founder and Chairman Tim Martin.  Is this likely to be to satisfy the ICO, well in essence, yes, as it does show a clear intention to limit the amount of personal data being retained by Weatherspoon’s; although once the ICO investigation has been completed it is likely that a number of requirements and/or recommendations will be imposed by the ICO.

It is of the opinion of the author that should the ongoing investigation by the ICO highlight significant failings by Weatherspoon’s in the protection of customer data then a fine should be imposed that is in line with the seriousness and size of the breach.  The ICO may take a dim view of this breach as it likely to flaunt one of the key data protection act principles in that Weatherspoon’s may have been storing customer data for longer than necessary and may have not afforded the information the appropriate level of security measures.

Currently there is no legal requirement for companies to report data breaches and/or losses to the ICO; however this is likely to change in the very near future.  In the author’s opinion that each and every company has a moral obligation to not only report the breach or loss of personal data to the individual concerned but also to any recognised institute, such as the ICO, so that improvements on data protection can be pushed forward by looking at previous failings.