The Red Report 2024: The Top 10 Most Prevalent MITRE ATT&CK Techniques
Sıla Özeren | February 08, 2024
Building a Robust Defense-in-Depth Strategy with Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS)
Effective security validation is key to countering advanced and dynamic cyber threats. Traditional methods like red teaming, penetration testing, and vulnerability assessments, while fundamental, often provide only intermittent security insights. Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS), however, marks a significant leap in security validation. Offering continuous, automated testing, BAS adeptly keeps pace with the fast-evolving tactics of cyber adversaries. This approach presents a more responsive and thorough method for reinforcing cybersecurity.
This blog delves into BAS's technical edge over traditional methods, underscoring its proactive role in identifying and mitigating a variety of emerging threats, thereby bolstering an organization's cyber defenses in real time.
Security validation is an automated and continuous approach to assessing the effectiveness of an organization's security controls in safeguarding against cyber threats. This process involves assessing both prevention and detection layer solutions—such as firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention systems, and antivirus solutions—against potential threats to ensure they function as intended and provide the necessary protection against cyberattacks.
The goal of security validation is to identify and address any gaps or weaknesses in the security posture before they can be exploited by malicious actors, thus ensuring the organization's digital assets and data are adequately safeguarded. Thus, it's a proactive approach to maintaining robust cybersecurity defenses in an ever-evolving digital threat landscape.
Traditional security validation methods like red teaming, penetration testing, and vulnerability assessment, while valuable, have certain limitations in effectively delivering comprehensive security validation. In this section, we are going to look at the limitations of traditional security validation methods.
Here are the three primary limitations that hinder the effectiveness of red teaming as the sole method for security validation:
Infrequent Execution: Red teaming, typically conducted only a few times a year due to its resource-intensive nature, is insufficient for continuously validating an organization's dynamically changing security posture. This infrequent schedule can result in the omission of new attack vectors that may emerge between exercises, such as those stemming from credential and privilege abuse or misconfigurations. Adversaries may exploit these vulnerabilities in sequence to achieve their objectives.
Limited Validation: Since red team practices are typically carried out by individual experts or small groups, they're not practical for thoroughly validating all of an organization's security solutions. This method's solitary or small-team nature makes it challenging to comprehensively assess every aspect of an organization's security infrastructure, leading to potential gaps in security validation.
The Evolving Threat Landscape: Characterized by APT groups exploiting the latest vulnerabilities and employing sophisticated techniques, poses a significant challenge for red team professionals. Keeping pace with the rapidly changing Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs), including high-profile zero-day attacks with publicly available proof of concept (PoC), can be infeasible due to human limitations and resource constraints.
Penetration testing is a critical component in the security assessment toolbox, but relying on it exclusively for security validation presents several limitations:
Scope Limitations: Penetration tests often focus on specific targets such as certain systems, applications, or network segments, potentially overlooking broader aspects of security. This targeted approach might miss comprehensive assessments of the overall network security, the effectiveness of email or application gateway defenses, the robustness of endpoint protections, and the security of end-to-end data flows. As a result, these tests might not provide a complete coverage of an organization's security posture.
Snapshot in Time: Penetration testing offers a snapshot of the security posture at a specific point in time. Security is a dynamic field, with new vulnerabilities and threats emerging constantly. What may be secure today might not be tomorrow, and penetration tests can't continuously validate security controls or detect newly developed threats.
Resource Intensive: Penetration testing can be resource-intensive, requiring specialized skills and sometimes significant time to conduct thoroughly. This often means that such tests can only be conducted infrequently. Relying solely on these tests leaves long periods during which new vulnerabilities can emerge and remain undetected.
False Sense of Security: Sole reliance on penetration testing can lead to a false sense of security. Just because a penetration test doesn't find vulnerabilities doesn't mean they don't exist. Attackers may use different methods or find overlooked weaknesses. Additionally, penetration tests typically do not assess the effectiveness of an organization's response to an actual breach.
Here are five main reasons why vulnerability assessment methods cannot be solely relied upon for security validation:
Lack of Real-World Attack Simulation: Vulnerability assessments focus on identifying known weaknesses in systems, software and networks but do not simulate real-world attack scenarios to validate them. This means they don’t test how different vulnerabilities could be exploited in a coordinated attack, nor how security controls perform under such conditions.
Static and Periodic Nature: These assessments provide a snapshot of vulnerabilities at a specific point in time. They lack the capability to offer continuous, real-time feedback and adaptability in security defense, which is essential in the rapidly evolving cyber threat landscape.
Limited Scope in Risk Analysis: Vulnerability assessments identify specific security weaknesses but often lack contextual analysis within a broader attack strategy. They don’t typically evaluate the cumulative impact or interconnected nature of vulnerabilities in a coordinated cyber assault.
Generalized Remediation Recommendations: While proficient in spotting system vulnerabilities, vulnerability assessments usually provide more generalized remediation recommendations. These may not align with the specific nuances of an organization's technology stack or prioritize vulnerabilities based on their potential exploitability in real attack scenarios.
Insufficient Comprehensive Threat Coverage: These methods primarily focus on known vulnerabilities and configuration issues. They do not encompass a wide range of cyber threats, including those from advanced persistent threats (APTs), nor do they regularly update with the latest cyber threat intelligence to cover emerging threats.
In the upcoming chapters, we will discuss how Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) technology can address the limitations of traditional security assessment methods and why it is the best form of security validation practice.
BAS emerges as a critical, dynamic, and continuous approach, revolutionizing the landscape of security assessment with its relentless and adaptive methodology. This method is instrumental in revealing the true efficacy of an organization’s security measures under real-world attack conditions.
The significance of BAS is highlighted by a common problem in cybersecurity: the prevalence of misconfigured, outdated, or even discontinued security solutions.
This issue often leads to a false sense of security, leaving organizations vulnerable to compromise. BAS technology tackles this problem by actively testing security posture of an organization, not merely reviewing them. It achieves this through simulating a wide array of cyberattack scenarios, mirroring the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) that real attackers use, thereby covering both known and emerging threats. These simulations provide a comprehensive assessment of the organization's security infrastructure, from the overall strategy down to specific defense mechanisms, ensuring they are not just installed but are functioning effectively and efficiently.
BAS is instrumental in identifying often-missed weaknesses within an organization's security framework. It effectively uncovers areas where network defenses, such as firewalls and intrusion detection and prevention systems, might falter or underperform. Additionally, BAS extends its reach to specialized solutions across various security layers, including web application firewalls, email gateway security, and data loss prevention systems, particularly under the stress of real cyber threats. This approach transforms security validation from a theoretical concept into a practical, actionable process, providing clear insights into weaknesses and inefficiencies. With the knowledge gained from BAS, organizations are empowered to proactively tackle these critical security gaps.
Consequently, BAS plays a pivotal role in ensuring that security measures are not only installed but are also fully functional, correctly configured, and continually updated to match the evolving dynamics of the cyber threat landscape.
Here is an overview of the security solutions that BAS can rigorously evaluate for effectiveness. For more information, visit our latest whitepaper on how BAS can be fit into your organization’s multi-layered security strategy.
NGFW, IPS, IDS, VPN, NAC, SWG
EPP, EDR, HIPS, HIDS, Anti-Virus Software, Anti-Malware Software
Cross Layer Solutions
SIEM, SOAR, XDR
BAS represents the best approach for effective security validation due to its comprehensive, continuous, and automated nature in assessing cybersecurity defenses. Here's why:
BAS stands out from traditional methods by offering not just a point-in-time snapshot but continuous security assessments of implemented defensive measures. This ongoing monitoring is especially vital in the rapidly changing digital threat landscape and the dynamic environments of modern organizations. It enables the immediate validation and mitigation of security gaps, ensuring that security postures are consistently current and up-to-date.
BAS leverages advanced, technical methodologies to accurately simulate real-world cyberattack scenarios, covering a spectrum of both known and emerging cyber threats. This approach involves carefully designed, non-destructive simulations that mimic the TTPs of real-life adversaries. By doing so, it puts an organization's defenses through rigorous testing, closely mirroring actual attack scenarios.
Thus, BAS delivers a thorough, technical evaluation of the organization's security measures, assessing their ability to not only detect and block, but also to alert, log, and efficiently respond to actual cyber incidents. The outcome is a comprehensive understanding of the robustness and responsiveness of the security infrastructure against sophisticated cyber threats.
BAS assesses security controls across different stages of attack techniques, aligning them with widely recognized frameworks like MITRE ATT&CK. These stages include initial access, exploitation, persistence, impact, and more. This thorough coverage guarantees the identification of security gaps at every level of a possible cyber attack, offering a holistic perspective on the organization's cybersecurity preparedness.
Engaging in penetration testing and red team exercises, while valuable, often demand significant resources and can be costly, with each engagement typically being unique and non-repetitive. In contrast, BAS offers a more efficient and continuous alternative. By automating the testing process, BAS reduces the reliance on extensive manpower and resources, yet still delivers high-quality, actionable insights. This approach not only cuts costs but also enables more frequent and consistent security assessments, providing a sustainable solution for continuous cybersecurity evaluation.
BAS goes beyond merely identifying security gaps; it provides comprehensive insights and actionable recommendations for mitigation, including both generic and vendor-specific mitigation signatures. This nuanced guidance is crucial for effectively prioritizing and addressing security vulnerabilities, ensuring that resources are optimally allocated to areas of greatest need.
BAS systems are regularly updated to include the latest threat intelligence. This adaptability means that organizations are always prepared for the newest attack vectors, keeping their defenses one step ahead of potential attackers.
BAS provides quantifiable metrics that help in assessing the effectiveness of current security measures. These metrics are invaluable for reporting to stakeholders and for making informed decisions about where to invest in cybersecurity.
While BAS brings critical advancements to cybersecurity, it doesn't completely overshadow traditional security assessment methods like penetration testing, red teaming, and vulnerability assessments. Instead, BAS should be viewed as a vital complement to these traditional methods. The continuous, automated nature of BAS fills in the gaps left by the periodic nature of traditional assessments, ensuring that an organization's security posture is not only robust at a given moment but is consistently updated to face new and evolving threats.
Therefore, the most effective cybersecurity strategy is one that integrates BAS with traditional methods. This approach leverages the depth and specificity of traditional assessments along with the continuous monitoring and adaptability of BAS. Together, they provide a dynamic, comprehensive defense mechanism, offering a more complete picture of an organization's cybersecurity readiness and ensuring a stronger, more resilient security posture in the face of the ever-changing digital threat landscape.