Google has officially released the first developer preview for the Privacy Sandbox on Android 13, offering an “early look” at the SDK Runtime and Topics API to boost users’ privacy online.
“The Privacy Sandbox on Android Developer Preview program will run over the course of 2022, with a beta release planned by the end of the year,” the search giant said in an overview.
A “multi-year effort,” Privacy Sandbox on Android aims to create technologies that’s both privacy-preserving as well as keep online content and services free without having to resort to opaque methods of digital advertising.
The idea is to limit sharing of user data with third-parties and operate without cross-app identifiers, including advertising ID, a unique, user-resettable string of letters and digits that can be used to track users as they move between apps.
Google originally announced its plans to bring Privacy Sandbox to Android earlier this February, following the footsteps of Apple’s App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework.
Integral to the proposed initiative are two key solutions —
SDK Runtime, which runs third-party code in mobile apps such as software development kits (SDKs), including those for ads and analytics, in a dedicated sandbox, and
Topics API, which gleans “coarse-grained” interest signals on-device based on a user’s app usage that are then shared with advertisers to serve tailored ads without cross-site and cross-app tracking
To address criticisms that the model could possibly give Google an unfair advantage, the tech behemoth noted that the privacy-oriented systems will be developed as part of the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) to ensure transparency into the design and implementation of these solutions.
“Android will collaborate with the entire industry and app ecosystem on the journey to a more privacy-first mobile platform, and one which supports a rich diversity of value-exchange that benefits users, developers, and advertisers,” the company said.
Cloudflare on Wednesday disclosed that it acted to mitigate a 15.3 million request-per-second (RPS) distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack. The web infrastructure and website security company called it one of the “largest HTTPS DDoS attacks on record.”
“HTTPS DDoS attacks are more expensive in terms of required computational resources because of the higher cost of establishing a secure TLS encrypted connection,” Cloudflare’s Omer Yoachimik and Julien Desgats said. “Therefore it costs the attacker more to launch the attack, and for the victim to mitigate it.”
The volumetric DDoS attack is said to have lasted less than 15 seconds and targeted an unnamed Cloudflare customer operating a crypto launchpad.
Volumetric DDoS attacks are designed to overwhelm a target network/service with significantly high volumes of malicious traffic, which typically originate from a botnet under a threat actor’s control.
Cloudflare said the latest attack was launched from a botnet consisting of roughly 6,000 unique compromised devices, with 15% of the attack traffic emanating from Indonesia, followed by Russia, Brazil, India, Colombia, and the U.S.
“What’s interesting is that the attack mostly came from data centers,” Yoachimik and Desgats noted. “We’re seeing a big move from residential network Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to cloud compute ISPs.”
Record-setting DDoS attacks have become increasingly common in recent months. In August 2021, Cloudflare disclosed what it characterized as the largest application-layer attack ever seen, and, earlier this year, Microsoft revealed that it had prevented multiple DDoS attacks that crossed 2.4 terabits per second (Tbps).
In addition, cybersecurity firm Kaspersky revealed this week that the number of DDoS attacks hit an all-time high in the first quarter of 2022, jumping 4.5 times year-over-year, largely driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“The DDoS attack landscape in Q1 was strongly influenced by the geopolitical situation: since the end of February, we have seen a surge in hacktivist activity and the emergence of a large number of spontaneous botnets that users connected to voluntarily,” the Russian company said.
Cybersecurity researchers have disclosed an unpatched security vulnerability that could pose a serious risk to IoT products.
The issue, which was originally reported in September 2021, affects the Domain Name System (DNS) implementation of two popular C libraries called uClibc and uClibc-ng that are used for developing embedded Linux systems.
uClibc is known to be used by major vendors such as Linksys, Netgear, and Axis, as well as Linux distributions like Embedded Gentoo, potentially exposing millions of IoT devices to security threats.
“The flaw is caused by the predictability of transaction IDs included in the DNS requests generated by the library, which may allow attackers to perform DNS poisoning attacks against the target device,” Giannis Tsaraias and Andrea Palanca of Nozomi Networks said in a Monday write-up.
DNS poisoning, also referred to as DNS spoofing, is the technique of corrupting a DNS resolver cache — which provides clients with the IP address associated with a domain name — with the goal of redirecting users to malicious websites.
The vulnerability in uClibc and uClibc-ng is the result of having a predictable transaction ID assigned to each DNS lookup and their static use of source port 53, effectively defeating source port randomization protections.
Successful exploitation of the bug could allow an adversary to carry out Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attacks and corrupt the DNS cache, effectively rerouting internet traffic to a server under their control.
Nozomi Networks cautioned that the vulnerability could be trivially exploited in a reliable manner should the operating system be configured to use a fixed or predictable source port.
“The attacker could then steal and/or manipulate information transmitted by users, and perform other attacks against those devices to completely compromise them,” the researchers said.
Cybersecurity researchers have detailed as many as five severe security flaws in the implementation of TLS protocol in several models of Aruba and Avaya network switches that could be abused to gain remote access to enterprise networks and steal valuable information.
The findings follow the March disclosure of TLStorm, a set of three critical flaws in APC Smart-UPS devices that could permit an attacker to take over control and, worse, physically damage the appliances.
IoT security firm Armis, which uncovered the shortcomings, noted that the design flaws can be traced back to a common source: a misuse of NanoSSL, a standards-based SSL developer suite from Mocana, a DigiCert subsidiary.
The new set of flaws, dubbed TLStorm 2.0, renders Aruba and Avaya network switches vulnerable to remote code execution vulnerabilities, enabling an adversary to commandeer the devices, move laterally across the network, and exfiltrate sensitive data.
Affected devices include Avaya ERS3500 Series, ERS3600 Series, ERS4900 Series, and ERS5900 Series as well as Aruba 5400R Series, 3810 Series, 2920 Series, 2930F Series, 2930M Series, 2530 Series, and 2540 Series.https://player.vimeo.com/video/704230226?h=6c3f78c718&byline=0&portrait=0
Armis chalked up the flaws to an “edge case,” a failure to adhere to guidelines pertaining to the NanoSSL library that could result in remote code execution. The list of bugs is as follows –
CVE-2022-23676 (CVSS score: 9.1) – Two memory corruption vulnerabilities in the RADIUS client implementation of Aruba switches
CVE-2022-23677 (CVSS score: 9.0) – NanoSSL misuse on multiple interfaces in Aruba switches
HTTP POST request handling heap overflow vulnerability in a discontinued Avaya product line (no CVE)
Even more concerningly, the vulnerabilities found in Avaya switches are zero-click, meaning they can be activated via unauthenticated network packets without any user interaction.
“These research findings are significant as they highlight that the network infrastructure itself is at risk and exploitable by attackers, meaning that network segmentation alone is no longer sufficient as a security measure,” Barak Hadad, head of research in engineering at Armis, said.
Organizations deploying impacted Avaya and Aruba devices are highly recommended to apply the patches to mitigate any potential exploit attempts.
A quick note for administrators and users who use the Trend Micro Apex One product and at the same time use Microsoft Edge as a browser under Windows. I have now received numerous reports on the blog that Trend Micro Apex One is classifying the msedge_200_percent.pak file from Edge 101.0.1210.32 as malware/trojan. This is a false positive.
Microsoft Edge 101.0.1210.32
Microsoft has updated the Chromium Edge browser to version Edge 101.0.1210.32 as of April 28, 2022. This is a maintenance update that closes the two vulnerabilities CVE-2022-29146(privilege elevation) and CVE-2022-29147 (information retrieval) (see also the release notes for the new version). In addition, a number of CVEs that have already been fixed in Google Chrome have also been included in the Edge update. I had reported on this in the blog post Microsoft Edge 101.0.1210.32.
hat zum 28. April 2022 den Chromium-Edge Browser auf die Version Edge 101.0.1210.32 aktualisiert. Es handelt sich um ein Wartungsupdate, das die beiden Schwachstellen (Privilegienerhöhung) und (Abrufen von Informationen) schließt (siehe auch die Release Notes-Seite zur neuen Version). Zudem wurden eine Reihe CVEs, die bereits im Google Chrome gefixt wurden, auch im Edge-Update berücksichtigt. Ich hatte im Blog-Beitrag Microsoft Edge 101.0.1210.32 Sicherheitsupdate darüber berichtet.
Trend Micro Apex One false positive alarm
Since today, May 3, 2022, I’ve been getting more and more feedback from administrators on my blog about Trend Micro’s Apex One security solution raising a false alarm and supposedly detecting a Trojan. The first German comment here already describes the situation:
The update causes a false positive on Trend Micro Apex One!
All of our client agents are currently alerting on the automatic update, pointing to the following file:
We are currently analyzing the incident and therefore we cannot give exact information about it yet.
The whole thing is confirmed by other administrators. The file msedge_200_percent.pak from Edge 101.0.1210.32 is reported as “TROJ_FRS.VSNTE222”. Reader Thomas uploaded the file to Virustotal. Only Trend Micro recognizes it as a virus. Peter L. reports here that also the registry entry:
The whole thing is also confirmed by numerous users there. One user there confirmed that the malware team was informed about the false alarm and was working on an update.
Hi Team,
Our Malware Team are already aware of these False Alarms and is currently checking the issue. Will provide an update once we receive new feedbacks.
Best regards,
Paulo Obrero
Customer Service Engineer
Trend Micro Inc.
All that remains is to wait until the update arrives – and in the meantime to declare the file in question as an exception.
Today Sophos has released the State of Ransomware 2022, its annual study of the real-world ransomware experiences of IT professionals working at the frontline around the globe.
The study has revealed an ever more challenging attack environment together with the growing financial and operational burden ransomware places on its victims. It also shines new light on the relationship between ransomware and cyber insurance, and the role insurance is playing in driving changes to cyber defenses.
This year, 5,600 IT professional from 31 countries participated in the research, with 965 sharing details of ransom payments made. Key findings include:
Ransom attacks are more frequent – 66% of organizations surveyed were hit with ransomware in 2021, up from 37% in 2020
Ransom payments are higher – In 2021, 11% of organizations said they paid ransoms of $1 million or more, up from 4% in 2020, while the percentage of organizations paying less than $10,000 dropped to 21% from 34% in 2020. Overall, the average ransom paid by organizations that had data encrypted in their most significant ransomware attack, increased nearly fivefold to reach $812,360
More victims are paying the ransom – In 2021, 46% of organizations that had data encrypted in a ransomware attack paid the ransom. Twenty-six percent of organizations that were able to restore encrypted data using backups in 2021 also paid the ransom
The impact of a ransomware attack can be immense – The average cost to recover from the most recent ransomware attack in 2021 was $1.4 million. It took on average one month to recover from the damage and disruption. 90% of organizations said the attack had impacted their ability to operate, and 86% of private sector victims said they had lost business and/or revenue because of the attack
Many organizations rely on cyber insurance to help them recover from a ransomware attack – 83% of mid-sized organizations had cyber insurance that covers them in the event of a ransomware attack
Cyber insurance almost always pays out – In 98% of incidents where the victim had cyber insurance that covered ransomware, the insurer paid some or all the costs incurred (with 40% overall covering the ransom payment)
94% of those with cyber insurance said that their experience of getting it has changed over the last 12 months, with higher demands for cybersecurity measures, more complex or expensive policies and fewer organizations offering insurance protection
“The findings suggest we may have reached a peak in the evolutionary journey of ransomware, where attackers’ greed for ever higher ransom payments is colliding head on with a hardening of the cyber insurance market as insurers increasingly seek to reduce their ransomware risk and exposure,” said Chester Wisniewski, principal research scientist at Sophos.
“In recent years, it has become increasingly easy for cybercriminals to deploy ransomware, with almost everything available as-a-service. Second, many cyber insurance providers have covered a wide range of ransomware recovery costs, including the ransom, likely contributing to ever higher ransom demands. However, the results indicate that cyber insurance is getting tougher and in the future ransomware victims may become less willing or less able to pay sky high ransoms. Sadly, this is unlikely to reduce the overall risk of a ransomware attack. Ransomware attacks are not as resource intensive as some other, more hand-crafted cyberattacks, so any return is a return worth grabbing and cybercriminals will continue to go after the low hanging fruit.”
Sophos commissioned research agency Vanson Bourne to conduct an independent, vendor-agnostic survey of 5,600 IT professionals in mid-sized organizations (100-5,000 employees) across 31 countries. The survey was conducted during January and February 2022, and respondents were asked to respond based on their experiences over the previous year. Respondents were from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UAE, UK, and US.
Latest tools, tactics, and procedures being used by the Hive, Conti, and AvosLocker ransomware operations.
Targeted ransomware attacks continue to be one of the most critical cyber risks facing organizations of all sizes. The tactics used by ransomware attackers are continually evolving, but by identifying the most frequently employed tools, tactics, and procedures (TTPs) organizations can gain a deeper understanding into how ransomware groups infiltrate networks and use this knowledge to identify and prioritize areas of weakness.
Symantec, a division of Broadcom Software, tracks various ransomware threats; however, the following three ransomware families are being observed in the majority of recent attacks:
Hive
Conti
Avoslocker
Similar to many other ransomware families, Hive, Conti, and Avoslocker follow the ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) business model. In the RaaS model the ransomware operators hire affiliates who are responsible for launching the ransomware attacks on their behalf. In most cases affiliates stick to a playbook that contains detailed attack steps laid out by the ransomware operators.
Once initial access to a victim network has been gained, Hive, Conti, and Avoslocker use a plethora of TTPs to help the operators achieve the following:
Gain persistence on the network
Escalate privileges
Tamper with and evade security software
Laterally move across the network
Initial Access
Affiliates for the Hive, Conti, and Avoslocker ransomware operators use a variety of techniques to gain an initial foothold on victim networks. Some of these techniques include:
Spear phishing leading to the deployment of malware, including but not limited to:
IcedID
Emotet
QakBot
TrickBot
Taking advantage of weak RDP credentials
Exploiting vulnerabilities such as:
Microsoft Exchange vulnerabilities – CVE-2021-34473, CVE-2021-34523, CVE-2021-31207, CVE-2021-26855
FortiGate firewall vulnerabilities – CVE-2018-13379 and CVE-2018-13374
Apache Log4j vulnerabily – CVE-2021-44228
In most cases, the spear-phishing emails contain Microsoft Word document attachments embedded with macros that lead to the installation of one of the previously mentioned malware threats. In some instances, attackers use this malware to install Cobalt Strike, which is then used to pivot to other systems on the network. These malware threats are then used to distribute ransomware onto compromised computers.
Persistence
After gaining initial access, Symantec has observed affiliates for all three ransomware families using third-party software such as AnyDesk and ConnectWise Control (previously known as ScreenConnect) to maintain access to victim networks. They also enable default Remote Desktop access in the firewall:
netsh advfirewall firewall set rule group=”Remote Desktop” new enable=yes
Actors are also known to create additional users on compromised systems to maintain access. In some instances we have seen threat actors add registry entries that allow them to automatically log in when a machine is restarted:
During the discovery phase the ransomware actors try to sweep the victim’s network to identify potential targets. Symantec has observed the aforementioned ransomware actors using tools such as the following:
ADRecon – Gathers Active Directory information and generates a report
Netscan – Discovers devices on the network
Credential Access
Mimikatz is a go-to tool for most ransomware groups and Hive, Conti, and Avoslocker are no exception. We have observed them using the PowerShell version of Mimikatz as well as the PE version of the tool. There are also instances where the threat actors directly load the PowerShell version of Mimikatz from GitHub repositories:
In addition to using Mimikatz, the threat actors have also taken advantage of the native rundll32 and comsvcs.dll combination to dump the LSASS memory:
rundll32.exe C:\Windows\System32\comsvcs.dll, MiniDump <process id> lsass.dmp full
Adversaries also dump the SECURITY, SYSTEM, and SAM hives and later extract credentials from the dump. In rare occasions they have also been observed using taskmgr.exe to dump the LSASS memory and later using the dump to extract valuable credentials.
Lateral Movement
Attackers employ tools like PsExec, WMI, and BITSAdmin to laterally spread and execute the ransomware on victim networks. We have also observed the attackers using several other techniques to laterally move across networks.
As with a number of other ransomware families, Hive, Conti, and Avoslocker also tamper with various security products that interfere with their goal. We have observed them meddling with security services using the net, taskkill, and sccommands to disable or terminate them. In some cases they also use tools like PC Hunterto end processes. They have also been seen tampering with various registry entries related to security products, since changes to the registry entries can make those products inoperative.
Both Hive and AvosLocker have been observed attempting to disable Windows Defender using the following reg.exe commands.
Adversaries tend to disable or tamper with operating system settings in order to make it difficult for administrators to recover data. Deleting shadow copies is a common tactic threat actors perform before starting the encryption process. They perform this task by using tools like Vssadmin or WMIC and running one of the following commands:
vssadmin.exe delete shadows /all /quiet
wmic.exe shadowcopy delete
We have also seen BCDEditbeing used to disable automatic system recovery and to ignore failures on boot:
Attackers commonly exfiltrate critical data from a victim’s environment before encrypting it. They then use the stolen data in an attempt to extort a ransom from victims. We have observed threat actors using the following cloud services to exfiltrate data:
https://anonfiles.com
https://mega.nz
https://send.exploit.in
https://ufile.io
https://www.sendspace.com
We have also seen attackers use the following tools for data exfiltration:
Filezilla
Rclone
Conclusion
The TTPs outlined in this blog are a snapshot of the current ransomware threat landscape. The TTPs used by these threat actors are constantly evolving, with groups continually tweaking their methods in a bid to outmaneuver their targets’ security defenses. As such, organizations need to be vigilant and employ a multi-layered security approach.
Symantec Protection
Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) protects against ransomware attacks using multiple static and dynamic technologies.
AV Protection
Ransom.Hive
Ransom.Conti
Ransom.AvosLocker
Backdoor.Cobalt
Hacktool.Mimikatz
Trojan.IcedID*
Trojan.Emotet*
W32.Qakbot*
Trojan.Trickybot*
Behavioral Protection
SONAR.RansomHive!g2
SONAR.RansomHive!g3
SONAR.RansomHive!g4
SONAR.RansomAvos!g2
SONAR.RansomConti!g1
SONAR.RansomConti!g3
SONAR.RansomConti!g4
SONAR.Ransomware!g30
SONAR.RansomGregor!g1
SONAR.SuspLaunch!gen4
SONAR.SuspLaunch!g18
SONAR.Ransom!gen59
SONAR.Ransomware!g26
SONAR.Cryptlck!g171
Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) detections
IPS blocks initial access, persistence, and lateral movement. SEP’s Audit Signatures are intended to raise awareness of potentially unwanted traffic on the network. By default, Audit Signatures do not block. Administrators reviewing the logs of IPS events in their network can note these Audit events and decide whether or not to configure the corresponding Audit Signatures to block the traffic.
The following is a list of Audit Signatures that can be enabled to block, through policies, activity related to the use of software or tools such as AnyDesk, ScreenConnect, and PsExec.
Symantec recommends that you have intrusion prevention enabled on all your devices including servers.
Adaptive Protection
Symantec Adaptive Protection can help protect against lateral movement and ransomware execution techniques used by an attacker. If you are not using tools like PsExec, WMIC, and BITSAdmin in your environment then you should “Deny” these applications and actions using Symantec Adaptive Protection policies.
Recommendations
Customers are advised to enable their Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) on desktops and servers for best protection. Click here for instructions on enabling the IPS Server Performance Tuning feature. This feature should be enabled on servers to allow additional tuning for the IPS module and definitions in high-throughput scenarios.
Customers are also advised to enable Proactive Threat Protection, also known as SONAR, which is Symantec’s behavior-based protection.
Customers should also keep Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) up-to-date with the latest version and definition set.
Symantec has multi-layer protection technologies for all the threat types. To provide the best protection, all SEP features should be enabled for Windows desktops and servers.
A company can accumulate massive amounts of information that security analysts are not able to monitor instantly. This can mean that priority security alerts either go unnoticed or are considered a false alarm because the appropriate technology is not available, which results in organizations failing to take action in time.
A Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) system specializes in prioritizing critical alerts over information received in real time, thus adapting to the needs of all organizations. This is achieved by incorporating multiple intelligence feeds and logs according to the criteria and needs set by the IT department. This makes it possible to categorize events and contextualize cybersecurity threat alerts.
The main benefits of having corporate SIEM systems are as follows:
A SIEM system ensures that alerts reach the right people so that they can carry out contextualized research and apply remediation mechanisms. This saves time as analysts are not required to interpret data from so many different sources.
It reduces the company’s costs, both in terms of infrastructure – by gaining full visibility into how the systems accessing the network are using it – and in terms of consuming resources. For example, a SIEM system can analyze the bandwidth machines are using and generate an event warning if one of them is consuming more resources than it should, which the IT department then checks for anomalies. SIEM enables better management of security resources, which translates into cost savings.
It restores cybersecurity configurations if they have been changed by mistake, which could leave an organization dangerously exposed to threats. SIEM can automatically detect a change in the configuration and generate an event to alert the company’s security analyst, who reviews the change and can restore the previous configuration if the new one is potentially hazardous to the company.
It detects operational maintenance activities in the business infrastructure that could pose a risk to the organization. Cybersecurity administrators incorporate the function of creating an event before a change to the company’s maintenance activities log, as well as in Windows. Then if there is any malicious activity they can decide whether or not to validate these adjustments.
It provides cyberattack control and protection in order to act before it becomes an irreversible problem, filtering whether it is a real attack or a false alarm. Known or unknown attacks are analyzed whether they are malwareless attacks (which resort to the legitimate tools of the system itself) or DDoS attacks or advanced persistent threats (APTs).
In the case of malware attacks, the usual security logs can send alerts for both real attacks and false alarms. To avoid alert saturation, SIEM solutions use event correlation to determine accurately whether or not it is a malware attack, as well as to detect the potential access points for the attack.
In DDoS attacks, SIEM is able to flag such an event from web traffic logs, prioritizing the event and sending it to an analyst for investigation before causing a slowdown or a total company service outage.
Finally, due to their complexity, when advanced persistent threats are detected they may not trigger alerts or be considered false alarms. Having a SIEM solution helps demonstrate a pattern of anomalous behavior, flagging it as a real concern for security analysts to investigate.
Given the differentiating value of this solution, WatchGuard has incorporated its SIEMFeeder module into WatchGuard EDR and EDPR to collect and correlate the status of IT systems, enabling organizations to turn large volumes of data into useful information for decision making.
Microsoft on Thursday disclosed that it addressed a pair of issues with the Azure Database for PostgreSQL Flexible Server that could result in unauthorized cross-account database access in a region.
“By exploiting an elevated permissions bug in the Flexible Server authentication process for a replication user, a malicious user could leverage an improperly anchored regular expression to bypass authentication to gain access to other customers’ databases,” Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) said.
New York City-based cloud security company Wiz, which uncovered the flaws, dubbed the exploit chain “ExtraReplica.” Microsoft said it mitigated the bug within 48 hours of disclosure on January 13, 2022.
Specifically, it relates to a case of privilege escalation in the Azure PostgreSQL engine to gain code execution and a cross-account authentication bypass by means of a forged certificate, allowing an attacker to create a database in the target’s Azure region and exfiltrate sensitive information.
In other words, successful exploitation of the critical flaws could have enabled an adversary to gain unauthorized read access to other customers’ PostgreSQL databases, effectively circumventing tenant isolation.
Wiz traced the privilege escalation to a bug stemming as a result of modifications introduced in the PostgreSQL engine to harden its privilege model and add new features. The name ExtraReplica comes from the fact that the exploit leverages a PostgreSQL feature that permits copying database data from one server to another, i.e., “replicating” the database.
The Windows maker described the security vulnerability as affecting PostgreSQL Flexible Server instances deployed using the public access networking option, but stressed that it did not find evidence of the flaw being actively exploited and that no customer data was accessed.
“No action is required by customers,” MSRC said. “In order to further minimize exposure, we recommend that customers enable private network access when setting up their Flexible Server instances.”
You’ve been asked for a Vulnerability Assessment Report for your organisation and for some of you reading this article, your first thought is likely to be “What is that?”
Worry not. This article will answer that very question as well as why you need a Vulnerability Assessment Report and where you can get one from.
As it’s likely the request for such a report came from an important source such as the Board, a partner, a client or an auditor, there isn’t a moment to waste. So let’s drive straight in.
What is a Vulnerability Assessment Report and why do you need one?
A Vulnerability Assessment Report is simply a document that illustrates how you are managing your organisation’s vulnerabilities. It’s important because, with tens of thousands of new technology flaws being discovered every year, you need to be able to prove that your organisation does its best to avoid attack if you want to be trusted by partners and customers.
A best security practice recommended by governments across the world, a vulnerability assessment is an automated review process that provides insights into your current security state. The vulnerability assessment report is the outcome of this review. Used as a roadmap to a better state of security preparedness, it lays out the unique risks your organisation is up against due to the technology you use, and reveals how best to overcome them with minimal disruption to your core business strategy and operations.
The help it provides is clear but why do you need one? As mentioned above, it’s likely you were asked for a Vulnerability Assessment Report by the Board, a partner, a client or an auditor as each of these groups needs reassurance that you’re on top of any weaknesses in your infrastructure. Here’s why:
— Customers need to trust you
Weaknesses in your IT systems could affect your customers’ operations. With supply chain attacks on the rise, a vulnerability in a single company could leave the whole range of organizations paralysed, as demonstrated by the infamous SolarWinds hack last year.
It doesn’t matter how small your business is; if your customers will be entrusting you with any of their data, they may wish for a Vulnerability Assessment Report first to confirm that your IT security practices are tiptop.
— The Board wants a better understanding of the business’ risk
Cyber security is a growing concern across many businesses, so chances are your board members want to take a better grip of their risk, before the lack of insights into vulnerabilities is turned into a much more serious business problem. With ransomware attacks regularly making headlines, having proper vulnerability management in place and presenting an “all clear” report, can give your business heads that needed peace of mind.
— Your auditors are checking for compliance
Many of the regulatory or compliance frameworks related to security and privacy, like SOC2, HIPAA, GDPR, ISO 27001, and PCI DSS, advise or outright require regular compliance scans and reporting, so if the request for a vulnerability assessment report was made by your auditor, it is likely to be for compliance purposes.
— Your CFO is renewing your cyber insurance
It could be the case that your insurance provider is seeking a vulnerability assessment report as part of the underwriting process. If you don’t want to run the risk of being denied your insurance payment or wouldn’t like to see your premiums rise, then you could benefit from supplying these reports regularly.
How often do you need to produce a vulnerability assessment report?
Regularly. Think of it like vulnerability scanning: For maximum efficacy, you need to conduct regular, if not constant, comprehensive evaluations of your entire technology stack, otherwise you could miss something that could bring your business to a costly halt.
Cybercriminals do not stop searching until they find something they can take advantage of. You need to scan your systems continuously and have up to date reporting to reflect your vigilance as and when it’s needed.
Modern vulnerability scanning solutions, like Intruder, will give you a cyber hygiene score which enables you to track the progress of your vulnerability management efforts over time, proving that your security issues are being continuously resolved in good time.
A vulnerability assessment report from Intruder, to provide evidence to your customers or regulators that a vulnerability scanning process is in place.
What should be included in a vulnerability assessment report?
Unfortunately, there isn’t a one size fits all report. While the contents are generally the number of vulnerabilities detected in your systems at a point in time, your different stakeholders will require varying levels of detail. Even for compliance purposes, vulnerability assessment reporting requirements can differ.
As a good rule of thumb, we recommend building an Executive Report containing graph views and composite cyber hygiene scores for the Board and C-Suite that clue them in on where they stand at any given moment. And for your IT team, their report needs greater detail such as how to apply the correct solutions to existing problems and sidestep subsequent mistakes.
Where can you get a Vulnerability Assessment Report from?
Ensuring your Vulnerability Assessment Reports contain all the elements and information your stakeholders require can take a lot of work and expertise; which can distract your security teams from other activities that will keep your organisation secure. That is why it’s recommended to choose an external provider to produce your reports.
Before you start comparing individual vendors, make sure you have a solid understanding of your technical environment and of the specific outcomes that the vulnerability assessment should present. This is because vulnerability assessment tools are not built the same; they check for different types of weaknesses, so you need to choose the solution that best suits your requirements. Consider the features and checks you’ll require, as well as the industry standards you need to follow and your budget.
Two key elements to consider relate to reporting: firstly, how flexible the assessment provider will be with how much detail is presented (particularly if you need to present data to different audiences); and secondly, how clearly the results are communicated. Scanning results can be overwhelming but the right vendor will demystify complex security data to grant you a clear, jargon-free understanding of the risks you face.
At Intruder, reports are designed to be well-understood, whilst also maintaining all the technical detail required by IT managers and DevOps teams. Whether you’re a massive enterprise or a fledgling startup, you can generate rapid reports, create compliance paper trails, stay secure, and communicate with employees and potential investors. Intruder offers a free trial of its software, which you can activate here. Get vulnerability assessment reporting in place now.
