State of the Practice of Computer Security Incident Response Teams ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

their web pages. This may also be true for university or research networks. But for local and commercial teams, that information is not usually available. There is also no standard manager to which a CSIRT reports. The title of the manager often relates to the department in which the CSIRT is located and the title that department’s manager has been given, such as “Head of Network Services” or “Director of Telecommunications.” Depending on who you talk to in the CSIRT community, you will get a variety of answers to the question “To whom should a CSIRT report?” Some will say they should report to the CIO, others to the CSO, and others to the head of audit or the compliance divisions. To find out more information, we asked in our survey where CSIRTs were organizationally located and to whom they reported. Participants in the CSIRT Organizational Survey cited the IT department 41% of the time as their location in the hierarchical structure of their parent or host organization. 58 The next most frequently cited location (24%) was for CSIRTs that are separate groups outside of any existing department. Looking at the survey data for the sector in which a CSIRT is located and its organizational placement, the following trends can be observed: 59 • The majority of the military CSIRTs were located within the IT department. • Almost all participating educational sector CSIRTs were located in the IT department of the parent university or research network. There were no other correlations based on sector. 3.2.3.1 To Whom the CSIRT Reports The survey data also showed no clear or consistent reporting structure for CSIRTs. • 38% of the participating CSIRTs stated that they report to someone other than the CIO, IT manager, CSIRT manager, or security manager. Most of the teams identified an organizational department or manager to whom the team reports. • 31% stated that they report to the CIO. • The only correlation between the sector and the reporting structure was in the banking and finance sector, where all participating teams reported to the CIO. Across the other sectors, the teams reported to various other managers. 58 59 In an informal survey of 14 CSIRTs done by the CERT CSIRT Development Team in 2000, the majority of the teams also identified this location as the department in which the CSIRT was positioned. See page 16 for a list of all sectors used in the survey. 52 CMU/SEI-2003-TR-001
3.2.3.2 Organizational Model The various organizational models for CSIRTs are described in Section 2.2, “Types of CSIRTs.” The last part of that section details the categories used in the survey. The largest number of participating CSIRTS (34%) identified the centralized CSIRT model as their current organizational model. 60 This type of team is situated in one location and usually performs CSIRT work 100% of the time. The rest of the teams were fairly evenly distributed across the following categories: ad hoc team (13%), coordination center (13%), combined team (17%) and distributed part-time team (21%). The only correlation between sector and team model in the survey data was in the information and communication sector, where most participating CSIRTs identified themselves as having some type of distributed team, whether it was ad hoc, dedicated distributed, or combined. There was no other correlation in the data collected between what sector the CSIRT was located in and what type of CSIRT model the team had. 3.2.4 CSIRT Authority “Authority” describes the control that the CSIRT has over its own actions and the actions of its constituents related to computer security and incident response. Authority is the basic relationship the CSIRT has to the organization it serves. According to the Handbook for CSIRTs, there are three levels of authority or relationships that a CSIRT can have with its constituency [West-Brown 03]: • Full authority: The CSIRT can make decisions, without management approval, to direct response and recovery actions. For example, a CSIRT with full authority would be able to tell a system administrator to disconnect a system from the network during an intruder attack. • Shared authority: The CSIRT participates in the decision process regarding what actions to take during a computer security incident, but can only influence, not make, the decision. • No authority: The CSIRT cannot make any decisions or take any actions on its own. The CSIRT can only act as an advisor to an organization, providing suggestions, mitigation strategies, or recommendations. The CSIRT cannot enforce any actions. For example, the CERT/CC is a CSIRT that has no authority over its constituency, which is the Internet community. 60 See Table 2 for descriptions of team models. CMU/SEI-2003-TR-001 53
Page 1:
State of the Practice of Computer S
Page 4 and 5:
This report was prepared for the SE
Page 6 and 7:
3.1.3 Total Registered CSIRTs......
Page 8 and 9:
iv CMU/SEI-2003-TR-001
Page 10 and 11:
vi CMU/SEI-2003-TR-001
Page 12 and 13:
viii CMU/SEI-2003-TR-001
Page 14 and 15:
x CMU/SEI-2003-TR-001
Page 16 and 17:
This document provides a view of th
Page 18 and 19:
• Katherine Fithen for her contin
Page 20 and 21:
xvi CMU/SEI-2003-TR-001
Page 22 and 23: Although CSIRTs have been in existe
Page 24 and 25: ased on a sampling of CSIRTs done v
Page 26 and 27: future growth. It can also be used
Page 28 and 29: The participating CSIRTs also repre
Page 30 and 31: 10 CMU/SEI-2003-TR-001
Page 32 and 33: ole. This may include providing sec
Page 34 and 35: • Incident response is the action
Page 36 and 37: Model Coordinating CSIRT Descriptio
Page 38 and 39: After the worm had been successfull
Page 40 and 41: 2.3.2 The Creation of FIRST In Augu
Page 42 and 43: Up until this point, only one or tw
Page 44 and 45: the other teams. Again, the communi
Page 46 and 47: into a course for new incident hand
Page 48 and 49: These early teams have become leade
Page 50 and 51: 2.3.5 Initiatives in Latin America
Page 52 and 53: stituency is the research network a
Page 54 and 55: In September 2003, the U.S. Departm
Page 56 and 57: 36 CMU/SEI-2003-TR-001
Page 58 and 59: • There is not one entity for reg
Page 60 and 61: Table 4 combines the total number o
Page 62 and 63: In looking at the growth of teams e
Page 64 and 65: Table 6: North American and Europea
Page 66 and 67: 3.1.5 Other Trends Other trends we
Page 68 and 69: Figure 10: Example of Team Sponsors
Page 70 and 71: service providers, or nation states
Page 74 and 75: A CSIRT, due to its position, may a
Page 76 and 77: Malaysia Computer Emergency Respons
Page 78 and 79: data collection, the use of analysi
Page 80 and 81: Dittrich goes on to say that a big
Page 82 and 83: • insider abuse of internal compu
Page 84 and 85: Making the case to management to ga
Page 86 and 87: • Security quality management ser
Page 88 and 89: • perform artifact analysis (66%)
Page 90 and 91: • Distributed dedicated CSIRTs: 1
Page 92 and 93: Not surprisingly, in the majority o
Page 94 and 95: tended team is formed by temporaril
Page 96 and 97: • audit and risk management speci
Page 98 and 99: As the field of incident handling a
Page 100 and 101: promote “higher education in info
Page 102 and 103: 3.7.1 Defining Computer Security In
Page 104 and 105: 3.7.1.1 Security Incident Taxonomy
Page 106 and 107: • identifying the staff and neces
Page 108 and 109: Other flow diagrams and charts have
Page 110 and 111: • Rule #1: Don’t Panic! • Rul
Page 112 and 113: 3.7.5.1 Data Fields Many CSIRTs hav
Page 114 and 115: formats for exchanging incident dat
Page 116 and 117: Level/Priority Low Type of Incident
Page 118 and 119: priority), yellow (cautionary alert
Page 120 and 121: way, the combined and coordination
Page 122 and 123:
Whoever does this work must not onl
Page 124 and 125:
• staff misuse of company system
Page 126 and 127:
Effective teams will have a plan in
Page 128 and 129:
• 83% of the education CSIRTs sha
Page 130 and 131:
Figure 14: Attack Sophistication Ve
Page 132 and 133:
service managers or customers. Such
Page 134 and 135:
As the volume of incident and vulne
Page 136 and 137:
enabling better cooperation and ass
Page 138 and 139:
3.9.2 United States Cyber Crime Law
Page 140 and 141:
3.10.1.2 Trusted Introducer for CSI
Page 142 and 143:
3.10.1.5 Asia Pacific Computer Emer
Page 144 and 145:
For more information see: http://ce
Page 146 and 147:
3.10.3.3 Distributed Intrusion Dete
Page 148 and 149:
3.10.5 Research CSIRTs and security
Page 150 and 151:
3.12 Resources 3.12.1 Case Study Ex
Page 152 and 153:
132 CMU/SEI-2003-TR-001
Page 154 and 155:
standards for incident handling met
Page 156 and 157:
• management support and trust fr
Page 158 and 159:
We are seeking opportunities to col
Page 160 and 161:
140 CMU/SEI-2003-TR-001
Page 162 and 163:
3. If yes, who is that constituency
Page 164 and 165:
. __ Distributed dedicated team (te
Page 166 and 167:
e. __ answering hotline/help desk c
Page 168 and 169:
26. What are your business hours? _
Page 170 and 171:
e. __ Audit or Risk Management Depa
Page 172 and 173:
Type and Title of Publication Autho
Page 174 and 175:
Type and Title of Publication Autho
Page 176 and 177:
156 CMU/SEI-2003-TR-001
Page 178 and 179:
Seminars include Intrusion Detectio
Page 180 and 181:
TRANSITS Training Workshop http://w
Page 182 and 183:
Certification Organizations Current
Page 184 and 185:
164 CMU/SEI-2003-TR-001
Page 186 and 187:
Article 10 - Offences related to in
Page 188 and 189:
accessing legal implications coordi
Page 190 and 191:
http://thomas.loc.gov/ Bills, Publi
Page 192 and 193:
18 U.S.C. § 1832 - Theft of trade
Page 194 and 195:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi
Page 196 and 197:
SecurityFocus Online - Library Comp
Page 198 and 199:
U.S. House of Representatives - Off
Page 200 and 201:
CERT Coordination Center The CERT/C
Page 202 and 203:
CIO/FBI/USSS These are the CIO Cybe
Page 204 and 205:
CIO CYBERTHREAT RESPONSE & REPORTIN
Page 206 and 207:
asic information that is included i
Page 208 and 209:
Department of Justice Computer Crim
Page 210 and 211:
FBI & USSS FIELD OFFICES TELEPHONE/
Page 212 and 213:
FBI & USSS FIELD OFFICES TELEPHONE/
Page 214 and 215:
CONTRIBUTORS INDUSTRY Peter Allor M
Page 228 and 229:
Nebraska Information Technology Com
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 237 and 238:
COMPUTER INCIDENT REPORTING SHORT F
Page 239 and 240:
3. Has your agency experienced this
Page 241 and 242:
a. System(s) disconnected from the
Page 243 and 244:
6. (Optional) Updates to policies a
Page 245 and 246:
COMPUTER SECURITY INCIDENT HANDLING
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253:
Steele The Information Assurance Te
Page 256 and 257:
Network Incident Report United Stat
Page 258 and 259:
Details for Probes and Scans Appare
Page 260 and 261:
Details for Unauthorized Access (co
Page 262:
Van Wyk and Forno In their book Inc
Page 267 and 268:
Bibliography All URLs are valid as
Page 269 and 270:
[Caloyannides 01] Caloyannides, Mic
Page 271 and 272:
[Ferreira 96] Ferreira, Joao Nuno;
Page 273 and 274:
[Kossakowski 00] Kossakowski, Klaus
Page 275 and 276:
[Scalet 02] Scalet, Sarah. “Risk:
Page 277 and 278:
[van Wyk 01] van Wyk, Kenneth R. &
Page 279 and 280:
Index @stake, 157 abnormal network
Page 281 and 282:
CIO, 84, 92 CIRC, 13 CIRT, 13 CISSP
Page 283 and 284:
internal, 14, 92 internal centraliz
Page 285 and 286:
incident handling, 84 reporting, 92
Page 287 and 288:
security, 56, 124 support staff, 73
Page 289 and 290:
incoming information, 74 priority s
Page 291 and 292:
survey, xii, 5, 49, 52, 55, 67, 71,
Page 293:
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Appr
show all

State of the Practice of Computer Security Incident Response Teams ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?