Trend Micro Facebook TrendLabs Twitter Malware Blog RSS Feed You Tube - Trend Micro
Search our blog:

  • Mobile Vulnerabilities

  • Zero-Day Alerts

  • Recent Posts

  • Calendar

    August 2015
    S M T W T F S
    « Jul    
  • Email Subscription

  • About Us

    It’s another big information security story day at the New York Times. Three weeks ago after their big story detailing the Advanced Persistent Threats (APT) attack against their network, today they have a story detailing the ongoing espionage and corporate espionage against companies and organizations around the world.

    It’s a very interesting and very detailed story. It’s well worth the read. And from the overall goal of protecting people, it’s extremely valuable from an industry perspective for sharing a wealth of information that can be used to provide protections broadly. You can be sure our analysts are going through the report and ensuring we have protections for anything we don’t already protect against.

    But for customers, I would argue that while this story is entertaining, last week’s 2012 Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) Awareness Study released by ISACA is a more important read because it has more relevant information on how to protect your company or organization. The New York Times article is a good read but the ISACA report can help keep you from ending up in the next New York Times story.

    The important thing that we saw in this survey is a serious disconnect between people worrying about APT attacks and understanding how they work. 63% said they were likely or very likely to be the target of an APT attack. But at the same time almost as many, 53.4%, said that APT attacks are “similar” to conventional threats. This means that only a little under 10% (9.6% to be exact) of respondents see this as a threat and understand that this is a different kind of threat and requires a fundamentally different kind of approach to meet it.

    When stories like this hit, customers often ask “Am I protected against this attack”? What they really mean in most cases is “Are your signatures up-to-date to catch this attack?” The right answer to that question is that it doesn’t matter: these attacks are designed to be undetected by signature-based endpoint security. We saw this in the attack against the New York Times. In fact, we believe that these attacks generally are tested against signature-based endpoint products to ensure they’re not detected. Yes, we do protect against much of the malware outlined in the report and are building new protections for new malware. But this underscores that reactive, signature-based endpoint security can only be a piece of your overall posture to protect against APTs. These are custom attacks and defending against them requires a different approach, a custom defense that employs advanced detection technologies that can discover an attack before real damage can be done.

    If you’re worried about APT attacks, it’s important to really understand the nature of the threat to be able to better protect against it. The ISACA survey shows that an alarming number of people who are worried may not understand the threat and use the wrong tools for the job, leaving their organizations at risk.

    So before you take some time to read the latest cyber-espionage thriller in today’s New York Times, first take time to understand better what you need to know and can do to protect yourself and your organization. Whether it’s visiting the Trend Micro APT portal, reading Martin Roesler’s posting on targeted attacks, or reading our new whitepaper, The Custom Defense Against Targeted Attacks. Do something that’s effective for protecting your environment because you don’t want to find yourself in their next story.

    Share this article
    Get the latest on malware protection from TrendLabs
    Email this story to a friend   Technorati   NewsVine   MySpace   Google   Live   StumbleUpon

    • Conrad Constantine

      APT’s are absolutely ‘traditional’ attacks. the rise of signatures is a byproduct of automated tools (ie, malware, skiddy exploits, etc). The techniques used in “Big Scary APT attacks” are nothing more than the same stuff that any good pentester worth their salt would do. The rise of the signature/malware obsession in infosec over the last decade is purely a by product of the generation of infosec personnel failing to realize that there is always a human behind the scenes. Security is as much about software, as chess is about little carved figurines.


    © Copyright 2013 Trend Micro Inc. All rights reserved. Legal Notice