Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: ForeScout ActiveScout |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 7 Jan 2005 23:28:30 -0500 |
One of the biggest challenge in intrusion detection is to differentiate bad from good with precision and ahead of the attack. The server lock down, or patch to the latest, will only help you last till the next brand new unknown attacks to surface. And if you lucky (hence your security vendor notifies you before the actual propagation hits you), then you might have a chance to be immunized, but what if you run out of luck, what if your security vendor didn't even notice such attack yet ... So to win this battle against the attackers, we have to take a proactive and better yet pre-emptive approach, sitting there trying to lock down the server following some other guy's hardening steps, or begging M$ for a patch release, are just not good enough to protect yourself. All right, back to this ForeScout approach, they throw some fake but enticing bone (information) back to the attackers or would-be attackers to try to find out what's the intent behind such perimeter scanning activities, if that intent proven being bad, then take appropriate action, such as notifying firewall. I personally think this is a pretty neat approach, sort of being proactive. But one weak point I see in their approach (or their product offering) is that they narrowed their intrusion detection scope to only on those traffics going to the fake place. Recently, I have been exposed to a start-up security company, CyberShield Networks. They developed a similar approach to enable users being proactive, but the complete package they offer goes way beyond just reporting attacks from the fake place, they cover intrusion detection over the entire IP space assigned under their protection. Also they implemented a RADAR screen and transformed attacks into blips on the RADAR, that makes our security guys life a lot easier as far as sorting out the priorities among the attacks reported. Pretty cool stuff. Anyway, I hope this helps you a little bit. ZhiHen CISSP Senior Security Analyst Shanghai Rasing Consulting, China, Inc. ---------------------- Hello, Just a quick question on ForeScout ActiveScout as to whether anyone out there has used/eval'd it. I'm working with a client that is using an old version (2.7.x, I believe), is considering an upgrade, and I'm not sure it's worth the time and effort. They claim 100% accuracy which we all know is silly. Their whole methodology is based on an attacker using recon in advance of an attack and that the recon activity is detectable enough to start interfering with it.
From what I can gather from ForeScout's literature and
the management console of the app itself, when it's
able to run at all (Java-based, slow as dirt), this
product sits on the outside of the perimeter and looks
for suspicious traffic via a span session. When it
detects scans or similar recon activity, it can both
send back spurious information to the source IP and
update a firewall to block it. It seems to track
attacking IP's based on the spurious info it already
fed them.
Also, this version doesn't seem to track SMTP and DNS,
two of the most oft-attacked protocols out there.
Having run one or two firewalls and NIDS setups
myself, I'm not clear on the benefit of this beast
compared to either inline IPS or IDS plus firewall
blocking (or a firewall and patched servers, while I'm
going that way).
Stupid question - if my perimeter devices, including
DMZ servers, are patched, why the heck would I want to
send back _any_ data to an attacker? I guess if your
servers weren't patchable for some reason, maybe you'd
want to fake that they really are. Um, okay.
Probably better ways to handle that. I would think
that if my perimeter is properly locked-down, I'm
quite happy for an attacker to scan it and figure that
out for themselves - assuming they get much of a scan
past IPS/IDS/firewall.
What am I missing? Thanks for the feedback.
Brent Stackhouse, GSEC/GCIH, etc.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Your IDS
Is your IDS deployed correctly?
Find out quickly and easily by testing it with real-world attacks from
CORE IMPACT.
Go to http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/CoreSecurity_focus-ids_040708
to learn more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Your IDS
Is your IDS deployed correctly?
Find out quickly and easily by testing it with real-world attacks from
CORE IMPACT.
Go to http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/CoreSecurity_focus-ids_040708
to learn more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: CISCOs new IPS, Gary Halleen (ghalleen) |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: ForeScout ActiveScout, Gadi Evron |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: ForeScout ActiveScout, Carey, Steve T GARRISON |
| Next by Thread: | Re: ForeScout ActiveScout, Brent Stackhouse |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |