In 2011, the U.S. Government maintained a fleet of approximately 8,000 unmanned aerial systems (UAS), commonly referred to as "drones," a number that continues to grow. "No weapon system has had a more profound impact on the United States' ability to provide persistence on the battlefield than the UAVs," according to a report from the 2012 Defense Science Board. Making sure government and privately owned drones share international air space safely and effectively is a top priority for government officials. Distributed Adaptive Real-Time (DART) systems are key to many areas of Department of Defense (DoD) capability, including the safe execution of autonomous, multi-UAS missions having civilian benefits. DART systems promise to revolutionize several such areas of mutual civilian-DoD interest, such as robotics, transportation, energy, and health care. To fully realize the potential of DART systems, however, the software controlling them must be engineered for high-assurance and certified to operate safely and effectively. In short, these systems must satisfy guaranteed and highly-critical safety requirements (e.g., collision avoidance) while adapting smartly to achieve application requirements, such as protection coverage, while operating in dynamic and uncertain environments. This blog post describes our architecture and approach to engineering high-assurance software for DART systems.
Network flow plays a vital role in the future of network security and analysis. With more devices connecting to the Internet, networks are larger and faster than ever before. Therefore, capturing and analyzing packet capture data (pcap) on a large network is often prohibitively expensive. Cisco developed NetFlow 20 years ago to reduce the amount of information collected from a communication by aggregating packets with the same IP addresses, transport ports, and protocol (also known as the 5-tuple) into a compact record. This blog post explains why NetFlow is still important in an age in which the common wisdom is that more data is always better. Moreover, NetFlow will become even more important in the next few years as communications become more opaque with the development of new protocols that encrypt payloads by default.
Writing secure C++ code is hard. C++11 and C++14 have added new facilities that change the way programmers write C++ code with the introduction of features like lambdas and concurrency. Few resources exist, however, describing how these new facilities also increase the number of ways in which security vulnerabilities can be introduced into a program or how to avoid using these facilities insecurely. Previous secure coding efforts, including the SEI CERT C Coding Standard and SEI CERT Oracle Coding Standard for Java , have proved successful in helping programmers identify possible insecure code in C and Java but do not provide sufficient information to cover C++. Other efforts, such as MISRA C++:2008 and the community-led C++ Core Guidelines, create a subset of the C++ language and do not focus on security. This blog post introduces the SEI CERT C++ Coding Standard and explores some examples of areas in C++ that can result in security vulnerabilities.
By the close of 2016, "Annual global IP traffic will pass the zettabyte ([ZB]; 1000 exabytes [EB]) threshold and will reach 2.3 ZBs per year by 2020" according to Cisco's Visual Networking Index. The report further states that in the same time frame smartphone traffic will exceed PC traffic. While capturing and evaluating network traffic enables defenders of large-scale organizational networks to generate security alerts and identify intrusions, operators of networks with even comparatively modest size struggle with building a full, comprehensive view of network activity. To make wise security decisions, operators need to understand the mission activity on their network and the threats to that activity (referred to as network situational awareness). This blog post examines two different approaches for analyzing network security using and going beyond network flow data to gain situational awareness to improve security.
A 2016 study on cybersecurity and digital trust found that 69 percent of organizations surveyed experienced an attempted or successful theft or corruption of data by insiders in the last 12 months. Despite the impact of insider threat--and continued mandates that government agencies and their contractors put insider threat programs in place--a number of organizations still have not implemented them. Moreover, the programs that have been implemented often have serious deficiencies. One impediment to organizations establishing an insider threat program is the lack of a clear business case for implementing available countermeasures.
In the first post in this two-part series, we covered five unique challenges that impact insider threat programs and hub analysts. The challenges included lack of adequate training, competing interests, acquiring data, analyzing data, and handling false positives.
As you read the new challenges introduced in this post, ask yourself the same questions: 1) How many of these challenges are ones you are facing today? 2) Are there challenges in this list that lead to an "aha" moment? 3) Are there challenges you are facing that did not make the list? 4) Do you need assistance with combating any of these challenges? Let us know your answers and thoughts via email at email@example.com.