Advanced Cyber Threat Detection: Maximizing IoCs

Introduction

One of the most critical components in cyber threat intelligence are indicators of compromise (IoCs). After a cyber security breach, attackers may leave a trace of their malicious activity suggesting clues and evidence that an attack occurred, these are IoCs [1]. As part of the forensics process, IoCs help visualize the incident by creating a timeline, understanding attacker TTPs (tactics, techniques, and protocols), as well as serving as invaluable insight to prevent potential breaches in their own environments. This paper will discuss the importance of IoCs, their shortcomings, and how customizing IoCs can benefit an organization.

Background

In a physical crime investigation, forensic experts scavenge for any clues in an effort to piece together a crime scene. As such, the more evidence gathered, the more accurate a representation of the crime. Similarly, IoCs function as a means to indicate whether an attack had or potentially will occur. IoCs are identified through analysis of the organization’s network and systems [5]. Within this process, digital forensics experts can perform pattern and anomaly detection to uncover digital fingerprints consisting of unusual or suspicious activity [2]. Once obtained and documented, IoCs can be shared across security teams and organizations to understand attacker TTPs and improve cyber resilience [3]. Common types of IoCs include: email addresses, domains, hosts, behavior, IP addresses, and malware/file hashes [1].

Shortcomings of IoCs

As security teams look to subscribe to threat intelligence sources/communities or open source intelligence (OSINT) research, they obtain generic IoCs. These are common, known, and highly documented threats. Their main benefit is their ability to easily detect widespread threats [3]. While generic IoCs provide significant intelligence for organizations, they have their respective downsides. First, the sheer amount of data found through public intelligence can lead to false positives and resource intensive processes [4]. The lack of context provided is also to be considered, as IoCs from public threat intelligence contain little to no contextual information, causing confusion for cybersecurity professionals who wish to prioritize them [4]. Lastly, generic IoCs will identify discovered intelligence but will not address specific, adapted, evolved, and targeted attacks toward the organization [4]. As a result, organizations may fail to identify cyber threats that are designed and customized for the specific industry, infrastructure, or business.

Custom IoCs

Custom IoCs are IoCs collected from local data that is specific to the organization and caters to their risk posture. Adopting these results in a higher maintenance upkeep, requiring constant updates and validation as cyber threats evolve [5]. Despite this, taking a tailored and adaptable approach to IoCs enables the ability to detect more sophisticated and specialized attacks, resulting in higher detection capability and fewer false positives.

Enhancing DFIR and Cybersecurity

Applying a tailored experience on IoCs allows for cybersecurity, digital forensics, and incident response (DFIR) [2] experts to reap the following benefits [4,5]:

• Enhanced Threat Detection and Response: A lower volume of IoCs allow for better resource utilization, contextual awareness, and improves detection rates. This also allows for earlier detection, resulting in a more rapid incident response in the attack lifecycle.
• Targeted Threat Intelligence: Permits DFIR and security professionals to customize their threat landscape based on operational needs. This ensures threat intelligence is relevant and effective while also keeping the organization anticipating emerging threats.
• Alignment with Industry or Geographical Needs: Importing industry specific IoC feeds derived from internal investigations provide a more targeted solution for threats unique to the organizations geographical footprint, environment, or threat landscape.
• Bolstered Supply Chain Security and Risk Management: Implementing IoCs related to third party vendors empowers organizations to better manage vulnerabilities and risks associated with their supply chain vendors and partners.
• Fortified Regulatory and Compliance Requirement Adherence: Custom IoCs can be configured in a way that addresses specific regulatory or compliance requirements dependent on the industry. This also improves reporting capabilities, making it easier for organizations to demonstrate compliance during audits.
• Improved Critical Asset and Infrastructure Security: Security teams deploy specialized solutions to detect and interpret red flags in critical infrastructure assets or devices, such as IoT and other smart technologies.

As attacker TTPs continue to evolve, security teams and investigators aim to rectify with swift detection and response. Ultimately, custom IoCs strengthen overall cybersecurity posture, endowing a higher probability of detection and addressing targeted, more sophisticated attacks.

Conclusion

IoCs are an integral part of cybersecurity, incident response, and the investigative processes. Traditional IoCs are able to identify a plethora of common TTPs but they may not address custom attacks specific to the organization, which delays remediation and investigation efforts. However, integrating tailored IoCs fills this void. The optimal approach for an organization to adopt includes both general and custom IoCs. Together, they cover the most area on the attack surface, shedding light on all threats for digital forensic investigators. In today’s age, advanced threat intel like custom IoCs are no longer a luxury, but instead a necessity.

References

[1] Catalan, C. (2024, April 14). 10 Indicators of Compromise (IOC) Examples To Look Out For. Teramind Blog | Content For Business. https://www.teramind.co/blog/how-to-recognize-indicators-of-compromise/

[2] Digital Forensics and Incident Response (DFIR). Palo Alto Networks. (n.d.). https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/digital-forensics-and-incident-response

[3] Freed, A. M. (n.d.). https://www.cybereason.com/blog/indicators-of-behavior-and-the-diminishing-value-of-iocs. Cybersecurity Software. https://www.cybereason.com/blog/indicators-of-behavior-and-the-diminishing-value-of-iocs

[4] Maor, E. (2024, November 18). Why Custom IOCs Are Necessary for Advanced Threat Hunting and Detection. SecurityWeek. https://www.securityweek.com/why-custom-iocs-are-necessary-for-advanced-threat-hunting-and-detection/

[5] Napoli, A. (2024, November 6). Leveraging Custom IOC Feeds for Enhanced Threat Detection . Cato Networks. https://www.catonetworks.com/blog/leveraging-custom-ioc-feeds-for-enhanced-threat-detection/