Securing OT Systems: The Limits of the Air Gap Approach

Default blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog imageDefault blog image
11
May 2023
11
May 2023
Air-gapped security measures are not enough for resilience against cyber attacks. Read about how to gain visibility & reduce your cyber vulnerabilities.

サマリー:

  • エアギャップはサイバーリスクを低減するが、現代のサイバー攻撃を防ぐことはできない
  • エアギャップされたネットワークを可視化することは、防御が完璧であると仮定して可視性がゼロになるよりも優れている
  • Darktrace は、エアギャップの完全性を損なうことなく、可視性とレジリエンスを提供することができる

「エアギャップ」とは何ですか?

情報技術(IT)は、エンドポイントやメールシステムからクラウドやハイブリッドインフラまで、デジタル情報のフローを流すために、外部と流動的に接続する必要があります。一方で、このような高度な接続性は、ITシステムをサイバー攻撃に対して特に脆弱なものにしています。  

Operational technology (OT), which controls the operations of physical processes, are considerably more sensitive. OT often relies on a high degree of regularity to maintain continuity of operations. Even the slightest disturbance can lead to disastrous results. Just a few seconds of delay on a programmable logic controller (PLC), for example, can significantly disrupt a manufacturing assembly line, leading to downtime at a considerable cost. In worst-case scenarios, disruptions to OT can even threaten human safety. 

エアギャップとは、データを手動で転送しない限り、OT環境に出入りできない「デジタル堀」(Digital Moat) のことです。

OTを導入している組織では、従来、このITとOTの対立を調整するために、両者を完全に分離することを試みてきました。基本的には、ITが得意とする通信やデータ転送を高速で行い、人々が互いにつながり、情報やアプリケーションに効率的にアクセスできるようにする、という考え方です。しかし同時に、ITとOTの間にエアギャップを設け、ITシステムに入り込んだサイバー脅威が、機密性が高くミッションクリティカルなOTシステムに横展開しないようにもします。このエアギャップは本質的に「デジタル堀」であり、手動で転送しない限り、データはOT環境に出入りすることができません。

エアギャップの限界

エアギャップのアプローチは理にかなっていますが、完璧とは言い難いものです。まず、完全にエアギャップされたシステムを持っていると思っている多くの組織が、実際には未知のIT/OTコンバージェンスポイント、つまりITとOTのネットワーク間の接続に気づいていないことがあるのです。 

今日、多くの企業がIT/OTの融合を意図的に取り入れ、しばしばインダストリー4.0と呼ばれるようなOTのデジタル変革のメリットを享受しています。例えば、産業用クラウド(またはICSaaS)、産業用IoT(IIoT)、その他のタイプのサイバーフィジカルシステムは、従来のOTの形態と比較して、効率の向上と機能の拡張を提供します。また、IT/OTの融合は、プロセスをよりシンプルで効率的にすることができるため、人的資本の不足を理由にIT/OTの融合を受け入れる組織もあります。

たとえ組織が真のエアギャップを有していたとしても(ITとOT環境を完全に可視化しなければ確認することはほぼ不可能)、攻撃者が「エアギャップを飛び越える」ための様々な方法が存在するのが実情です。したがって、ITとOTのエコシステムを一枚のガラスで完全に可視化することは、OTの安全確保を目指す組織にとって不可欠です。これは、ITとOTの融合点を明らかにし、そもそもエアギャップが存在することを検証するためだけでなく、攻撃がエアギャップをすり抜けるタイミングを確認するためでもあります。

図1:Darktrace/OTのIT環境とOT環境の統合ビュー

エアギャップの攻撃ベクトル

完璧なエアギャップであっても、以下を含む(ただし、これに限定されない)様々な異なる攻撃ベクトルに対して脆弱です: 

  • 物理的な侵害:敵は物理的なセキュリティをバイパスして、エアギャップされたネットワークデバイスに直接アクセスすることができます。物理的なアクセスは、最も効果的で明白な手法です。
  • 内部脅威:組織の一員であり、エアギャップされた安全なシステムにアクセスできる者が、意図的または非意図的にシステムを侵害すること
  • Supply chain compromise: A vendor with legitimate access to air-gapped systems unwittingly is compromised and brings infected devices into a network. 
  • 設定の誤り:アクセス制御やアクセス許可の設定ミスにより、攻撃者がネットワーク上の別のデバイスを経由してエアギャップシステムにアクセスすることができます
  • ソーシャルエンジニアリング(メディアドロップ):攻撃者が悪意のあるUSB/メディアドロップを成功させ、従業員がそのメディアをエアギャップシステム内で使用した場合、ネットワークが侵害される可能性があります。
  • その他の高度な戦術熱操作隠された表面振動LED超音波通信無線信号磁場など、ベングリオン大学の研究者が記録し、実証した高度な戦術の数々です。 

エアギャップ式システムの脆弱性

熱操作や磁場などの高度な技術・戦術・手順(TTP)の影響を受けやすいことはもちろんですが、空中に設置された環境に関連するより一般的な脆弱性として、パッチ未適用のシステムが気づかれない、ネットワークトラフィックを可視化できない、潜在的に悪意のある機器がネットワーク上に検知されない、ネットワーク内で取り外し可能メディアが物理的に接続されるといった要因が挙げられます。 

ひとたび攻撃がOTシステム内部に及べば、エアギャップの有無にかかわらず、その結果は悲惨なものになる可能性があります。しかし、エアギャップの存在が、インシデント発生時の対処や修復に要する時間にどのような影響を及ぼすかは、検討する価値があります。例えば、エアギャップの存在は、インシデント対応ベンダーがデジタルフォレンジックと対応のためにネットワークにアクセスする能力を著しく制限する可能性があります。 

エアギャップを飛び越えるクレムリンのハッカー達 

2018年、米国国土安全保障省(DHS)は、DragonflyとEnergetic Bearとして知られるロシアの脅威アクターが使用するTTPを記録したアラートを発表しました。さらなる報告では、これらのグループが「エアギャップを飛び越え」、さらに気になることに、好きなタイミングで送電網を無効化する能力を獲得したと主張したのです。 

これらの攻撃者は、スピアフィッシングメールや水飲み場攻撃を通じてベンダーやサプライヤーを標的とし、エネルギー部門やその他の重要なインフラ部門における機密性の高いエアギャップシステムへのアクセスを成功させました。これらのベンダーは、エアギャップシステムに合法的にアクセスすることができ、パッチの配布などのサポートサービスを提供する際に、意図せずこれらのシステムに感染させてしまったのです。

このインシデントは、たとえ機密性の高いOTシステムがデジタル的に完全に隔離されていたとしても、この強固なエアギャップでは、あらゆるシステムの最大の脆弱性の一つであるヒューマンエラーを完全に排除できないことを明らかにしました。電磁波を除去するためにファラデーケージを作るという極端な方法をとったとしても、ヒューマンエラーは依然として存在するのです。DragonflyとEnergetic Bearがサプライヤーを騙すために使った手口に見られるように、エアギャップされたシステムは、人間の脆弱性を突くソーシャルエンジニアリングに対して依然として脆弱なのです。 

理想的なのは、攻撃がサプライヤー、無線信号、電磁波のいずれによって引き起こされたかに関係なく、攻撃を識別できる技術です。自己学習型AIは、デバイス、人間、ネットワークの通常の「生活パターン」からの微妙な逸脱を発見することで、脅威の発生源や原因に関係なく、最も微妙な形の脅威的行動もその発生時に検知します。

エアギャップ環境向けのDarktrace/OT

エアギャップ環境向けのDarktrace/OT は、エアギャップシステムに直接配備される物理アプライアンスです。OT ネットワークからの生のデジタルデータを使用して、通常の生活パターンを理解します。Darktrace/OT は、第三者のサポートなしに AI が自己の生得的理解を構築するため、外部ソースからのデータまたは脅威フィードを一切必要としません。 

データ処理と分析はすべてDarktrace アプライアンス上でローカルに実行されるため、Darktrace がインターネットに接続されている必要はありません。その結果、Darktrace/OTは、エアギャップまたは高度にセグメント化されたネットワークに対して、その完全性を損なうことなく可視性と脅威の検知を提供します。人間や機械が最も微妙な形の脅威的行動を示した場合、このソリューションはリアルタイムでこれを明らかにすることができます。 

セキュリティ担当者は、Web ブラウザと暗号化された HTTPS を使用して、ネットワーク内のどこからでも、組織のネットワークポリシーに沿って、Darktrace アラートに安全にアクセスすることができます。

図2:Darktrace/OTが、SCADA ICSワークステーションへの異常な接続を検知

この展開で、 Darktraceは他のDarktrace/OT の展開で実証された、以下を含むすべての重要な洞察を提供します(ただし、これらに限定されません):

そもそもエアギャップがあるのかどうかを検証し、IT/OT環境の進化に合わせてエアギャップを維持しようとする組織は、Darktraceの自己学習型AIが提供する包括的な可視性と継続的な状況認識から大きな恩恵を受けることができます。また、ITとOTの融合のメリットを享受するためにエアギャップに穴を開けたいと考えている組織は、自己学習型AIによる警戒心が、すり抜けるサイバー攻撃を発見することに気づくでしょう。 

IIoTの導入や本格的なDMZの構築など、組織の目標が何であれ、「あなた」を学ぶことによって、Darktraceの自己学習型AIは、安全かつセキュアにその目標を達成できるように支援します。 

Learn more about Darktrace/OT

Daniel Simonds と Oakley Cox の貢献に感謝します。

INSIDE THE SOC
Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.
AUTHOR
ABOUT ThE AUTHOR
Max Lesser
Head of U.S. Policy Analysis and Engagement
Book a 1-1 meeting with one of our experts
この記事を共有
COre coverage

More in this series

該当する項目はありません。

Blog

Inside the SOC

Lost in Translation: Darktrace Blocks Non-English Phishing Campaign Concealing Hidden Payloads

Default blog imageDefault blog image
15
May 2024

Email – the vector of choice for threat actors

In times of unprecedented globalization and internationalization, the enormous number of emails sent and received by organizations every day has opened the door for threat actors looking to gain unauthorized access to target networks.

Now, increasingly global organizations not only need to safeguard their email environments against phishing campaigns targeting their employees in their own language, but they also need to be able to detect malicious emails sent in foreign languages too [1].

Why are non-English language phishing emails more popular?

Many traditional email security vendors rely on pre-trained English language models which, while function adequately against malicious emails composed in English, would struggle in the face of emails composed in other languages. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that this limitation is becoming increasingly taken advantage of by attackers.  

Darktrace/Email™, on the other hand, focuses on behavioral analysis and its Self-Learning AI understands what is considered ‘normal’ for every user within an organization’s email environment, bypassing any limitations that would come from relying on language-trained models [1].

In March 2024, Darktrace observed anomalous emails on a customer’s network that were sent from email addresses belonging to an international fast-food chain. Despite this seeming legitimacy, Darktrace promptly identified them as phishing emails that contained malicious payloads, preventing a potentially disruptive network compromise.

Attack Overview and Darktrace Coverage

On March 3, 2024, Darktrace observed one of the customer’s employees receiving an email which would turn out to be the first of more than 50 malicious emails sent by attackers over the course of three days.

The Sender

Darktrace/Email immediately understood that the sender never had any previous correspondence with the organization or its employees, and therefore treated the emails with caution from the onset. Not only was Darktrace able to detect this new sender, but it also identified that the emails had been sent from a domain located in China and contained an attachment with a Chinese file name.

The phishing emails detected by Darktrace sent from a domain in China and containing an attachment with a Chinese file name.
Figure 1: The phishing emails detected by Darktrace sent from a domain in China and containing an attachment with a Chinese file name.

Darktrace further detected that the phishing emails had been sent in a synchronized fashion between March 3 and March 5. Eight unique senders were observed sending a total of 55 emails to 55 separate recipients within the customer’s email environment. The format of the addresses used to send these suspicious emails was “12345@fastflavor-shack[.]cn”*. The domain “fastflavor-shack[.]cn” is the legitimate domain of the Chinese division of an international fast-food company, and the numerical username contained five numbers, with the final three digits changing which likely represented different stores.

*(To maintain anonymity, the pseudonym “Fast Flavor Shack” and its fictitious domain, “fastflavor-shack[.]cn”, have been used in this blog to represent the actual fast-food company and the domains identified by Darktrace throughout this incident.)

The use of legitimate domains for malicious activities become commonplace in recent years, with attackers attempting to leverage the trust endpoint users have for reputable organizations or services, in order to achieve their nefarious goals. One similar example was observed when Darktrace detected an attacker attempting to carry out a phishing attack using the cloud storage service Dropbox.

As these emails were sent from a legitimate domain associated with a trusted organization and seemed to be coming from the correct connection source, they were verified by Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and were able to evade the customer’s native email security measures. Darktrace/Email; however, recognized that these emails were actually sent from a user located in Singapore, not China.

Darktrace/Email identified that the email had been sent by a user who had logged in from Singapore, despite the connection source being in China.
Figure 2: Darktrace/Email identified that the email had been sent by a user who had logged in from Singapore, despite the connection source being in China.

The Emails

Darktrace/Email autonomously analyzed the suspicious emails and identified that they were likely phishing emails containing a malicious multistage payload.

Darktrace/Email identifying the presence of a malicious phishing link and a multistage payload.
Figure 3: Darktrace/Email identifying the presence of a malicious phishing link and a multistage payload.

There has been a significant increase in multistage payload attacks in recent years, whereby a malicious email attempts to elicit recipients to follow a series of steps, such as clicking a link or scanning a QR code, before delivering a malicious payload or attempting to harvest credentials [2].

In this case, the malicious actor had embedded a suspicious link into a QR code inside a Microsoft Word document which was then attached to the email in order to direct targets to a malicious domain. While this attempt to utilize a malicious QR code may have bypassed traditional email security tools that do not scan for QR codes, Darktrace was able to identify the presence of the QR code and scan its destination, revealing it to be a suspicious domain that had never previously been seen on the network, “sssafjeuihiolsw[.]bond”.

Suspicious link embedded in QR Code, which was detected and extracted by Darktrace.
Figure 4: Suspicious link embedded in QR Code, which was detected and extracted by Darktrace.

At the time of the attack, there was no open-source intelligence (OSINT) on the domain in question as it had only been registered earlier the same day. This is significant as newly registered domains are typically much more likely to bypass gateways until traditional security tools have enough intelligence to determine that these domains are malicious, by which point a malicious actor may likely have already gained access to internal systems [4]. Despite this, Darktrace’s Self-Learning AI enabled it to recognize the activity surrounding these unusual emails as suspicious and indicative of a malicious phishing campaign, without needing to rely on existing threat intelligence.

The most commonly used sender name line for the observed phishing emails was “财务部”, meaning “finance department”, and Darktrace observed subject lines including “The document has been delivered”, “Income Tax Return Notice” and “The file has been released”, all written in Chinese.  The emails also contained an attachment named “通知文件.docx” (“Notification document”), further indicating that they had been crafted to pass for emails related to financial transaction documents.

 Darktrace/Email took autonomous mitigative action against the suspicious emails by holding the message from recipient inboxes.
Figure 5: Darktrace/Email took autonomous mitigative action against the suspicious emails by holding the message from recipient inboxes.

結論

Although this phishing attack was ultimately thwarted by Darktrace/Email, it serves to demonstrate the potential risks of relying on solely language-trained models to detect suspicious email activity. Darktrace’s behavioral and contextual learning-based detection ensures that any deviations in expected email activity, be that a new sender, unusual locations or unexpected attachments or link, are promptly identified and actioned to disrupt the attacks at the earliest opportunity.

In this example, attackers attempted to use non-English language phishing emails containing a multistage payload hidden behind a QR code. As traditional email security measures typically rely on pre-trained language models or the signature-based detection of blacklisted senders or known malicious endpoints, this multistage approach would likely bypass native protection.  

Darktrace/Email, meanwhile, is able to autonomously scan attachments and detect QR codes within them, whilst also identifying the embedded links. This ensured that the customer’s email environment was protected against this phishing threat, preventing potential financial and reputation damage.

Credit to: Rajendra Rushanth, Cyber Analyst, Steven Haworth, Head of Threat Modelling, Email

付録  

侵害指標(IoC)一覧  

IoC – Type – Description

sssafjeuihiolsw[.]bond – Domain Name – Suspicious Link Domain

通知文件.docx – File - Payload  

参考文献

[1] https://darktrace.com/blog/stopping-phishing-attacks-in-enter-language  

[2] https://darktrace.com/blog/attacks-are-getting-personal

[3] https://darktrace.com/blog/phishing-with-qr-codes-how-darktrace-detected-and-blocked-the-bait

[4] https://darktrace.com/blog/the-domain-game-how-email-attackers-are-buying-their-way-into-inboxes

続きを読む
著者について
Rajendra Rushanth
Cyber Analyst

Blog

該当する項目はありません。

The State of AI in Cybersecurity: The Impact of AI on Cybersecurity Solutions

Default blog imageDefault blog image
13
May 2024

About the AI Cybersecurity Report

Darktrace surveyed 1,800 CISOs, security leaders, administrators, and practitioners from industries around the globe. Our research was conducted to understand how the adoption of new AI-powered offensive and defensive cybersecurity technologies are being managed by organizations.

This blog continues the conversation from “The State of AI in Cybersecurity: Unveiling Global Insights from 1,800 Security Practitioners” which was an overview of the entire report. This blog will focus on one aspect of the overarching report, the impact of AI on cybersecurity solutions.

To access the full report, click here.

The effects of AI on cybersecurity solutions

Overwhelming alert volumes, high false positive rates, and endlessly innovative threat actors keep security teams scrambling. Defenders have been forced to take a reactive approach, struggling to keep pace with an ever-evolving threat landscape. It is hard to find time to address long-term objectives or revamp operational processes when you are always engaged in hand-to-hand combat.                  

The impact of AI on the threat landscape will soon make yesterday’s approaches untenable. Cybersecurity vendors are racing to capitalize on buyer interest in AI by supplying solutions that promise to meet the need. But not all AI is created equal, and not all these solutions live up to the widespread hype.  

Do security professionals believe AI will impact their security operations?

Yes! 95% of cybersecurity professionals agree that AI-powered solutions will level up their organization’s defenses.                                                                

Not only is there strong agreement about the ability of AI-powered cybersecurity solutions to improve the speed and efficiency of prevention, detection, response, and recovery, but that agreement is nearly universal, with more than 95% alignment.

This AI-powered future is about much more than generative AI. While generative AI can help accelerate the data retrieval process within threat detection, create quick incident summaries, automate low-level tasks in security operations, and simulate phishing emails and other attack tactics, most of these use cases were ranked lower in their impact to security operations by survey participants.

There are many other types of AI, which can be applied to many other use cases:

Supervised machine learning: Applied more often than any other type of AI in cybersecurity. Trained on attack patterns and historical threat intelligence to recognize known attacks.

Natural language processing (NLP): Applies computational techniques to process and understand human language. It can be used in threat intelligence, incident investigation, and summarization.

Large language models (LLMs): Used in generative AI tools, this type of AI applies deep learning models trained on massively large data sets to understand, summarize, and generate new content. The integrity of the output depends upon the quality of the data on which the AI was trained.

Unsupervised machine learning: Continuously learns from raw, unstructured data to identify deviations that represent true anomalies. With the correct models, this AI can use anomaly-based detections to identify all kinds of cyber-attacks, including entirely unknown and novel ones.

What are the areas of cybersecurity AI will impact the most?

Improving threat detection is the #1 area within cybersecurity where AI is expected to have an impact.                                                                                  

The most frequent response to this question, improving threat detection capabilities in general, was top ranked by slightly more than half (57%) of respondents. This suggests security professionals hope that AI will rapidly analyze enormous numbers of validated threats within huge volumes of fast-flowing events and signals. And that it will ultimately prove a boon to front-line security analysts. They are not wrong.

Identifying exploitable vulnerabilities (mentioned by 50% of respondents) is also important. Strengthening vulnerability management by applying AI to continuously monitor the exposed attack surface for risks and high-impact vulnerabilities can give defenders an edge. If it prevents threats from ever reaching the network, AI will have a major downstream impact on incident prevalence and breach risk.

Where will defensive AI have the greatest impact on cybersecurity?

Cloud security (61%), data security (50%), and network security (46%) are the domains where defensive AI is expected to have the greatest impact.        

Respondents selected broader domains over specific technologies. In particular, they chose the areas experiencing a renaissance. Cloud is the future for most organizations,
and the effects of cloud adoption on data and networks are intertwined. All three domains are increasingly central to business operations, impacting everything everywhere.

Responses were remarkably consistent across demographics, geographies, and organization sizes, suggesting that nearly all survey participants are thinking about this similarly—that AI will likely have far-reaching applications across the broadest fields, as well as fewer, more specific applications within narrower categories.

Going forward, it will be paramount for organizations to augment their cloud and SaaS security with AI-powered anomaly detection, as threat actors sharpen their focus on these targets.

How will security teams stop AI-powered threats?            

Most security stakeholders (71%) are confident that AI-powered security solutions are better able to block AI-powered threats than traditional tools.

There is strong agreement that AI-powered solutions will be better at stopping AI-powered threats (71% of respondents are confident in this), and there’s also agreement (66%) that AI-powered solutions will be able to do so automatically. This implies significant faith in the ability of AI to detect threats both precisely and accurately, and also orchestrate the correct response actions.

There is also a high degree of confidence in the ability of security teams to implement and operate AI-powered solutions, with only 30% of respondents expressing doubt. This bodes well for the acceptance of AI-powered solutions, with stakeholders saying they’re prepared for the shift.

On the one hand, it is positive that cybersecurity stakeholders are beginning to understand the terms of this contest—that is, that only AI can be used to fight AI. On the other hand, there are persistent misunderstandings about what AI is, what it can do, and why choosing the right type of AI is so important. Only when those popular misconceptions have become far less widespread can our industry advance its effectiveness.  

To access the full report, click here.

続きを読む
著者について
The Darktrace Community
Our ai. Your data.

Elevate your cyber defenses with Darktrace AI

無償トライアルを開始
Darktrace AI protecting a business from cyber threats.