by Kevin Timm
This article is the second of a two-part series exploring ways to justify the financial investment in IDS protection. In part one of this series we discussed general IDS types and expanded on the impact that the logical location of a company's critical networked assets could have on the risk equations. To this end we introduced the Cascading Threat Multiplier (CTM) to expand on the Single Loss Expectancy (SLE) equation. We also reviewed implementation and management costs based on various support profiles and reviewed the commonly accepted risk equations. Finally, we left off with the basic formula for calculating ROI for security, otherwise commonly known as Return on Security Investment (ROSI).
In this artiicle we will discuss proactive and reactive management methodology and how this methodology affects our analysis of risk. This will set us up nicely for the number crunch for ROI on IDS. We'll culminate this exercise with a brief overview of our hypothetical company named Wally's Building Supplies (WBS) and, finally, we'll put all the numbers together to demonstrate our technique for calculating ROI for the WBS IDS deployment of one network-based IDS and two host-based IDSs.
Proactive vs. Reactive Management
Independent of implementation and management costs, the method in which the devices are managed can have a serious affect on ROI. To this point, the key question to answer is: is the system going to be proactive or reactive as security events are detected? The following table depicts the normal event flow in each method. A proactive implementation response is automated by the system while a reactive implementation response is done once personnel have been enlisted.
By examining the Annual Loss Expectancy (ALE = ARO * SLE, where SLE = Exposure Factor * Asset Value * Cascading Threat Multiplier) we can determine which variables are affected by each of these two management methods. In a reactive design, where personnel must be engaged to respond to each event, the exposure factors (primary [EF] and secondary [EFS]) will be affected. In a proactive design there will be similar benefits to the exposure factors (re: a reduction) and, in addition, the Annual Rate of Occurrence (ARO) will be influenced in a beneficial way as well. To demonstrate the impact of threat vs. time we will use the concept of primary and secondary mitigation windows. In the following graph the primary mitigation window affects ARO while the secondary mitigation window affects Exposure Factor and Cascading Threat Multiplier. An effective way of impacting ARO is through automated response.
Auto-response can take many forms. On host-based IDS this is sometimes called shielding, where a specific process is terminated. Network-based IDS generally employs TCP resets or shunning. TCP resets effectively kill one specific session based on suspicious activity, but it still allows other activity from that same IP. Shunning, on the other hand, changes firewall rules or router access lists and effectively denies all traffic from that host for a specific period of time. In essence, shielding will protect a single host from one process, resets will protect a host from a specific session, and shunning will protect the entire network from a specific host for a pre-determined amount of time.
The accuracy of automated response can vary tremendously. This is dependent on the skill level of the engineers managing the devices. If the engineers are moderately skilled then auto-response will not be very effective, which may adversely affect the ROI of the IDS deployment. This adverse effect may manifest itself in the form of a loss of productivity from network-related problems due to improperly implemented auto-response, as well as the additional fallout related to a false sense of security throughout the company.
With skilled engineers managing the devices, auto-response can be very accurate and effective. Because few statistics exist that illustrate the accuracy of automated response we will use statistics generated from our analysis of one month's worth of data on networks that NetSolve, Incorporated manages (the authors, Kevin Timm and David Kinn, both work for NetSolve, Incorporated located in Austin, TX). If we include Code Red and Nimda activity, in 99.96% of the attacks, where automated response was used to mitigate the threat, the activity was malicious. Excluding large-scale worms, the attacks were malicious in 95.8% of auto-response uses. Of the 4.2 % of the traffic that was not malicious, not all of it was desirable. Some of this traffic was peer-to-peer programs, on-line gaming, chat and other undesirable traffic that triggered alarms. The percentage of traffic that was denied that was business related was very small. It should be noted that many of these devices provide numerous different techniques for ensuring that very little, if any, legitimate traffic is denied through the use of automated response.
To determine how effective the device is in recognizing attacks we will use the most recent NSS study. In this test the worst NIDS detected 67 of 109 attacks or 61.5%, while the best detected 94 of 109 attacks for an 86.2 % detection rate. Even the worst case, the 61.5% detection rate was out of the box and NSS reported that it would not be difficult to improve this with some custom signatures and tuning?.
What does all this mean? It means that the worst IDS tested can still detect at least 61.5% of attacks. Realistically that number should be closer to 70% when a skilled engineer or technician manages the device. The auto-response feature, when properly used, can be a very effective method of reducing the Annual Rate of Occurrence (ARO). This provides us with some general numbers we can plug into our equations for calculating a ROI for Wally's Building Supplies.
Sample Company: Wally's Building Supplies
Wally's Building Supplies (WBS) has six supply outlets, with the business office located within the primary outlet. WBS has several business-to-business (B2B) VPN connections to its suppliers. Their small staging department procures most of WBS items for all six outlets over these B2B connections by running an over-the-counter order procurement software application agreed on by each of the suppliers. Of the dozen or so suppliers, ACME is WBS most important one, accounting for 50% of all WBS procurement needs. ACME and WBS have built their trust relationship over the course of many years doing business together. ACME has experienced phenomenal growth over the past decade and supplies scores of building suppliers around the country. WBS orders account for a mere 1% of total ACME sales.
For several years WBS has maintained a simple informational Web page showing store locations and directions, general goods and services available and monthly specials. The primary target market for WBS consists of residential and commercial building contractors. Contractors comprise 75% of total WBS sales, with the remaining 25% generated from do-it-yourself consumers.
Recently WBS had contracted out the development of a dynamic database-driven Web site that allows contractors to order supplies on-line, check the status of their orders, and confirm deliveries to the construction site. The dynamic Web site has already had a positive effect on the operational ROI of WBS by improving efficiencies related to its' antiquated order fulfillment and delivery confirmation process. Inventory turnover has increased as a result of these efficiency gains, which in turn has improved WBS bottom line. That's the good news. WBS maintains Internet connectivity through a T1. Most of WBS servers, routers and infrastructure have been set up by outside IT contractors. See the diagram below to visualize the WBS world a little bit better. So what's the bad news?
WBS primary supplier, ACME, recently informed WBS that a malicious attacker gained access to ACME's data and network through the VPN tunnel with WBS. It is unknown to ACME if this was an outside attacker or an ill-willed employee from WBS. Because of this, ACME has disconnected the B2B VPN with WBS and temporarily discontinued service with WBS until the issue is resolved. They have agreed to fulfill all outstanding orders in the interim. Since WBS has very little technical expertise, they called in ABC Security Consulting Services (ABC) for a thorough analysis of the alleged compromise. Before we talk about the ABC analysis results, let's talk a bit about why this particular incident is so bad for WBS and also point out some of the negative fallout that will most likely occur as a result of this compromise.
For one thing, it's bad that ACME was the one that informed WBS that the attack seemed to have originated from their trusted B2B VPN connection. ACME is probably thinking: "Does WBS have a clue about a basic security policy"? Rest assured that ACME would be very diligent in getting to the bottom of what happened. Next, the trust relationship between WBS and ACME has always been strong; but after this compromise, who knows what the future holds. Remember that WBS relies heavily on ACME for doing business while ACME could drop WBS and hardly notice the hit on its revenue stream. Let's say it took years for WBS to establish the favorable credit terms it currently enjoys with ACME. How much is this business relationship worth to WBS? What's the value of highly favorable credit terms with an established and reliable supplier like ACME?
In addition to this, there are the contractors, who constitute 75% of WBS's revenue stream to consider. This compromise, and the ensuing fallout with ACME, could delay many contractor orders, which could result in missing contract deadlines and substantial penalties. Many of WBS larger contractors may be required to procure supplies from some of WBS competitors to meet their building schedules and avoid these costly overruns. Lastly, there is potential litigation to consider. If it turns out that one of WBS employees was the perpetrator of the ACME compromise, the whole ship could sink. We could go on and on about all the negative effects of this type of trusted peer compromise but we'll stop here. It should be obvious to observers that Mr. Wally is in quite a challenging situation! Life was so simple before the Internet.
After extensive network and operational analysis by ABC, several key operational deficiencies were uncovered that revealed the inadequacies of the WBS network. Furthermore, ABC found several key security vulnerabilities and design flaws. These vulnerabilities included:
ABC recommended that there is a definite need for WBS to implement IDS technology to monitor the content of each connection. The recommendation is that a host-based IDS be run on the Web servers and a network-based IDS run at the border. See Table 1 below for a summary of ABC's analysis and Table 2 for general statistics on how often these types of attacks occur (note: numbers in Table 2 are based on networks that NetSolve manages).
Table 2: Average Attack Occurrence per Network
*Data taken from July since this vulnerability was not common knowledge in April
Let's now recap all the variables and risk equations we have covered so far before we pull the lever and churn out the ROI for WBS IDS deployment. In Table 3 below we itemize each variable and equation that we will utilize in our calculations. Review the table noting how we have tied the traditional ROSI equation back to our ALE containing the CTM factor. Thus, ROSI = R- ALE, where the commonly accepted ALE = (R-E) + T is now replaced with ALE = ARO * SLE, where SLE = AV*EF*CTM. Confused yet? See Table 3 below for a visual representation.
As stressed throughout this article, for these numbers to make better sense, the IDS technology must be managed by highly skilled engineers or technicians that have a sound understanding of the technology, including the inherent strengths and weaknesses. Also, it is not unreasonable to assume that WBS IDS deployment of one NIDS and two HIDSs would be supported by a single in-house engineer or technician. What is not so reasonable is to assume that one person can support this highly dynamic technology on a continual 24/7/365 basis with active auto-response and real-time incident response for every security event. Multi-shift internal support (although not really an option for WBS considering this small deployment) as well as Managed Security Service Provider (MSSP) support are the preferred ways of providing definitive 24/7/365 support and real-time incident response.
Given that this deployment encompasses both NIDS and HIDS, a 50% reduction in ARO facilitated by the utilization of auto-response should be considered a conservative estimate. The 25% reduction in both exposure factors (EF & EFS) should also be considered a conservative estimate when coupling auto-response with prompt incident response. That being said, refer to Tables 4 to analyze the reductions in these variables (see highlighted cells under ARO, EF and EFS) and our calculation for ROI of WBS IDS deployment based on single in-house support and MSSP support related to the three compromises described above (in Table 1). The support costs used to calculate these ROIs were taken from the table entitled "Implementation & Management of one Network IDS and two Host IDS" from part one of this article. Those costs are $83,217/year for single support coverage and $44,217/year for MSSP support coverage.
Auto-response affects primary mitigation windows, which has a direct impact on partially reducing the Annual Rate of Occurrence (ARO). This is illustrated in the ROI table above, where we see a beneficial conservative reduction in ARO of 50% (highlighted in yellow in the "IDS w/Auto-Response" rows for each of the three scenarios). Incident response affects the secondary mitigation window, which impacts exposure factor (EF) and secondary exposure factor (EFS), which in turn impacts the Cascading Threat Multiplier (CTM). This is also illustrated in the ROI table above, where we see a beneficial conservative reduction in EF and EFS of 25% respectively (highlighted in yellow in the "IDS w/ Auto-Response & Incident Response" rows for each of the three scenarios).
These reductions have positive effects on the ROI of IDS. Once the aggregate annualized savings (ALE1 - ALE2 or ALE1 - ALE3) occurring from IDS deployment equals the support costs associated to the deployment a positive ROI should materialize. In the case of WBS, the two ROIs (ROI1 & ROI2) for each support profile are as follows:
These ROIs are based on the aggregate annualized savings from deploying and effectively managing the IDS technology and the resulting impact the IDS technology could reasonably have on the combined effect of the three compromise scenarios described above (see Table 1 to review these again).
In the end, to argue the ROI case for IDS, you need to have a sound understanding of your company including, at a minimum, how it does business, how its connected, where the asset value really lies and what vulnerabilities and associated threats (equating to risk and exposure) need to be analyzed and addressed through sound security policy and risk mitigation techniques. Deploying IDS technology using a comprehensive management methodology involving skilled personnel is directly correlated to the attainable goal of a positive ROI on IDS.
Justifying the Expense of IDS, Part One: An Overview of ROIs for IDS
This article originally appeared on SecurityFocus.com -- reproduction in whole or in part is not allowed without expressed written consent.