Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective

DPRO-95367
Ant Allan
Technology Overview
4 January 2002
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
Summary
An IDS is a “burglar alarm” on a company’s networks and servers. Malicious activity that evades other
security will sound the alarm, but the organization needs the capability and will to respond.
Table of Contents
Technology Basics
The Need for Intrusion Detection
Intrusion Detection Systems
Technology Analysis
Business Use
Benefits and Risks
Standards
Selection Guidelines
Technology Leaders
Technology Alternatives
Insight
List Of Tables
Table 1: Strengths and Weaknesses of Network-Based Intrusion Detection Systems
Table 2: Strengths and Weaknesses of Host-Based Intrusion Detection Systems
Table 3: Strengths and Weaknesses of Misuse Detection
Table 4: Strengths and Weaknesses of Anomaly Detection
Table 5: Leading IDS Products
Gartner
Entire contents © 2002 Gartner, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction of this publication in any form without prior written permission is forbidden. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be
reliable. Gartner disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such information. Gartner shall have no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in the information contained herein or for interpretations
thereof. The reader assumes sole responsibility for the selection of these materials to achieve its intended results. The opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice.
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
Technology Basics
The Need for Intrusion Detection
According to a recent study by the Computer Security Institute (CSI) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), a staggering 70 percent of organizations surveyed reported a security incident. This
figure is up from 42 percent reported in 1996. Taking into account organizations’ reluctance to admit to
incidents or their inability to detect them, the true figure is likely to be higher.
E-business has driven organizations to open their networks to wider audiences over the Internet—home
and mobile workers, business partners, suppliers, and customers—in order to stay competitive. But such
open networks expose the organizations to intrusions—attempts to compromise, the confidentiality,
integrity, or availability, or to bypass the security mechanisms of a computer system or network.
Intrusion detection is the process of monitoring the events occurring in a computer system or network and
analyzing them for signs of intrusion.
But why is intrusion detection necessary? Is it not enough for an organization to use a firewall to control
access to its network and maybe a virtual private network (VPN) to secure communications? Deploying
firewalls and VPNs is a good thing. A robust firewall policy can minimize the exposure of many networks.
Nevertheless, such countermeasures alone are not enough.
Attackers Are Getting Smarter
Attackers are evolving their attacks and network subversion methods. These techniques include e-mailbased Trojan horses, stealth scanning techniques, and tunneling attacks in which an attacker masks
traffic that should be screened by the firewall by encapsulating it within packets corresponding to another
network protocol, such as Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) or domain name system (DNS).
Vulnerabilities Are Proliferating
Attackers also take advantage of vulnerabilities attributed to system misconfiguration, poorly engineered
software, user neglect and carelessness, and basic design flaws in protocols and operating systems.
There is an ever-growing list of application vulnerabilities, and attackers are very good at exploiting these
via protocols, such as HTTP, that are let through by almost any firewall.
“Hacker” Tools Make Attacks Easier
Although many network scanning and attack techniques have been known for several decades, it is only
recently that the tools to conduct sophisticated analysis of a target network have become widely available.
As the sophistication of “hacker” tools has increased, the technical knowledge required to attack a
network has fallen, so organizations are exposed to a rapidly growing number of potential attackers.
Insider Attacks Are Still Predominant
While outsiders may frequently and increasingly perpetrate misuse, it is still more often the result of
malicious insider activity. This is because a legitimate (but untrustworthy) user can take advantage of
physical access, some level of genuine privilege, and knowledge of local security measures (objects an
outsider must endeavor to acquire illicitly). Perimeter defenses cannot protect against this kind of attack.
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
2
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
Intrusion Detection Systems
An intrusion detection system (IDS) is a software product or hardware device that automates the intrusion
detection process. Without such automation, effective intrusion detection is practically impossible. An
IDS’s capability to apply the latest security and attack expertise to separate a relatively few potentially
interesting events from a vast amount of benign activity enables much more effective network security
administration and facilitates timely response.
Functional Components
An IDS is made up of three functional components:
•
information sources,
•
analysis, and
•
response.
The system obtains event information from one or more information sources, performs a preconfigured
analysis of the event data, and then generates specified responses, ranging from reports to active
intervention when it detects intrusions. There is also a management system that allows a security or
network administrator to monitor and configure the system and to analyze the data. These components
may or may not be running on the same box, and all of them may not be present.
System Monitoring Approaches
Broadly, the two system monitoring approaches are:
•
network-based IDS (NIDS) and
•
host-based IDS (HIDS).
NIDS
A NIDS monitors all network traffic passing on the segment where the agent is installed, reacting to any
anomaly or signature-based suspicious activity.
NIDSs come in the guise of turnkey appliances that just plug in to the network or software that installed on
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) computers. A NIDS usually has two logical components:
•
a sensor and
•
a management station or console.
The sensor sits on a network segment, analyzing every network packet for attack signatures. The console
receives alarms from the sensor(s) and displays them to an administrator. The sensors are usually
dedicated systems that exist only to monitor the network. They have a network interface in promiscuous
mode, which means they receive all network traffic, not just that destined for their IP address, and they
capture passing network traffic for analysis.
HIDS
In its narrowest sense, a HIDS is an IDS that monitors platform and application event logs from multiple
sources for suspicious activity.
Host computers may include user workstations (including specialized applications such as Web
browsers), peripherals (such as printers), specialized servers such as Web servers, or network
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
3
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
components (such as firewalls, routers, and switches). HIDSs use software modules installed on each
monitored host.
HIDSs can detect computer misuse from trusted insiders as well as from those who have infiltrated a
corporate network. They look for unusual activity confined to the local host such as logins, improper file
access, unapproved privilege escalation, or alterations on system privileges:
•
Application-based IDSs are a special subset of HIDSs that analyze events within a software
application based on the application’s transaction log files. Application-based IDSs can also detect
suspicious behavior where authorized users exceed their authorization.
•
Switched and/or high-speed networks create problems for NIDSs: many are unreliable at high
speeds, dropping a high percentage of network packets; and switched networks often prevent a NIDS
from seeing passing packets promiscuously. Network-node IDSs (NNIDSs) delegate the network IDS
function down to individual hosts alleviating these problems.
•
Hybrid IDSs combine NNIDS and HIDS in a single package. Most commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)
“HIDS” are actually hybrid IDSs, and many include application-based intrusion detection as well.
•
File-integrity assessment (FIA) tools are a special kind of HIDS. Tripwire is perhaps the best-known
example. When a system is compromised an attacker will often alter certain key files to provide
continued access and prevent detection. FIA works by applying a cryptographic hash function to
critical files and then checking the files periodically to ensure that the hash result, or checksum, is
unchanged. (A hash function is an algorithm that computes a unique fixed-length value, the hash
result, for each file.) Detecting a change will trigger an alert. Furthermore, following an attack the
same files can be assessed to determine the extent of the compromise.
Table 1: Strengths and Weaknesses of Network-Based Intrusion Detection Systems
Strengths
A few well-placed sensors can monitor a large network.
Weaknesses
A NIDS may be overwhelmed by very high traffic
volumes, may not be able to process all packets, and so
may miss an attack.
Few current (December 2001) products can operate
effectively at gigabit line speeds.
Sensors are passive devices that listen to network traffic
Switched networks pose problems. A sensor cannot see
in real time without interfering with normal operation. A
beyond a single segment, which can limit the range to a
NIDS can be fitted to a network with little impact.
single host, and force the organization to deploy many
sensors.
Switches that provide monitoring or scanning port can at
least partially mitigate this issue.
Sensors can be made very secure against attack and
A NIDS cannot analyze encrypted network traffic, e.g., if
can even be made invisible to attackers.
the organization uses VPNs. This will become more
important as organizations migrate to IPv6.
A NIDS can detect an attack before it reaches the
A NIDS cannot determine with certainty whether an
targeted system.
attack was successful.
A NIDS is typically platform-independent and relatively
Sensors may transmit large volumes of data to the
easy to deploy. (More so for a NIDS appliance.)
management console, eating available bandwidth and
causing latency problems.
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
4
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
Table 2: Strengths and Weaknesses of Host-Based Intrusion Detection Systems
Strengths
Weaknesses
A HIDS monitors events local to a host and thus can
An OS-specific or sensor must be installed, configured,
detect attacks that a NIDS cannot. It will see in detail
and maintained on each host to be protected.
exactly what the attacker does: command execution, file
access, system calls, etc.
A HIDS can distribute the load associated with
A sensor uses the resources of the host it is monitoring
monitoring across available hosts on a large network.
and, hence, inflicts a performance cost.
A HIDS is unaffected by encrypted network traffic as
As a HIDS depends on event and audit logs, it is
data has been decrypted (or has not yet been
important that logging is correctly configured to generate
encrypted) when it is seen by the sensor.
all required records, possibly impacting business
application software.
A HIDS can monitor interaction between users and
Technicians other than network/security people will
servers/applications allowing it to trace misuse to a
likely maintain the host, and a sensor is at risk of being
known individual.
disabled if it appears to get in the way of business
application software.
A HIDS might be attacked and disabled as part of an
attack on the host. A HIDS can be disabled by certain
denial-of-service attacks.
Analysis Strategy
Analysis strategies fall into two basic types: knowledge-based misuse detection and behavior-based
anomaly detection. Vendors, however, are often leery of having their proprietary analysis strategies
categorized so simply.
Knowledge-Based Misuse Detection
Knowledge-based detection methods use information about known security policy, known vulnerabilities,
and known attacks on the systems they monitor. This approach, also known as misuse detection,
compares network activity or system audit data to a database of known attack signatures or other misuse
indicators, and pattern matches produce alarms of various sorts.
The most common form of misuse detection used in commercial products specifies each pattern of events
corresponding to an attack as a separate signature. More sophisticated IDSs use state-based analysis
techniques; for example:
•
reassembling fragmented packets to detect attacks where the attacker has deliberately split up to
avoid detection;
•
reassembling streams to detect session-based attacks, which occur over the course of a dialog
between two systems and would likely not be contained in a single packet.
HIDSs generally use rule-based engines for analyzing activity. An example of such a rule might be,
“superuser privilege can only be attained through the su command.” Therefore successive login attempts
to the root account might be considered an attack. All commercial systems use some form of knowledgebased approach. Thus, the effectiveness of current commercial IDSs is based largely on the validity,
currency, and expressiveness of their database of known attacks and misuse, and the efficiency of the
matching engine that is used.
Behavior-Based Anomaly Detection
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
5
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
Behavior-based detection methods use information about repetitive and usual behavior on the systems
they monitor. Also called anomaly detection, this approach notes events that diverge from expected
(based on repetitive and usual) usage patterns.
One technique is threshold detection, in which certain attributes of user and system behavior are
expressed in terms of counts, with some level established as permissible. Such behavior attributes can
include the number of files accessed by a user in a given period; the number of failed attempts to log in to
the system; and the amount of CPU used by a process.
Another technique is to perform statistical analysis on the information, build statistical models of the
environment, and look for patterns of anomalous activity (e.g., accesses that occur at strange times, or an
unusual number of failed logins). Some vendors are now incorporating this technology in commercial
products, but it is difficult to engineer for commercial products, as well as uncommon.
There is now a considerable amount of active research in adaptive systems. These start with generalized
rules for the environment, then learn, or adapt to, local conditions that would otherwise be unusual. After
the initial learning period, the system understands how people interact with the environment, and then
warns operators about unusual activities.
Table 3: Strengths and Weaknesses of Misuse Detection
Strengths
Weaknesses
Misuse detectors are very effective at detecting attacks
Misuse detectors can only detect those attacks they
without generating an overwhelming number of false
know about—therefore they must be constantly updated
alarms.
with signatures of new attacks.
Misuse detectors can quickly and reliably diagnose the
Many misuse detectors are designed to use tightly
use of a specific attack tool or technique. This can help
defined signatures that prevent them from detecting
security managers prioritize corrective measures.
variants of common attacks. State-based misuse
detectors can overcome this limitation, but are not
commonly used in commercial IDSs.
Misuse detectors can allow system managers,
regardless of their level of security expertise, to track
security problems on their systems, initiating incidenthandling procedures.
Table 4: Strengths and Weaknesses of Anomaly Detection
Strengths
Weaknesses
IDSs based on anomaly detection detect unusual
Anomaly detection approaches usually produce a large
behavior and thus have the ability to detect symptoms of
number of false alarms due to the unpredictable
attacks without specific knowledge of details.
behaviors of users and networks.
Anomaly detectors can produce information that can in
Anomaly detection approaches often require extensive
turn be used to define signatures for misuse detectors.
“training sets” of system event records in order to
characterize normal behavior patterns.
Timing of Information Sources and Analysis
An IDS might work in either batch mode or real-time mode.
All COTS products that vendors market as IDSs work in real time or “near” real time. NIDS are generally
true real time. HIDS can be real time, but this demands a mechanism to capture an event at the same
time that the audit record is being written, which is technically more challenging. It is easier for a HIDS to
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
6
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
read the logs just after the records have been written, which imposes a small delay. This delay is not
significant where an organization is trusting in a manual response, but can reduce the effectiveness of an
automatic active response (e.g., forcibly terminating a user’s session) by the IDS.
A system performing analysis of network packets or audit records at intervals longer than about 15
minutes cannot respond quickly enough to meet most organizations’ expectations for an IDS.
Nevertheless, batch mode analysis of IDS data can be valuable in at least two ways:
•
Trend analysis, to establish extended probing activity that may signal a future attack.
•
Forensic analysis, to build up a picture of how an attack succeeded and the vulnerabilities it
exploited.
Other IDS Functionality
Response Options—Passive or Active
An IDS may respond to an identified attack, misuse, or anomalous activity in two ways. The first (and
clearly universal) is a passive response, one where the IDS simply informs responsible personnel of an
event by way of console messages, e-mail, cellular phones or pagers, and report updates. Some
commercial IDSs generate Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) alarms and alerts, reporting
them to a network management system.
Less often, the IDS also has the capacity to engage in an active response to critical events where (as
specified by an administrator) it takes corrective or proactive action. Actions can include:
•
correcting a system vulnerability,
•
logging off a user,
•
terminating a connection,
•
selectively increasing monitoring,
•
reconfiguring a firewall (to block an address that was the source of the detected intrusion or to throttle
the amount of traffic allowed through a port), and
•
disconnecting a port.
Reporting Mechanisms
When it detects a threat, an IDS generally sends an alert to a centralized management console where
alert information can be recorded and brought to the attention of an administrator. Some IDSs can
generate reports of system events and intrusions detected over a particular reporting period (say, a week
or a month). Some provide intrusion data in formats suitable for inclusion in database systems or for use
in report-generating packages (such as Crystal Decisions’ Crystal Reports).
IDS Configuration
Typically, an IDS provides capabilities for selecting which attacks are monitored. Depending on the
specific implementation of an IDS, an administrator might be able to select:
•
which attacks will be monitored,
•
what the response will be for each detected intrusion,
•
specific source and destination addresses to be monitored or excluded, and
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
7
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
•
characterizations of the class—the importance or severity—of each alarm.
This capability is critical to optimize the monitoring capability for an IDS. In this way, it is possible to focus
the sensor on specific events of interest, and the response that the IDS will have on the detection of
events.
Technology Analysis
Business Use
Intrusion detection allows organizations to protect their systems from the threats that come with
increasing network connectivity and reliance on information systems. Given the level and nature of
modern network security threats, the question for security professionals should not be whether to use
intrusion detection, but which intrusion detection features and capabilities to use. IDSs have gained
acceptance as a necessary addition to every organization’s security infrastructure.
When used conscientiously and knowledgeably, IDS products can provide worthwhile indications of
malicious activity and spotlight security vulnerabilities, thus providing an additional layer of protection.
Without them, network administrators have little chance of knowing about, much less assessing and
responding to, malicious and invalid activity. Properly configured, IDSs are especially useful for monitoring
the network perimeter for attacks originating from outside and for monitoring host systems for
unacceptable insider activity.
IDS products automatically review massive amounts of network and system data in real time, identify
suspicious activity, provide real-time automated notification to security personnel, guide further
investigation, and sometimes automatically respond to specified attacks. Properly used, an IDS product
can detect common attacks, attempts to exploit known weaknesses, network probes, or critical resource
overloads in a reasonably timely manner. By identifying successful invalid activity, IDSs can indirectly
spotlight network and system vulnerabilities, enabling fixes and fine-tuning.
Benefits and Risks
Benefits
Deters Problem Behaviors
By increasing the perceived risk of discovery and punishment for those who would attack or otherwise
abuse the system, an IDS can serve as a significant deterrent to insiders who would violate an
organization’s information security policy.
Detects Misuse That Other Countermeasures Cannot Prevent
Although vendors and administrators are encouraged to address vulnerabilities that an attacker can
exploit, this is not possible in many situations:
•
In many legacy systems, the operating systems cannot be patched or updated.
•
Even in systems in which patches can be applied, administrators sometimes have neither sufficient
time nor resource to track and install all the necessary patches. This is a common problem,
especially in environments that include a large number of hosts or a wide range of different hardware
or software environments.
•
Users can have compelling operational requirements for network services and protocols that are
known to be vulnerable to attack.
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
8
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
•
Access control mechanisms can allow legitimate users to perform actions that are ill advised or that
overstep their authorization.
An IDS can detect when an attacker has penetrated a system by exploiting an uncorrected or
uncorrectable flaw. Furthermore, it can serve an important function in system protection, by bringing the
fact that the system has been attacked to the attention of the administrators who can contain and recover
any damage that results and, perhaps, address the vulnerability against future attacks.
Detects and Deals With the Preambles to Attacks
Preparatory activity is commonly experienced as network probes and other “doorknob rattling.” When
adversaries attack a system, they typically do so in predictable stages. The first stage of an attack is
usually probing or examining a system or network, searching for an optimal point of entry. In systems with
no IDS, the attacker is free to thoroughly examine the system with little risk of discovery or response and
will eventually find a vulnerability and exploit it to gain entry to various systems. The same network with
an IDS presents a much more formidable challenge to that attacker. Although the attacker may probe the
network for weaknesses, the IDS will observe the probes, will identify them as suspicious, may actively
block the attacker’s access to the target system, and will alert security personnel who can then take
appropriate actions to block subsequent access by the attacker.
Documents the Existing Threat to an Organization
An IDS substantiates claims that networks and systems are likely to be attacked or are even currently
under attack—many people mistakenly deny that anyone (outsider or insider) would be interested in
breaking into their networks. Furthermore, if an organization understands the frequency and
characteristics of attacks, it can better determine what security measures are appropriate to protect
against those attacks.
Acts as Quality Control for Security Design and Administration
When an IDS runs over a period, patterns of system usage and detected problems can become apparent.
These can highlight flaws in the design and management of security for the system, in a fashion that
supports security management correcting those deficiencies before they cause an incident.
Provides Useful Information About Intrusions That Do Take Place
Even when IDSs are not able to block attacks, they can still collect relevant, detailed, and trustworthy
information about the attack that supports incident-handling and recovery efforts. Furthermore, this
information can, under certain circumstances, enable and support criminal or civil legal remedies.
Ultimately, such information can identify problem areas in the organization’s security configuration or
policy.
Risks
An IDS Is Not a Panacea
Despite the positive impact it can have on an organization, no IDS is indestructible and certainly should
not be the only security measure that an organization employs. Only by combining an IDS with other
countermeasures—such as firewalls, VPNs, and antivirus products—does an organization protect from a
realistic range of security attacks. This combination is sometimes called security in depth or defense in
depth.
Active Response Can Create Not Prevent Problems
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
9
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
Because hackers can use automatic responses to deny service, organizations must approach proactive
responses with extreme caution. They are in themselves dangerous, since the reaction may cut off
innocent individuals or shut down entire networks or services, thus cutting off many innocent users, who
may, as a result, become furious. Within an organization, mistakes of this sort create hostility towards
security and might result in loss of earnings. Externally, they might leave the organization legally liable
and will inevitably create bad press.
The IDS That Cried “Wolf!”
If there are 10 real attacks per million sessions—which is almost certainly an overestimate—then even if
the system has a “false positive” rate as low as 0.1 percent, the ratio of false alarms to real alarms will be
100:1. (The problem is much worse where anomaly detection is employed to alert administrators about
unusual activity that might signal a new form of attack, as this technique generates far more false
positives.) This is a well-known issue for guards’ response to burglar alarms and for medics running
screening programs for diseases where the test error exceeds the organism’s prevalence in the
population. In general, where real alarms are so rare in comparison with false alarms, an alarm system is
likely to so fatigue the guards that even the genuine alarms get missed.
Human Intervention Is Still Required
While the IDS can identify that an intrusion has occurred or is in process, and it may be able to provide
the intruder’s IP address, the security administrator or network manager must then investigate the attack,
determine how it occurred, and correct the problem. In short, an organization must have both the
capability and, moreover, the will to respond promptly to any alert at any time.
An organization should have incident-handling procedures describing how it will handle security incidents,
such as viruses, insider abuse of systems, and attacks. These should, at a minimum, assign roles and
responsibilities for all parties within the organization, outline the actions that are to be taken when an
incident occurs, and establish schedules and content for training everyone about their responsibilities in
the incident-handling process. Furthermore, the organization should make provisions to conduct “fire
drills” in which all organizational parties step through their specific responsibilities and assignments.
Standards
Intrusion Detection Exchange Protocol (IDXP)
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Intrusion Detection Working Group (IDWG) (Internet:
www.ietf.org/html.charters/idwg-charter.html) is working to define data formats and exchange procedures
for sharing information of interest to intrusion-detection and response systems and to management
systems that may need to interact with them. The design involves sending XML-based alerts over an
HTTP-like communications format. The WG has paid a lot of attention to the needs of IDS analysis, and to
making the protocol work through firewalls in a straightforward way.
Its recent Internet Drafts include The Intrusion Detection Exchange Protocol (IDXP) (11 September 2001)
and Intrusion Detection Message Exchange Format Data Model and Extensible Markup Language (XML)
Document Type Definition (November 2001), and appears to be close to publishing Requests for
Comments (RFCs).
The IDWG has built on some of the work of Common Intrusion Detection Framework (CIDF) (Internet:
www.gidos.org/), begun in 1997, but which has been dormant since early 2000.
International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) WD
15947: 1999 Information Technology—Security Techniques—IT Intrusion Detection Framework
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
10
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
The ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 Subcommittee 27 Working Group 1 (JTC 1/SC 27/WG 1) is
working to define a framework for detection of intrusions into IT systems. It seeks to establish common
definitions for intrusion-detection terms and concepts. It describes the methodologies and concepts and
the relationships among them, addresses possible orderings of intrusion detection tasks and related
activities, and attempts to relate these tasks and processes to an organization’s procedures to
demonstrate the practical integration of intrusion detection within a corporate security policy.
This Technical Report (TR) has languished as a Working Draft (WD) since December 1998. All target
dates for further drafts and the final TR have passed.
Common Criteria Protection Profiles
A Protection Profile (PP) is an implementation-independent set of security requirements for a category of
products or systems that meet specific consumer needs, as defined by the Common Criteria for
Information Technology Security Evaluation (International Standard ISO/IEC 15408:1999). The
Information Assurance Technical Framework Forum (IATFF), an organization sponsored by the U.S.
National Security Agency (NSA), has published a number of PPs for IDSs and vulnerability assessment
(VA) scanners. (Internet: www.iatf.net/protection_profiles/intrusion.cfm)
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE)
CVE is a list of standardized names for vulnerabilities and other information security exposures. CVE
aims to standardize the names for all publicly known vulnerabilities and security exposures in order to
make it easier to share data across separate vulnerability databases and security tools. While CVE may
make it easier to search for information in other databases, CVE is not a vulnerability database.
The content of CVE is a result of a collaborative effort of the CVE Editorial Board, which includes
representatives from numerous security-related organizations such as vendors, academic institutions,
government agencies, and prominent security experts. The MITRE Corporation maintains CVE and
moderates Editorial Board discussions.
The current version of CVE is free to use and available for download from the CVE Web site (Internet:
www.cve.mitre.org/about/).
Selection Guidelines
Suitability
Organizations should consider requirements and constraints imposed by their network topology and
hardware and software infrastructure:
•
•
Applicability to an organization’s target network and systems—Can the IDS interpret the information
of the local environment?
•
Operating systems—specific Unix OSes, MS Windows, Novell NetWare, etc.
•
Network topologies—Ethernet, T1/E1, etc.
•
Switched networks.
•
Protocols—ICMP, IP v4, IP v6, TCP, User Datagram Protocol (UDP), etc.
•
Applications—FTP, HTTP, Secure Shell (SSH), Telnet, etc.
IDS architecture—The IDS should provide a distributed capability, since this component of scalability
is vital for effective deployment of IDS in the vast majority of corporate networks.
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
11
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
•
IDS management scheme—An IDS that does not support remote management is unusable for an
enterprise environment, and unwieldy even for a simple LAN. The most flexible IDS provides the
capability for the user to securely log onto the management console and perform these tasks from
any other console in the network.
•
Agent to management console ratio—In order to be effective in a WAN or enterprise environment, an
IDS must be capable of effectively administering a large number of agents or sensors. Enterprise
environments may require agents on thousands of hosts, and sensors in many strategic network
locations.
•
Communications robustness—Robust communication includes techniques which ensure that
information being passed between the IDS manager and agents or sensors, and between the agents
and network servers, is not lost, unduly delayed, or corrupted due to network and system failures.
•
Implementation—Most commercial IDSs are solely software solutions that can be installed on a
variety of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) workstations (given sufficient memory and disk storage),
but a few require specially configured versions of standard workstations. A very few are sold as
integrated hardware/software systems. Hardware limitations can affect the flexibility and cost of an
IDS product. On the other hand, some organizations may want the ease of a turnkey system.
•
Performance—An IDS must be able to correctly handle, in real time, the quantity of information
generated on the systems it is purported to support, whether it be network traffic, system logs, or
application output.
•
Accuracy—The rates of false negatives (missed events) and false positives (benign activity that is
identified as malignant events). Accuracy is directly linked to such things as the comprehensiveness
of the initial signature database and the ability to fine-tune to the system being monitored as well as
to timely and high-quality event signature updates.
Flexibility
An IDS product must be adaptable to the network or system it monitors. It should provide the organization
with the means to customize monitoring, attack responses, event prioritization, and so on. Possible
customizable features include:
•
Attack and misuse definition—i.e., the addition of new attack or misuse signatures.
•
Attack and misuse response—e.g., a means of escalating notifications to appropriate staff based on
company-defined notification policies; a means for the organization to define, activate, modify, and
test active responses.
•
Connection event response—the capability for the IDS to respond in some way to specific connection
events (e.g., based on protocol, source port, destination port, source IP address, or destination IP
address).
•
Protocol and audit record definition—a means for the organization to define new protocols (for NIDS,
NNIDS) and new audit records (for HIDS) so the IDS can interpret and process user-specified data
sources.
•
Reports—provision for user modification of supplied reports and report schedules and definition of a
range of new reports.
•
Cryptography options—provision for a user-configurable set of cryptography options, e.g., which
algorithm to use, disabling all cryptography.
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
12
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
•
Security options—the capability to control access to IDS applications, restrict privilege, and restrict
logons to specific locations (e.g., system console only, certain other consoles).
Protection
Given its criticality to the security of any enterprise, an effective IDS must be resistant to malicious
tampering. The features that determine this include:
•
Self-monitoring—an IDS monitors its own activities for signs of interference or failure, and is capable
of responding (if only with a console message).
•
Stealth techniques—an IDS is effectively “invisible” on the monitored network (e.g., having no IP
address), making it less vulnerable to attack.
•
Management console security—provision of user authentication to the console (e.g., password, smart
card), access control within the console, and privilege management.
•
Communications security—communication between management console and agents should be
secure so that:
•
configuration and diagnostic information can be securely transported between manager and
agents, and
•
alarms and incident data arrive complete and uncorrupted at the manager.
Interoperability
It is extremely advantageous if IDS products are able to interoperate at some level with other network
management and security tools, including:
•
Network management system (NMS)—so a network administrator can incorporate the IDS into the
overall network management architecture.
•
Alternative management system—a simpler, perhaps less expensive, way of interfacing with the IDS
product’s agents or sensors is the use of another application’s management console.
•
Vulnerability assessment (VA) products—in an ideal configuration, IDS and VA products should work
interactively; for example:
•
•
if a scanner has detected a misconfiguration and an IDS detected an attack that is attempting to
exploit that misconfiguration, then the event can be assigned a high priority;
•
the presence of vulnerabilities might be used to define attack signatures for the IDS database.
Complementary IDS—a comprehensive IDS solution for any environment must include both hostbased and network-based sensors. Often these are combined in a single product, but where a vendor
offers separate NIDS and HIDS products, these should interface to a common management console
or network management system. (Similarly, if a vendor offers only a NIDS or a HIDS, it should
interoperate with other vendors’ complementary products.)
Event Management
It is essential that an IDS provide the means for the user to effectively manage security events. This may
include the following:
•
Event prioritization—to enable the user to respond immediately to the most critical events, while not
wasting time sorting through and evaluating all reported events, many of which are likely minor.
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
13
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
•
Report merging and data visualization—an IDS should be able to:
•
provide a single view of events (potential attacks) across the whole enterprise;
•
present the data in a way that allows a user to understand what has occurred, how to respond to
it, and how it can be prevented in the future.
•
Event trace and replay—an IDS should save enough information to be able to reconstruct any event
in full.
•
24×7 vendor hotline—the IDS vendor should be able to provide the organization with expert advice to
properly respond to attacks.
•
Attack database—the IDS vendor should provide a database that includes attack information and
analysis, details vulnerability fixes, and suggests possible countermeasures.
Support
There are a number of features that can make an IDS product eminently more useful to a user; and in fact
can determine whether the product is even considered for purchase, or if acquired, is effectively used.
Critical support factors include:
•
Product information—Readily available and comprehensive (accurate, complete, and up to date) and
comprehensible information about it.
•
Vendor response—A workable means by which to query the vendor, coupled with a responsive
vendor.
•
Attack definition update—A comprehensive a set of attack signatures, etc., which is updated
frequently (e.g., signatures provided immediately upon identification of a new attack) in a simple way
(e.g., automatic, secure downloads from a vendor site).
Technology Leaders
The IDS research field is still comparatively young, with most research dating from the 1980s and 1990s,
and wide-scale commercial use from the mid-1990s. However, the intrusion-detection market has grown
into a significant commercial presence. Gartner Research reported a 73 percent growth in the $153
million IDS software market in 2000. The leader by market share is Internet Security Systems (ISS) with
47 percent. The second largest is Computer Associates with 29 percent. Symantec and Network
Associates also have IDS offerings, although they currently have little share and are seeing low growth.
(Cisco is not represented in these figures as it offers a hardware-based IDS.)
Table 5: Leading IDS Products
Vendor/Product(s)
Description
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Secure IDS is a NIDS appliance that can also be implemented as software on
• Secure IDS
Cisco’s PIX Firewall and Internet Operating System (IOS) routers and as a “blade”
(formerly NetRanger)
in Cisco’s switches. Cisco has a strong position in the IDS market because of its
• IDS Host Sensor
presence in the network infrastructure of a majority of organizations. Cisco is
(Internet:
winning customers for its IDS, in part through competitive pricing and increased
www.cisco.com)
performance. An announced partnership to rebrand and resell Entercept Security
Technologies’ HIDS gives Cisco a comprehensive IDS solution. The challenge for
Cisco will be to create a robust, easy-to-use, central management console that can
correlate and report on incidents from host-based and network-based agents.
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
14
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
Table 5: Leading IDS Products
Vendor/Product(s)
Description
Enterasys
Dragon IDS comprises Dragon Sensor (NIDS) and Dragon Squire (HIDS) with a
Networks, Inc.
common Dragon Server console. Dragon Squire monitors host platforms,
• Dragon IDS
applications, firewalls, and other vendors’ NIDSs and HIDSs. After its acquisition of
(Internet:
Network Security Wizards, Enterasys has integrated Dragon IDS into a
www.enterasys.com)
comprehensive set of tools that works well with its line of hardware (enterprise
switches). Channel relationships with ISPs and MSSPs, such as Verio and Riptech,
indicate wide acceptance of Dragon for IDS.
Internet Systems
RealSecure integrates RealSecure Network Sensors (NIDS) and RealSecure
Security, Inc. (ISS)
Server Sensors (HIDS) with a common RealSecure Manager console. RealSecure
• Real Secure IDS
IDS was struggling to keep up with the throughput demands being placed on it by
(Internet:
the advancing needs of e-businesses. ISS made a strategic acquisition of
www.iss.net)
NetworkICE, whose NIDS appliance will get RealSecure to gigabit wire speed
analysis by 1Q02.
Snort
Snort is a lightweight, fast NIDS, available under a GNU General Public License.
• Snort
Snort is the leading open-source NIDS and ranks highly in comparison with
(Internet:
commercial NIDS products, and higher than any commercial product in signature
www.snort.org)
coverage. The rapid evolution of the rulesets is an important advantage of an opensource system, where a large community can create new rules promptly. In some
cases, a Snort rule is posted to BugTraq with the original vulnerability report.
Additionally, Snort also allows plug-ins: ways to incorporate additional detection
functionality into the system.
Snort has been making growing inroads into the marketplace, but many
organizations will have been reluctant to adopt it because of the lack of commercial
support. Silicon Defense (Internet: www.silicondefense.com), however, announced
in March 2001 that it would begin providing commercial support contracts for
organizations using Snort and looking for professional support.
Symantec Corp.
Intruder Alert is Symantec’s HIDS and NetProwler its NIDS. Symantec added both
• Intruder Alert
products to its portfolio with its acquisition of AXENT Technologies in December
• NetProwler
2000. AXENT originated Intruder Alert in 1996 and added NetProwler by acquisition.
(Internet:
Symantec is in a good position with Intruder Alert and NetProwler in both areas of
www.symantec.com)
IDS, but has so far provided only limited interoperability.
Tripwire, Inc.
Tripwire for Servers is the leading FIA product for MS Windows and Unix operating
• Tripwire for Servers
systems (including FreeBSD and Linux). Tripwire Manager is a cross-platform
• Tripwire for Web
management console for managing up to 2,500 Tripwire installations. Tripwire for
Pages
Routers and Switches checks Cisco router and switch configuration. Tripwire for
• Tripwire for Routers
Web Pages extends Tripwire protection to Web pages running on Apache Web
and Switches
servers. While Tripwire is unlikely to be an organization’s only IDS product, it should
(Internet:
consider a FIA product as part of a comprehensive intrusion-detection
www.tripwire.com)
implementation.
• Tripwire Open
An open source, stand-alone version of Tripwire for Linux servers is only available
Source for Linux
as a free download.
(Internet:
www.tripwire.org)
Other Vendors
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
15
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
•
Computer Associates International, Inc.—eTrust Intrusion Detection (NIDS) and eTrust Audit (a
consolidated audit management product). (Internet: www.ca.com)
•
Entercept Security Technologies (formerly ClickNet)—Entercept (HIDS), also offered by Cisco as IDS
Host Sensor, and Entercept Web Server Edition (WSE). (Internet: www.entercept.com)
•
Intrusion Inc.—SecureNet
www.intrusion.com)
•
Lancope, Inc.—StealthWatch appliance (NIDS). (Internet: www.lancope.com)
•
NFR Security, Inc.—NFR Network Intrusion Detection (NFR NID) and NFR Host Intrusion Detection
(HID). NFR HID is based on Centrax technology that NFR recently (December 2001) acquired from
CyberSafe Corp. (Internet: www.nfr.com)
•
NIKSUN, Inc.—NetDetector (NIDS). (Internet: www.niksun.com)
•
Raytheon Company—SilentRunner (NIDS). (Internet: www.raytheon.com)
•
Recourse Technologies, Inc.—ManHunt (NIDS). (Internet: www.recourse.com)
Pro
software
and
SecureNet
appliances
(NIDS).
(Internet:
HIDS for IBM z/OS and OS/390
None of these IDS vendors offers a HIDS product for IBM zSeries eServer hosts (mainframes). A number
of specialist vendors do offer batch-mode System Management Function (SMF) audit log analysis tools:
•
BETA Systems Software AG—BETA 89 Automated Security Auditor for OS/390. (Internet:
www.betasystems.com)
•
CONSUL Risk Management b.v.—Consul/zAudit for RACF, Consul/zAudit for ACF2. (Internet:
www.consul.com)
•
Eberhard Klemens Co. (EKC), Inc.—EKC Security Reporting Facility (ESR-F), for both CA eTrust
CA-ACF2 and RACF. (Internet: www.ekcinc.com)
•
Vanguard Integrity Professionals—Vanguard Advisor. (Internet: www.go2vanguard.com)
Of these, BETA and Vanguard now offer real-time alerting, with CONSUL developing this functionality.
Super-IDS Products
A number of vendors offer products that consolidate information from IDS products and other sources
(firewalls, routers, OSes, etc.), present it to a unified monitoring console, and analyze and correlate
events across the organization’s infrastructure. Some vendors brand these products as threat
management solutions.
Vendors offering such products include:
•
Advisor Technologies, Inc.—Security Advisor. (Internet: www.advisortechnologies.com)
•
e-Security, Inc.—e-Sentinel. (Internet. www.esecurityinc.com)
•
GuardedNet—NeuSecure. (Internet: www.guarded.net)
•
IBM/Tivoli Software—Tivoli Risk Manager and Tivoli Intrusion Manager. (Internet: www.tivoli.com)
•
Intellitactics Inc.—Network Security Manager (NSM). (Internet: www.intellitactics.com)
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
16
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
•
netForensics, Inc.—Security Information Management (SIM). (Internet: www.netforensics.com)
Future Trends
Commercial IDSs are still in their formative years. Some commercial IDSs have received negative
publicity due to their large number of false alarms, awkward control and reporting interfaces,
overwhelming numbers of attack reports, lack of scalability, and lack of integration with enterprise network
management systems. However, the strong commercial demand for IDSs will increase the likelihood that
vendors will successfully address these problems in the near future.
It is very likely that certain IDS capabilities will become core capabilities of network infrastructure (such as
routers, bridges, and switches) and operating systems. In this case, the IDS vendors will be able to better
focus their attention on resolving some of the pressing issues associated with the scalability and
manageability of IDS products.
Other trends in computing will affect the form and function of IDS products including the move to
appliance-based IDSs. It is also likely that certain IDS pattern-matching capabilities will move to hardware
in order to increase bandwidth.
Technology Alternatives
Consolidated Audit Management (CAM) Products
A number of vendors offer products that gather, normalize, and analyze event and audit data from
multiple platforms. While some of these include a real-time HIDS component, the main benefit of these
products is not prompt response to attack. By securely aggregating all data, and evaluating them
consistently against a “universal” policy, these products allow:
•
Identification of suspicious activity—rather as a batch-mode HIDS.
•
Reporting of legitimate but high impact activity—e.g., a system administrator changing the
configuration of the trusted computing base (TCB).
•
Data mining—e.g., to track the activity of a single person across multiple systems.
•
Trend analysis—to discover patterns of events that are innocuous if unrepeated but suspicious over
an extended period.
•
Statistical analysis—to discover security “hot spots” in the organization’s infrastructure.
•
Archiving of audit data—for future forensic use, as evidence in any litigation that might follow an
attack.
Vendors offering CAM products include:
•
Computer Associates International, Inc.—eTrust Audit. (Internet: www.ca.com)
•
CONSUL Risk Management b.v.—Consul/eAudit. (Internet: www.consul.com)
These products are an alternative to dedicated real-time HIDS products, but offer limited or no real-time
responses and poor interoperability with NIDS products and management consoles.
Managed Security Monitoring (MSM)
An IDS is only a tool. To get benefit from it, an organization needs people—people who can analyze alerts
and detect real attacks, and people who know how to respond to attacks. Considerable expertise and
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
17
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
continuous vigilance are required to detect all attacks and to respond effectively to them. Few enterprises
can recruit, train, and retain enough people with the necessary expertise.
Most MSM offerings leverage the organization’s investment in IDSs and other security technology; some
use vendor-specific NIDS devices. They use a combination of sophisticated proprietary software and
human expertise to detect attacks on the organization’s networks and to respond to those attacks—
typically by advising the organization’s on-site technicians.
For about the cost of one security expert an MSM customer gets a team of security experts trained in
attack recognition and diagnosis that monitors the organization’s network 24×7. Nevertheless, the
organization itself must be prepared to take prompt remedial action and properly follow up any security
incident.
A number of vendors offer MSM services, most in combination with other managed security services:
•
Activis (Internet: www.activis.com)
•
Counterpane Internet Security, Inc. (Internet: www.counterpane.com)
•
Internet Security Systems (ISS) (Internet: www.iss.net)
•
Riptech, Inc. (Internet: www.riptech.com)
•
SecureWorks, Inc. (Internet: www.secureworks.net)
•
Ubizen, Inc. (Internet: www.ubizen.com)
•
Veritect (Internet: www.veritect.com)
•
Vigilinx, Inc. (Internet: www.vigilinx.com)
Other Complementary Products
A number of products are more widely recognized as complementing IDSs. These countermeasures each
address a particular security threat to an organization’s system—and each has weak and strong points.
Only by combining them together with an IDS—defense in depth—does an organization protect from a
realistic range of security attacks:
•
Firewalls are widely used: a firewall is typically one of the first security mechanisms that an
organization deploys to protect the perimeter of the network. In too many cases, it is the only such
mechanism used. Although firewalls provide good protection against intrusions from external
sources, like the Internet, organizations should realize that not all access to their enterprise
infrastructure occurs through the firewall. For example, impatient employees might establish an
unauthorized modem connection to the intranet. Similarly, organizations must understand that not all
intrusions occur outside of the firewall. For example, some employees may accidentally or
maliciously try to access files or systems.
•
Antivirus products are a necessary defense against the damage that viruses and other malicious
code can do. But the protection this offers is decreasing as virus writers and the viruses themselves
get smarter and antivirus product vendors and organizations struggle to keep pace with antivirus
updates.
•
Vulnerability assessment (VA) products (also known as vulnerability scanning or sometimes, wrongly,
as risk assessment products) scan for security flaws that may leave a computer system or network
open to attack. VA products can be thought of as a kind of IDS—they are essentially batch mode
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
18
Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs): Perspective
misuse detectors that operate on system state information and results of specified test routines. VA is
a very powerful security technique, but is complementary to IDS, not a replacement for it. VA
products can reliably generate a “snapshot” of the security state of a system at a particular time and
enable a security manager to audit computer systems and networks for compliance with a particular
system security policy. Furthermore, some IDSs can make use of VA results to tune the analysis;
prioritizing attacks where the vulnerability it exploits is known to exist; deprioritizing attacks where the
vulnerability it exploits has been handled.
•
Honey pots. A honey pot is a computer system that is expressly set up to attract and “trap” attackers.
To set up a honey pot, an organization can:
•
Install the operating system without patches installed and using typical defaults and options
•
Make sure that there is no data on the system that cannot safely be destroyed
•
Add the application that is designed to record the activities of the invader
Maintaining a honey pot requires a considerable amount of attention and may offer as its highest value
nothing more than a learning experience—that is, the organization may not catch any attackers. A honey
pot is probably the last defense-in-depth component that an organization should consider.
Insight
IDS technology has improved dramatically over time. Initially developed to automate tedious and difficult
log parsing activity, IDS products have developed into sophisticated applications with the ability to monitor
network traffic and host audit logs to expose malicious activity. But, like a firewall, an IDS is not itself a
complete security solution. Network-based and host-based IDSs must be used along with complementary
countermeasures—firewalls, antivirus software, vulnerability assessment products, etc.—as a component
of defense in depth. IDSs will soon be seen as an indispensable and integral component of any
comprehensive security program and will likely become as ubiquitous as firewalls. Even so, while many
attacks will be detected, some will be missed, and for every real attack, there will be more (probably many
more) false alarms. IDS products will need the continuous attention of a staff of knowledgeable and skilled
technicians to tune and customize the IDS and to investigate and respond to all alarms. Organizations
lacking security staff, or having three or more IDS sensors, may benefit from managed security monitoring
services to help them identify and investigate attacks. But any organization must have the capability and
will to respond—otherwise an IDS is completely ineffective.
Copyright 2002
DPRO-95367
4 January 2002
19