In cybersecurity, nation-states, cybercriminals, hacktivists, and rogue employees are the usual suspects. They fit nicely into categories like external attackers or insider threats.
But what about our essential suppliers, partners, and service providers?
We rely on them, sometimes inviting them in to help manage our networks and internal systems. It’s easy to overlook them as possible pathways for cyberattacks. But the shocking cyberattack discovered in December shined a bright light on supply chain vulnerabilities.
As the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) continues investigating, they reported on January 6 that “one of the initial access vectors for this activity is a supply chain compromise.”
In short, attackers breached a popular network product, one that organizations around the globe trust to manage and monitor their infrastructure. They abused its update system to disguise and deliver malicious code, impacting thousands of customers including high-value US government agencies.
MITRE is well aware of supply chain risks, and they’re not alone.
Back in 2018, they updated the Enterprise ATT&CK Matrix with Trusted Relationship (T1199) and Supply Chain Compromise (T1195) to increase awareness of these adversary techniques. The latter, Supply Chain Compromise (T1195), focuses on the manipulation of products before customers receive them. It also covers software development environments and product update/distribution mechanisms. Sounds a bit like the December cyberattack, no?
The latter, Trusted Relationship (T1199), is relevant in that attack too. MITRE defines it like this: “Adversaries may breach or otherwise leverage organizations who have access to intended victims. Access through trusted third party relationship exploits an existing connection that may not be protected or receives less scrutiny than standard mechanisms of gaining access to a network.” With so much on cyber defenders’ plates, scrutinizing a product update system isn’t likely to be top-of-mind.
There are still a lot of unknowns with this attack, but the security lesson is clear: Trusted relationships must be built on zero trust. Whether it’s our own employees, suppliers, partners, or service providers… we simply can’t trust anyone.
In this blog series, the Magic of Mitigations, we’ve highlighted Mitigations as MITRE’s recommendations against attacker behavior.
For the Trusted Relationship (T1199) technique, MITRE recommends Network Segmentation (M1030) as one of just two mitigations. The other is User Account Control (M1052), a Windows configuration step that helps stop adversaries from gaining elevated process access. There’s certainly magic in both, but let’s focus on the first.
Network segmentation is a simple concept where the network carries only authorized traffic. People and devices can reach only the systems they need when they need them, and that they’re explicitly permitted to access.
Its magic is zero trust, least privilege access that can contain a cyber breach, stopping the spread of malware and infections. Logical segmentation can prevent unauthorized communication between, say, an infected network management system and the attacker’s command-and-control infrastructure — without relying on costly, legacy approaches like internal firewalls, VLANs, air gaps, or dedicated admin networks.
Beyond mitigating Trusted Relationship exploits, MITRE says segmentation defends against all of these adversary techniques too:
What other security approach addresses so many threat vectors?
Okay, network segmentation needs a sprinkle of pixie dust first.
It relies on a policy tightrope: Too loose, and your organization remains at risk. Too tight, and you might break something and disrupt service. For critical infrastructure sectors, where uptime is job one, that’s a no-no.
Until recently, a lot of work went into finding the right balance. First, you’d have to monitor network activity over a long period, baseline it, determine what’s normal and what isn’t, what’s authorized and what isn’t. Then you’d define segmentation policies, translating them into a product interface — and watch to make sure it’s doing what you wanted.
After that, you’re still not done. You’re continually adjusting them to support new deployments, system retirements, and countless other changes on the network. It can be a never-ending cycle of monitor, manage, reconfigure, repeat.
At Cisco, we’ve been doing network segmentation for a long time. And no, I’m not talking about VLANs. I’m talking about our magic of modern, scalable, manageable segmentation. Our pixie dust is automation.
We provide deep visibility to see and classify everything on the network. We analyze network activity to suggest segmentation policies based on your traffic and devices. We know micro-segmentation and granular control over applications and workloads. We make policy enforcement simple and consistent, so that you can act quickly and with confidence. And the best part? Our solutions integrate to work together as a team, using threat intelligence to adjust policy quickly and contain new threats.
If the inline security tool goes off-line, the TAP will bypass the tool and automatically keep the link flowing. The Bypass TAP does this by sending heartbeat packets to the inline security tool. As long as the inline security tool is on-line, the heartbeat packets will be returned to the TAP, and the link traffic will continue to flow through the inline security tool.
If the heartbeat packets are not returned to the TAP (indicating that the inline security tool has gone off-line), the TAP will automatically 'bypass' the inline security tool and keep the link traffic flowing. The TAP also removes the heartbeat packets before sending the network traffic back onto the critical link.
While the TAP is in bypass mode, it continues to send heartbeat packets out to the inline security tool so that once the tool is back on-line, it will begin returning the heartbeat packets back to the TAP indicating that the tool is ready to go back to work. The TAP will then direct the network traffic back through the inline security tool along with the heartbeat packets placing the tool back inline.
Some of you may have noticed a flaw in the logic behind this solution! You say, “What if the TAP should fail because it is also in-line? Then the link will also fail!” The TAP would now be considered a point of failure. That is a good catch – but in our blog on Bypass vs. Failsafe, I explained that if a TAP were to fail or lose power, it must provide failsafe protection to the link it is attached to. So our network TAP will go into Failsafe mode keeping the link flowing.
Single point of failure: a risk to an IT network if one part of the system brings down a larger part of the entire system.
Heartbeat packet: a soft detection technology that monitors the health of inline appliances. Read the heartbeat packet blog here.
Critical link: the connection between two or more network devices or appliances that if the connection fails then the network is disrupted.