When it comes to cybersecurity, the world is obsessed with attribution. We see sensational headlines all the time that question, speculate on, and purport to confirm the identities of attackers. Often, there's an immediate impulse to answer "who" when triaging and responding to incidents, but that's not the correct path in most cases. Many security leaders operate under the false premise that "who" equates to "how," a notion that is not only counterproductive but dangerous.
Companies are under constant attack, often struggling to respond and mitigate quickly to assess the damage. Teams need to move fast to figure out how attacks happened so they can take steps to prevent them from happening again. This means directing attention to the impacted data and devices, the specific attack method, and how to shut the access points that may be left exposed. Fixating on the threat group behind the attack takes time, energy and resources away from performing the practical measures that are necessary to keep the organization's network secure.
Consider the following scenario: the CFO of your organization has fallen victim to a well-crafted request to transfer funds to a third party (a technique known as business email compromise). Trying to figure out who is behind the attack won't protect against similar attacks or help recover stolen funds, trade secrets, or other pilfered property.
Attribution research is a distraction that most IT and security teams can't afford, a waste of precious time and budget. Instead, teams should gain a thorough understanding of what happened and perform a technical analysis to answer questions like: How did the intruders get in? How did they access the data? Where was ..
Support the originator by clicking the read the rest link below.
