By Bradley Anstis This is probably the most common question I get asked today!
What customers are really asking is “Can I rely on the built-in security capabilities in Office 365 or do I still need to run a 3rd party email security solution such as a Secure Email Gateway?” And the answer — well that depends; every customer’s environment is different.
Do I have to go to the Cloud?
But first, let’s get the most common misconception out of the way. While it is more efficient to run your email security gateway in the cloud, close to your Office 365 tenancy, there is actually no technical reason why you can’t continue using your current on-premise email security appliances to also protect Office 365, during the migration and even afterwards. After all, it is just a matter of MX record addressing and routing, or in other words ensuring you have all the connections between your on-premise email security gateway which would be responsible for receiving all incoming email and Office 365 which would be hosting your users inboxes set correctly. Sure, this isn’t the most efficient method as you are tromboning or hair-pining traffic up and down and most organizations would only run in this mode for the time frame of the migration. If you already own the solution and have staff trained to support and manage it, it makes sense to see what value it adds to Office 365 first before you consider migrating to a cloud email platform, don’t change too much at the same time, let the Office 365 migration settle in first.
How to Answer the Question – For Your Environment
What a customer needs to do, whether its related to the Cisco Email Security solution or any other 3rd party solution, is to consider all the areas of Office 365 where these 3rd party solutions can supplement the base capabilities of Office 365. Don’t just ‘tick-box compare‘ features. Look at all features and understand how they work. Can the Office 365 features do everything I need today and what I might need it to do tomorrow? Consider how you can address any gaps and what it means for your organization.
One example of how 3rd party email security gateways can add value to Office 365 is to consider spam quarantine management. In Office 365 there are essentially two ways that a user can get access to and manage quarantined email that have been classified as false positives. The most common method is via the Junk folder in their Outlook client, it can be difficult to search but generally works well. The second method is a web-based end-user quarantine system. Confusing, but the main issue is that there are very few categories of spam in Office 365. Either an email is categorized as spam or its not and this causes an issue on providing end-user spam management. There are very few controls about what end-users have access to and what they do not. Ideally, you’d likely rather not want your end-users making decisions around whether to release potentially malicious or inappropriate/pornographic content, you have to ensure you are providing a safe working environment for all employees.
Clearly security is the most important area of capability where we can supplement the core capabilities in Office 365. We have had many customers decide to just rely on Office 365 for email security only to come back several months later. What we have seen as a very common theme across these customers is that the first impact they see is at the help-desk which was not expected. The issue is that they have changed out one of the core security technologies that the organization had probably been using for years and become accustomed to, the spam detection engine. Most of the leading email security providers do a pretty good job today, I couldn’t tell you the last time I had a spam message in my inbox. Suddenly the new spam detection engine is letting through some spam, users can’t remember what to do with spam, so they call the help-desk, all at once! Then after that initial rush, end-users start to notice some email possibly missing and now the help-desk are doing (learning in a hurry) message tracking looking for false positives.
A perfect example of a misstep many organizations make by doing a ‘tick-box‘ comparison is that a feature like a spam detection engine can have significantly different capabilities depending on the vendor. Cisco Email Security has been innovating our email security solution for over 20 years. Our world class threat intelligence is supplied by the largest non-government threat research organization in the world, Talos.
There are many other areas in email security to consider; known malware recognition, unknown or suspect attachment handling, embedded URL handling, support for external threat intelligence and active content disarm and reconstruction. All these functions make meaningful differences in keeping the bad stuff out and your inboxes safe.
Also consider how easy your system is to manage. What reports have you come to rely on in your old systems, what are your managers expecting to see? Have you tested Office 365 to see what it’s like to do message tracking? Have you created email policies?
How confident are you in the capability of the policy engine? Are you even confident that you can recreate all your current email policy in Office 365? What policies will you need in the future? In our experience, in addition to reporting, this is the other area often not tested extensively enough in initial evaluations. With the growing amount of regulatory compliance regulations, having an advanced policy engine with plenty of policy conditions and actions coupled with significant flexibility is more likely to support your efforts. While the Cisco policy engine currently has 24 conditions and 26 actions within its content filtering policy engine, it’s what those options are that make the difference. For example, full control over adding/editing header information and the ability to reroute email based on policy are a couple of options that we see organizations using for a variety of business enablement projects. Our customers are getting real business value out of their email security solution, and the options themselves; another example of how dangerous it is to box tick!
Suggested Decision Process
So now that we have some understanding of what we should be looking at, what’s the best way to go about this analysis? Below are a series of steps to consider to help you make an informed decision:

Your current email policy: This is a great opportunity to assess all the policies and settings that you are relying on now. Are they all needed going forward? What have you seen or tested for yourself that is supported by Microsoft?

Email security capabilities: How these technologies work on your email flow is what is important. There are many ways of validating this by either running different solutions in a monitoring only mode or Bcc’ing/copying email to the solution under test for analysis and then deletion. Is Office 365 by itself blocking everything you need? If it is missing some email, is that critical for your organisation? What sort of impact could result in certain types of email getting through to end-users? (Missed spam, malicious attachments, inappropriate content, malicious URL’s, advanced phishing attacks etc?).

Advancing Phishing detection: Phishing has been a scourge for years because it is constantly evolving. The latest iteration, BEC or Business Email Compromise, has financially impacted many organisations large and small all around the world. BEC is difficult to detect, includes no attachments or embedded URL’s and is sent in low numbers and in a very targeted way. Has your company had issues? Do you know someone who has? What could the impact be for you? Does your current solution have any specialist support for BEC? Have you measured how much that is catching and are you sure that Office 365 would be able to detect and block these even using the advanced phishing capabilities in Microsoft’s ATP optional add-on? This in particular is a great area to potentially leverage a specialist solution such as Cisco’s Advanced Phishing Protection module which can work in any email environment.

Management: How easy is the solution to use? Can you track a message all the way through the scanning process? Can the search engine easily find and release quarantined email? Are you using end-user spam management now? Do you want to continue to use it? Will the capability offered in Office 365 meet your HR driven employee policies and requirements?

Reporting: Do you have any automatic scheduled reports being sent within your organization; perhaps to senior management? Can these be replicated within just Office 365? What reporting, or compliance auditing requirements can you see being required in the short term? Are these reports supported?

External Domain Protection: Becoming a more common inclusion for corporate messaging teams, organizations are using DMARC and related standards to monitor which organizations are sending email using your domain. Is your brand being negatively affected by being used in phishing attacks? While Office 365 does not offer any capability here, this is another area that can be addressed or supplemented using standalone products or solutions such as Cisco Domain Protection.
Licensing & Recommendations
For the majority of our customers, the ideal combination is Office 365 E3 with Cisco Cloud Email Security. This combination includes all the core Office 365 products supplemented with an enterprise class email security solution. The ATP features for Safe Links and Safe Attachments are easily met and exceeded in Cisco’s Cloud Email Security, this is the combination that Cisco itself runs.
Moving up to the E5 licensing tier is a difficult decision, you need to look at all the inclusions you get, which are substantial and determine what value your organisation would get out of these. From an email security & management viewpoint everything is pretty much covered with the combination recommended above except for the advanced email archiving capability if you need that over the basic option in E3.
There are also of course all the collaboration/telephony services which Cisco has great solutions for as well!
Options for Proving the Value
So how can you prove the decision you are making is the right one, or at least if you have already deployed Office 365 by itself, test to see how it is performing from a security viewpoint at least?
Cisco has an analysis tool called “Threat Analyzer for Office 365” and it works by accessing a selection on your user’s inboxes (you define which ones) via the Microsoft Graph API built into Office 365. Threat Analyzer scans these inboxes using the same email security engines that we have in our commercial offerings, looking for any email that we would have detected as Spam, Gray-mail, Malicious Email (with attachment or embedded URL) or inappropriate spam. Threat Analyzer does not do anything to this email or the inbox, it just records what the Cisco email security engines would have detected and then produces a report showing these results. From this report you can get an idea of the extra value you would get from running Cisco email security together with Office 365. However, it needs to be remembered that not all the security engines can be used (Connection filtering for example) with a configuration such as this, so your final experience would be even better than the report would suggest.
There are also other options, the recommended option would be to have Cisco email security running in front of Office 365 so it is the internet facing email server for your email domains, this way 100% of the Cisco security capability can be brought to bear. You can test this by using the default policy which would detect/block & quarantine within Cisco email security, or you simply tag email for it to be then processed by Office 365 and see the combined results. We have also seen other organizations creating a BCC rule within Office 365 to copy all email that is to be delivered to end-users also copied to Cisco email security to see what would have been blocked as well, although this also limits the security engines that can be used as it is also not internet facing, the same limitation that Threat Analyzer for Office 365 has.
Summary
Not every single customer will need to supplement the security that is in Office 365 as every organization has a different appetite and requirements when it comes to cyber security. Considerations include how exposed and trained their end users are and the possible impact to the organization of different types of cyber incidents; from fraudulent BEC emails to malicious content leading to data breaches.
It’s important to consider a solution that meets your current needs and your future concerns.
You have a great opportunity to rethink your email security solution, what else can it do for your business, many organizations are just using email security to keep the bad stuff out and the good stuff in, but it can provide so much more business value than just that. We see so many organizations missing a great opportunity here because email security is all they have ever used their email gateway for, then other organizations we have seen use this technology to enable business processes and integrate disparate systems and applications, you just need to use some imagination!
When considering whether Office 365 can do everything you need, or if you might need to supplement it with a 3rd party solution, ensure you make an informed decision for your organization by looking at all the areas where you might need to supplement the core capability in Office 365, security of course but also management and reporting, remember, do not tick box compare!
If you’re interested in seeing what Cisco Email Security can do, contact your Sales Account Manager for a free Threat Analyzer Scan. Or, if you’re interested in a more in-depth look at how we can improve your security posture, we offer a 45-day free trial of Cisco Email Security.

I hope this blog has been of use and I wish you the best of luck in your path going forward.
The post Do I really need additional email security when using Office 365? appeared first on Cisco Blogs.

Source:: Cisco Security Notice

Source:: Innovaphone

Source:: Innovaphone

Source:: Innovaphone

Source:: Innovaphone

By Talos Group
Today, Talos is publishing a glimpse into the most prevalent threats we’ve observed between Jan 31 and Feb 7. As with previous roundups, this post isn’t meant to be an in-depth analysis. Instead, this post will summarize the threats we’ve observed by highlighting key behavioral characteristics, indicators of compromise, and discussing how our customers are automatically protected from these threats.
As a reminder, the information provided for the following threats in this post is non-exhaustive and current as of the date of publication. Additionally, please keep in mind that IOC searching is only one part of threat hunting. Spotting a single IOC does not necessarily indicate maliciousness. Detection and coverage for the following threats is subject to updates, pending additional threat or vulnerability analysis. For the most current information, please refer to your Firepower Management Center, Snort.org, or ClamAV.net.
Read More
Reference:
TRU020720 – This is a JSON file that includes the IOCs referenced in this post, as well as all hashes associated with the cluster. The list is limited to 25 hashes in this blog post. As always, please remember that all IOCs contained in this document are indicators, and that one single IOC does not indicate maliciousness. See the Read More link above for more details.
The post Threat Roundup for January 31 to February 7 appeared first on Cisco Blogs.

Source:: Cisco Security Notice

Mit der Mailstore-Zertifizierung für Oberberg-Online dokumentieren wir unsere Kompetenz in Sachen rechtssicherer Mailarchivierung. Lösungen hierzu bieten wir als Service aus der Regio-Cloud-Oberberg, oder auch auf kundeneigenen Systemen an.

Ihre Ansprechpartner für Mailstore-Lösungen in unserem Hause:

Daniel Wenzlau
02261 9155054
wenzlau@oberberg.net
DSC_2012 klein
Frank Erlinghagen
02261 9155055
erlinghagen@oberberg.net
DSC_2022 klein
Jörg Wegner
02261 9155052
wegner@oberberg.net

By Talos Group
Today, Talos is publishing a glimpse into the most prevalent threats we’ve observed between Jan 24 and Jan 31. As with previous roundups, this post isn’t meant to be an in-depth analysis. Instead, this post will summarize the threats we’ve observed by highlighting key behavioral characteristics, indicators of compromise, and discussing how our customers are automatically protected from these threats.
As a reminder, the information provided for the following threats in this post is non-exhaustive and current as of the date of publication. Additionally, please keep in mind that IOC searching is only one part of threat hunting. Spotting a single IOC does not necessarily indicate maliciousness. Detection and coverage for the following threats is subject to updates, pending additional threat or vulnerability analysis. For the most current information, please refer to your Firepower Management Center, Snort.org, or ClamAV.net.
Read More
Reference:
TRU01312020 – This is a JSON file that includes the IOCs referenced in this post, as well as all hashes associated with the cluster. The list is limited to 25 hashes in this blog post. As always, please remember that all IOCs contained in this document are indicators, and that one single IOC does not indicate maliciousness. See the Read More link above for more details.
The post Threat Roundup for January 24 to January 31 appeared first on Cisco Blogs.

Source:: Cisco Security Notice

By Ben Nahorney It’s hard to ignore the ubiquity of the internet of things (IoT). Even if you’re one of those holdouts that doesn’t own consumer IoT devices such as a smart speaker, internet-connected thermostat, or a smart watch, industrial IoT (IIoT) devices—a subset of the IoT landscape—are already playing a part in your daily life. From the delivery of water and electricity, to manufacturing, to entertainment such as amusement park rides, IIoT devices are part of more industries than not, and have been for some time. Gartner recently estimated that there were 4.8 billion IIoT assets in the world at the end of 2019, and expects that number will grow by 21 percent in 2020.
The biggest issue faced in many operational technology (OT) environments, which host IIoT assets, isn’t just this growth, but also dealing with older industrial control systems (ICS) that have sometimes been in operation as long as 30 years. Many of these assets have been connected to the network over the years, making them susceptible to attacks. These legacy devices were often deployed on flat networks, at a time when the need for security took a back seat to other priorities, such as high availability and performance.
The discovery of vulnerabilities in these systems doesn’t always mean that patches are, or even can be, rolled out to fix them. Patching many of these IIoT assets means taking them offline—something that’s not always an option with critical infrastructure or production lines that rely on high availability. So patches are often not applied, and vulnerabilities stack up as devices age, leaving attackers with a large swath of exploits to attempt in the pursuit of compromising IIoT assets.
And the number of vulnerabilities discovered in IIoT devices is growing, as is evident in research carried out by Cisco Talos‘ Security Research Team, whose mission is to discover vulnerabilities before the bad guys do. During their look back at 2019, Talos pointed out that they published 87 advisories about vulnerabilities in IoT and ICS devices—by far the largest category for the year. In fact, there were 23 percent more advisories published in this space than there were for desktop operating systems, the second largest category, and historical mainstay targeted by attackers.
This isn’t all that surprising in a field that’s growing this fast. But it’s worth considering how adding new assets into a network, as well as securely maintaining the OT network where assets reside, presents new challenges and naturally increases the attack surface.
So, if you’re using IIoT assets in your business, what sorts of threats do you need to look out for? And how do you protect your devices?
Getting in
The good news is that most IIoT assets aren’t directly exposed to the internet, meaning attackers must rely on other methods to get to them. In essence, the same techniques used in other attacks are used to get to IIoT assets.
The most common vector for compromise—email—certainly applies here. An attacker can attempt to gather information about engineers, plant managers, and developers that have access to IIoT systems and specifically target them with phishing emails. Compromising a computer owned by any of these users can be the most direct path to compromising IIoT assets.
Unpatched systems, simple or default device passwords, and relaxed remote access policies for maintenance contractors all offer attackers avenues of approach. Weaknesses in any of these can provide ways for an attacker to move laterally and gain access.
The reality is that IIoT-specific threats are not that common of an occurrence. There are threats that have attacked general IoT devices en mass, such as Mirai and VPNFilter. And there are threats like Stuxnet, which specifically targeted PLCs. Of course such highly targeted threats are cause for concern. But it’s far more likely that an IIoT device will be compromised and reconfigured by an attacker than be compromised by a trojan or a worm.
Scorching the earth
Let’s say an attacker sets their sights on bringing a particular business to its knees. He or she begins by crafting an enticing phishing email with a malicious PDF and sends it to HR in the guise of a job application. The employee responsible for monitoring job enquiries opens the PDF, effectively compromising the computer.
The attacker works his or her way laterally through the network, monitoring network traffic and scanning compromised systems, looking for logins and authentication tokens. Without multi-factor authentication enabled for access, they encounter few issues in doing so. The attacker eventually manages to compromise a domain controller, where they deploy malware using a Group Policy Object (GPO), successfully compromising the entire IT network.
Due to poor segmentation, the attacker manages to eventually work his or her way to the OT network. Once in, the attacker performs reconnaissance, flagging the IIoT assets present. The attacker identifies vulnerable services in the assets, exploits them, and knocks them offline.
Production grinds to a halt and the business is effectively shut down.
Defense with an arm behind your back
So how do you defend your IIoT assets and the OT network as a whole against attacks, especially for high-availability assets that can’t readily be brought down to patch?
Network monitoring is often the most effective step you can take. However, it’s important to passively monitor the traffic when it comes to IIoT assets. Active monitoring, where traffic is generated and sent through the network specifically to observe its behavior, can result in an increased load on the network, causing disruptions to device performance and even causing them to fail. In contrast, passive scanning listens to the traffic, fingerprinting what it sees, rather than introducing new traffic into the OT environment.
Keeping a current inventory of assets on the network is also very important in protecting the IT and OT networks. Passive monitoring can help to identify assets on the network, including errant and rogue devices. With a comprehensive list of devices, you can create policies for asset groups.
It’s also very important to segment your networks. Having a complete asset inventory and policies in place will help when figuring out how to segment your IIoT assets and the OT network. While this may not prevent a determined attacker from crossing the boundaries between different areas of the network, it can slow them down, providing more time to respond in the case of an attack. Explore implementing zones and conduits as discussed in ISA99 and IEC 62443 within your organization.
However, it’s worth noting that many IIoT assets leverage broadcast and multicast network communications, where one or more devices will send traffic to all other devices on the network. This can pose a challenge when aggressively segmenting a network. To address this, having a complete inventory of assets on the network is important. Strong dataflow mapping is also helpful when it comes to knowing which assets are talking to each other and how they interact as a whole.
Patching IIoT assets as soon as possible after a vulnerability is discovered is highly recommended. But if it isn’t possible to take a device offline to patch, then visibility becomes critical. It’s important to know what assets you have and the network layout to identify what absolutely must be patched. It may also be worth exploring IIoT redundancy within your network, allowing you to take one device down while others pick up the load during maintenance cycles.
Being able to detect IIoT traffic anomalies is also very helpful. Look for behavior that falls outside of what is expected, such as two IIoT assets talking to each other that shouldn’t be, unplanned firmware updates, unexpected configuration changes, or other anomalies.
Finally, threat hunting is a great way to look for and weed out threats within your OT environment. Proactively looking for bad actors doing bad things, building playbooks, and automating them will go a long way to improve your security posture.
Easing the burden
Protecting IIoT assets is arguably one of the more difficult tasks in security. There are a wide variety of devices, many of which operate in a very tailored manner and don’t respond well to disruption that could be caused by many security processes and procedures.
Fortunately, there are a number of Cisco Security products that can help.
Cisco Cyber Vision gives OT teams and network managers full visibility into their industrial assets and application flows. Embedded in Cisco industrial network equipment, it decodes industrial protocols to map your OT network and detect process anomalies or unwanted asset modifications.
Identity Services Engine leverages the asset inventory built by Cisco Cyber Vision to create dynamic security groups and automatically enforce segmentation using TrustSec.
ISA3000 is a ruggedized industrial firewall appliance you can deploy in harsh environments to enforce zone segmentation, detect intrusions, and stop network threats.
Stealthwatch is a security analytics solution that uses a combination of behavioral modeling, machine learning, and global threat intelligence to detect advanced threats. Integrated with Cisco Cyber Vision, this visibility extends deep within the IIoT infrastructure.
AMP for Endpoints can be used to protect engineering workstations within the OT environment.
Duo’s multi-factor authentication can be used to prevent an attacker from gaining access to systems on the network as a they attempt to move laterally.
Cisco Email Security can detect targeted phishing emails aimed at IIoT operators and others, preventing malicious payloads from reaching their intended target.
Ultimately, a layered approach will provide the best security. For instance, Cisco Cyber Vision can automate visibility of industrial devices and secure operational processes. Integrated with Cisco’s security portfolio, it provides context for profiling of industrial devices in Stealthwatch, and maps communication patterns to define and enforce policy using granular segmentation via with ISE.

Enjoyed reading this Threat of the Month? Subscribe to the Threat of the Month blog series and get alerted when new blogs are published.
The post Securing Industrial IoT appeared first on Cisco Blogs.

Source:: Cisco Security Notice