Artificial intelligence and machine learning are the rage in tech right now and not surprisingly, many cyber companies are beginning to automate an increasing amount of their operations. Some of this is great, particularly when it assists cybersecurity professionals to automate mundane tasks and focus more of their attention on higher level analysis.

But so far, machine learning is more hype than helpful for cybersecurity, but that does not mean you can’t automate some tasks to keep your organization safe.

Effective Machine Learning Applications

At its most basic, machine learning technology is supposed to enable cybersecurity companies to predict the nature of future attacks based on past behavior, similar to how Netflix displays what you want to watch based on what you’ve previously viewed.

According to Jack Gold, president and principal analyst at J. Gold Associates, this innovation can assist cyber companies to transition away from a “signature-based” system to detect malware. Instead, he sees more companies adopting a machine learning approach that aims to analyze past incidents in a broader manner and aggregate information from a multitude of sources.

Machine learning technology is supposed to enable cybersecurity companies to predict the nature of future attacks

Specifically, some machine learning applications for cybersecurity are effective at doing the following: detecting malicious activity, helping security officers determine what tasks they need to complete in an investigation process, analyzing mobile endpoints, decreasing the number of false positive threats, automating repetitive tasks like interrupting ransomware, and potentially closing some zero-day vulnerabilities.

A number of tech giants have invested in these capabilities recently, including Google, which is employing machine learning to help protect Android mobile endpoints. Amazon also bought a startup called harvest.AI to help it aggregate and better understand data located on the S3 cloud storage service.

Limitations Of AI For Cybersecurity

That said, the signal-to-noise ratio for threat intelligence-type automation events isn't effective for most organizations at the moment. The reality is automating threat intelligence - or in other words, identifying adversaries automatically - is difficult to execute within an organization because every company’s threats, vulnerabilities, and risks are unique. Ultimately, machine learning can help cybersecurity outfits, but it can’t replace many important functions.

In an article for Forbes, Alexander Polyakov explains well why machine learning’s applications for cybersecurity are limited. He writes, “There will always be a person who tries to find issues in our systems and bypass them. Therefore, if we detect 90% [of] attacks today, new methods will be invented tomorrow.Cybersecurity outfits can pair their human intellect with machine technology to catch hackers before they do too much damage

Put in another way, there is a reason that machine learning is very good at predicting events like the weather. As McAfee CTO Steve Grobman described at McAfee MPOWER, their annual security conference, the weather abides by laws of physics. So even with phenomena such as global warming, the weather will largely act in the future based on how it has been in the past.

Pairing Human Intellect And Machine Technology

Cyber attacks, meanwhile, are the complete opposite. Hackers become smarter, and are always one step ahead of cybersecurity officers, inherently and frequently shifting their strategies so that CISOs will not detect them. For all the incidents machine learning technology can identify, which is helpful, there will always be sophisticated attacks that no machine learning algorithm will be able to find.

It is also worth stating a simple fact: Humans hack. While they may use fancy technology to deploy these attacks, it is a human-led effort. Therefore, at the highest level, cybersecurity officers will be the only force able to stop hackers from penetrating critical networks. Machines don’t fully understand us. Only humans can still (and probably always) comprehend hackers’ larger strategy.

Instead, cybersecurity outfits can pair their human intellect with machine technology to sort through data faster and catch hackers before they do too much damage. No cybersecurity company should be led by robots -- and that’s a good thing.

Share with LinkedIn Share with Twitter Share with Facebook Share with Facebook
Download PDF version Download PDF version

Author profile

Christopher McDaniels Chief Information Security Officer, Mosaic451

In case you missed it

Water Plant Attack Emphasizes Cyber’s Impact On Physical Security
Water Plant Attack Emphasizes Cyber’s Impact On Physical Security

At an Oldsmar, Fla., water treatment facility on Feb. 5, an operator watched a computer screen as someone remotely accessed the system monitoring the water supply and increased the amount of sodium hydroxide from 100 parts per million to 11,100 parts per million. The chemical, also known as lye, is used in small concentrations to control acidity in the water. In larger concentrations, the compound is poisonous – the same corrosive chemical used to eat away at clogged drains. The impact of cybersecurity attacks The incident is the latest example of how cybersecurity attacks can translate into real-world, physical security consequences – even deadly ones.Cybersecurity attacks on small municipal water systems have been a concern among security professionals for years. The computer system was set up to allow remote access only to authorized users. The source of the unauthorized access is unknown. However, the attacker was only in the system for 3 to 5 minutes, and an operator corrected the concentration back to 100 parts per million soon after. It would have taken a day or more for contaminated water to enter the system. In the end, the city’s water supply was not affected. There were other safeguards in place that would have prevented contaminated water from entering the city’s water supply, which serves around 15,000 residents. The remote access used for the attack was disabled pending an investigation by the FBI, Secret Service and Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. On Feb. 2, a compilation of breached usernames and passwords, known as COMB for “Compilation of Many Breaches,” was leaked online. COMB contains 3.2 billion unique email/password pairs. It was later discovered that the breach included the credentials for the Oldsmar water plant. Water plant attacks feared for years Cybersecurity attacks on small municipal water systems have been a concern among security professionals for years. Florida’s Sen. Marco Rubio tweeted that the attempt to poison the water supply should be treated as a “matter of national security.” “The incident at the Oldsmar water treatment plant is a reminder that our nation’s critical infrastructure is continually at risk; not only from nation-state attackers, but also from malicious actors with unknown motives and goals,” comments Mieng Lim, VP of Product Management at Digital Defense Inc., a provider of vulnerability management and threat assessment solutions.The attack on Oldsmar’s water treatment system shows how critical national infrastructure is increasingly becoming a target for hackers as organizations bring systems online “Our dependency on critical infrastructure – power grids, utilities, water supplies, communications, financial services, emergency services, etc. – on a daily basis emphasizes the need to ensure the systems are defended against any adversary,” Mieng Lim adds. “Proactive security measures are crucial to safeguard critical infrastructure systems when perimeter defenses have been compromised or circumvented. We have to get back to the basics – re-evaluate and rebuild security protections from the ground up.” "This event reinforces the increasing need to authenticate not only users, but the devices and machine identities that are authorized to connect to an organization's network,” adds Chris Hickman, Chief Security Officer at digital identity security vendor Keyfactor. “If your only line of protection is user authentication, it will be compromised. It's not necessarily about who connects to the system, but what that user can access once they're inside. "If the network could have authenticated the validity of the device connecting to the network, the connection would have failed because hackers rarely have possession of authorized devices. This and other cases of hijacked user credentials can be limited or mitigated if devices are issued strong, crypto-derived, unique credentials like a digital certificate. In this case, it looks like the network had trust in the user credential but not in the validity of the device itself. Unfortunately, this kind of scenario is what can happen when zero trust is your end state, not your beginning point." “The attack on Oldsmar’s water treatment system shows how critical national infrastructure is increasingly becoming a target for hackers as organizations bring systems online for the first time as part of digital transformation projects,” says Gareth Williams, Vice President - Secure Communications & Information Systems, Thales UK. “While the move towards greater automation and connected switches and control systems brings unprecedented opportunities, it is not without risk, as anything that is brought online immediately becomes a target to be hacked.” Operational technology to mitigate attacks Williams advises organizations to approach Operational Technology as its own entity and put in place procedures that mitigate against the impact of an attack that could ultimately cost lives. This means understanding what is connected, who has access to it and what else might be at risk should that system be compromised, he says. “Once that is established, they can secure access through protocols like access management and fail-safe systems.”  “The cyberattack against the water supply in Oldsmar should come as a wakeup call,” says Saryu Nayyar, CEO, Gurucul.  “Cybersecurity professionals have been talking about infrastructure vulnerabilities for years, detailing the potential for attacks like this, and this is a near perfect example of what we have been warning about,” she says.  Although this attack was not successful, there is little doubt a skilled attacker could execute a similar infrastructure attack with more destructive results, says Nayyar. Organizations tasked with operating and protecting critical public infrastructure must assume the worst and take more serious measures to protect their environments, she advises. Fortunately, there were backup systems in place in Oldsmar. What could have been a tragedy instead became a cautionary tale. Both physical security and cybersecurity professionals should pay attention.

What Are The Positive And Negative Effects Of COVID-19 To Security?
What Are The Positive And Negative Effects Of COVID-19 To Security?

The COVID-19 global pandemic had a life-changing impact on all of us in 2020, including a multi-faceted jolt on the physical security industry. With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see more clearly the exact nature and extent of that impact. And it’s not over yet: The pandemic will continue to be top-of-mind in 2021. We asked this week’s Expert Panel Roundtable: What have been the positive and negative effects of Covid-19 on the physical security industry in 2020? What impact will it have on 2021?

Expert Roundup: Healthy Buildings, Blockchain, AI, Skilled Workers, And More
Expert Roundup: Healthy Buildings, Blockchain, AI, Skilled Workers, And More

Our Expert Panel Roundtable is an opinionated group. However, for a variety of reasons, we are sometimes guilty of not publishing their musings in a timely manner. At the end of 2020, we came across several interesting comments among those that were previously unpublished. Following is a catch-all collection of those responses, addressing some of the most current and important issues in the security marketplace in 2021.