Kaspersky experts have analysed the anonymised and aggregated statistics from requests to the Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal – a web service which provides customers with knowledge about cyberthreats gathered by Kaspersky.
The analysis revealed that when security researchers requested additional details of a suspicious object, 72% of cases turned out to be malicious and could put corporate security at risk if not investigated.
Yet, on average, 44% of security alerts faced by organisations are not investigated. The reason may lie in the huge volume of incoming warning signals that security teams struggle to fully cope with. Thus, analysts have to choose carefully which alerts they need to investigate, and which do not deserve their attention.
Anonymised and aggregated statistics from the Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal showed that in most cases, the initial call to check the alert is proven to be right: the majority (7 out of 10) of analysed requests submitted through the service turn out to be malicious. The share of such objects is especially high for web-related items; domains (86%), IP addresses (75%), and URLs (73%).
This figure slightly drops for files, as 61% of hashes were categorised as dangerous. This implies that it is harder for researchers to distinguish legitimate files from malicious ones without consulting with the appropriate threat intelligence.
Overall, researchers are typically most interested to learn about which resources the endpoints in their network are communicating with – 41% of total requests fall under this category.
With information on IP address reputation and associated web sites and files, security teams can make a decision if they should deny access to this resource or block any communication with it. In addition, a third (31%) of requests were about a file hash category – meaning analysts are looking for additional information about the file (e.g., geographical distribution, popularity, and connections with other objects) in their investigations.
“As our statistics show, security analysts in organisations rarely make mistakes when they suspect that an alert poses a security risk and might need further investigation. However, it’s not all about checking the hypotheses,” commented Anatoly Simonenko, Group Manager, Technology Solutions Product Management at Kaspersky.
“To be able to accelerate their incident response and forensic capabilities, analysts need to see the bigger picture on a threat, quickly. Access to threat intelligence provides just that, ultimately saving time and effort for typically understaffed security teams,” he added.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

USA edges ahead in the race to commercialise the world’s first Hyperloop by unveiling its regulatory framework

The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the Non-Traditional and Emerging Transportation…

Netizens complain Telco TPG for not responding to requests on termination and duplicate charge; TPG apologises and assures to hire more manpower

Singapore telecommunications company TPG Telecom has apologised to the customers for its…

Facebook’s fact-checking programme extends to Singapore in collaboration with AFP

Facebook users in Singapore will now be among some 2.38 billion users…

‘Meta loses more’: Zuckerberg takes Threads fight to EU

US tech titan Mark Zuckerberg is withholding his new Threads app from European users due to “regulatory uncertainty,” but experts believe his strategy will likely fail. The move is seen as a political push against the EU, and the outcome of this battle could impact the regulatory landscape for other big tech platforms in Europe. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) poses challenges for tech firms, prohibiting data transfer across platforms without user consent. Analysts predict that Meta will struggle to navigate compliance issues and may face unintended consequences.