What is an IOC indication?

by
What is an IOC indication

An IOC indication refers to Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) that are used in cybersecurity to detect malicious activity on networks and systems. IOCs are artifacts or patterns left behind by threat actors that provide evidence of potential compromise. Examples of IOC indications include IP addresses, domain names, file hashes, registry keys, and other observable traits that can indicate a breach or cyber attack.

What are some common types of IOC indications?

Some of the most common types of IOC indications include:

  • IP addresses: Suspicious IP addresses that have been associated with command and control servers, malware, phishing campaigns, or other malicious activity.
  • Domain names: Domain names involved in command and control, malware distribution, phishing, and other cyber threats.
  • File hashes: The cryptographic hash values of known malware samples and other suspicious files.
  • URLs: Suspicious and malicious websites, especially those used for phishing attacks or malware distribution.
  • Registry keys: Keys associated with the installation and persistence of malware.
  • Mutexes: Names of mutexes (mutual exclusions) created by malware.
  • User agent strings: User agent strings seen in malware network traffic or phishing emails.

In addition to these technical IOCs, there can also be IOC indications from threat intelligence sources, such as:

  • Threat actor aliases and personas
  • Associated malware families and campaigns
  • Known malicious email addresses and subjects
  • Malicious filenames and paths

Where do IOC indications come from?

IOC indications can come from a variety of sources, including:

  • Threat intelligence feeds and platforms: Commercial and open source feeds providing curated IOCs from a range of sources.
  • Security vendor products: Endpoint detection and response (EDR) products and antivirus provide IOCs from analyzing file behavior and network activity.
  • Incident response: IOCs identified during forensic investigation and analysis of breaches and incidents.
  • Malware analysis: Running malware samples in sandboxes and reverse engineering to extract technical IOCs.
  • Open source intelligence: Public sources like code repositories, DNS tools, and WHOIS information.
  • Honeypots: IOCs harvested from honeypot servers set up to attract and monitor cybercriminal activity.

The key sources of IOCs are threat intelligence platforms and security products that have visibility across networks, endpoints, and malware. Skilled threat hunting and incident response teams can also manually uncover IOCs during their investigations.

How are IOC indications used?

IOC indications are used in a few key ways:

  • Blocking and prevention: Blacklisting suspicious IP addresses, domains, URLs, and file hashes to block potential threats.
  • Detection: Monitoring networks, endpoints, server logs, and other systems for the presence of IOC indications as signs of compromise.
  • Threat hunting: Proactively searching through data for IOCs that could be signs of an attack or breach.
  • Early warning: Alerting on IOCs provides rapid notifications of potential threats before major damage occurs.
  • Attribution: Linking campaigns, groups, and malware families by shared IOC indicators.

IOC indications enable defenders to take both proactive and reactive actions to detect cyber threats and respond effectively. Using IOCs for blocking and prevention can stop many basic attacks, while hunting for IOCs provides visibility into advanced, covert intrusions that evade traditional controls.

What are some challenges or limitations with IOC indications?

Some key challenges and limitations to be aware of with IOC indications include:

  • False positives: IOCs can generate false positives if the indicators are too generic or impact legitimate systems.
  • Evasions: Threat actors can dynamically generate artifacts like domain names, IP addresses, and file hashes to evade static IOC filters.
  • Context: IOCs lack context and threat intelligence on their own, making it difficult to prioritize response without additional information.
  • Maintenance: New IOCs must continually be added as new threats emerge while old/inactive IOCs should be removed.
  • Sharing: Getting access to good quality IOC sources and keeping them up to date across security tools.

The best practice is to always use IOCs as one signal for detection, but not the only signal. Analysts should validate and enrich IOCs with additional threat intelligence before taking disruptive actions like blocking traffic or reimaging endpoints. Maintaining updated, high quality, and relevant threat feeds and tools is also essential.

How are IOC indications shared and consumed?

IOC indications are shared and consumed in a few primary ways:

  • Threat intelligence platforms (TIPs): Commercial solutions like MISP, ThreatConnect, and Anomali that curate and share threat data.
  • Standard formats: Structured formats like STIX/TAXII and OpenIOC for consuming IOCs across tools.
  • Threat feeds: Regularly updated streams of IOCs in formats like CSV, JSON, STIX, and more.
  • Security tools: Baked into EDR, firewall, SIEM, sandbox, and other security product detection.
  • Email lists: Ad hoc sharing of IOCs via email, spreadsheets, PDF reports, and printed documents (less ideal).

The key goal is to get IOCs into security solutions like firewalls, endpoints, and SIEMs for automated detection and blocking. Structured formats provide better interoperability across different vendors and solutions. Central platforms provide a hub to control, customize, and distribute IOC feeds at scale.

How can I enrich and action on IOC indications?

Some tips for getting more value from IOC indications include:

  • Add context: Augment IOCs with threat intelligence like associated campaigns, malware families, and adversary TTPs.
  • Prioritize: Risk rank IOCs to focus response on the highest fidelity and severity threats.
  • Investigate: Pivot on IOCs to uncover related indicators, compromised hosts, and adversary activity.
  • Custom detections: Create behavioral analytics and machine learning models tuned to your environment.
  • Block and hunt: Use IOCs to block known bads and guide threat hunting in high-risk areas.
  • Share insights: Share validated IOCs and response actions with partners and the community.

The key is to not just consume IOCs, but have a plan to process, analyze, and act on them. Adding context from threat intelligence sources, custom analytics, and skilled human review enables more insightful detection and response.

Examples of Malicious IOC Indications

Here are some examples of suspicious IOC indications that could signify malicious activity on a network:

IP Addresses

  • 185.242.5[.]200 – Associated with Trickbot malware command and control
  • 103.255.61[.]56 – Cobalt Strike server for penetration testing and red teams
  • 88.99.142[.]220 – Known Magecart credit card skimmer infrastructure

Domain Names

  • monero-wallet[.]com – Suspected cryptojacking domain
  • totallylegit[.]ru – Domain masquerading as legitimate site but likely malicious
  • drive-google[.]com – Typosquatted domain to mimic Google Drive login

File Hashes

  • 2e53a045e7837cd356e03d0595d952e5 – Emotet malware variant
  • d355edd208acd7fcc9c5efd1c39a50dd – Trickbot module for credential theft
  • 68297b6ac598502e1840cb2a6b798128 – Loki botnet malware

Email Indicators

  • Sender: manager@payrol-office365[.]com
  • Subject: Payment Confirmation Request
  • Attachment: Invoice_April2021.zip

These types of technical artifacts and email patterns when correlated could indicate a malicious campaign targeting the organization, triggering alerts and focused threat hunting.

Building Effective IOC Hunting Queries

To leverage IOCs for hunting, defenders need to construct effective queries and analytics. Here are some tips:

  • Cast a wide net – check connections, DNS requests, proxy logs, endpoints, emails, etc.
  • Model attacker tactics – search for evidence of command & control, data staging, exfiltration.
  • Leverage threat intelligence – incorporate details on malware, adversaries, and campaign TTPs.
  • Focus on risky areas – hosts handling sensitive data, privileged accounts, etc.
  • Leave no stone unturned – be persistent and thorough, threat actors try to hide.
  • Automate where possible – use scripts, playbooks, and automatic queries to scale hunting.

Some example hunting queries could include:

  • Connections to/from suspicious IP addresses and domains
  • Processes and DLLs loaded from temporary or unusual directories
  • File modifications, access, and execution for sensitive files or directories
  • Suspicious registry modifications (e.g. run keys, services, scheduled tasks)
  • Anomalous user logins and account activity

Feeding hunting tools and queries with rich IOC data enables defenders to proactively search for and discover malicious activity that has evaded traditional controls.

How to Validate and Prioritize IOC Indications

It’s important to validate and prioritize IOC indications in order to avoid false positives and focus response efforts on the highest threats. Some tips include:

  • Assess source and reputation – how trustworthy and reliable is the IOC source?
  • Check age of IOC – is it still recent and relevant?
  • Review context – does supplemental intel suggest an advanced or commodity threat?
  • Examine scope and impact – does the IOC suggest targeted or opportunistic threat?
  • Enrich with internal data – do internal systems provide additional context on the IOC?
  • Verify malicious behavior – analyze associated samples or connect to other IOCs.
  • Prioritize visibility gaps – focus on suspicious activity in less monitored areas.

IOCs with corroborating intel from reputable sources, that are recent, suggest targeted threats, and linked to malicious behavior warrant the highest priority for investigation. Acting on every IOC without validation can quickly create “alert fatigue.” Proper vetting and prioritization focuses response on the IOCs with the highest potential impact.

Conclusion

IOC indications provide valuable signals that can improve detection and response to cyber threats. However, proper collection, management, and actioning of IOCs is essential to avoid false positives, outdated indicators, and alert fatigue. Organizations should invest in threat intelligence platforms, updated security tools, and skilled personnel that can leverage IOCs as part of a holistic security program. With the right strategy, IOC indications can significantly enhance visibility into malicious activity and help accelerate detection, investigation, and mitigation.