DOCSLIB.ORG

From Privilege Escalation to Design Shortcomings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
From Privilege Escalation to Design Shortcomings 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy Android Custom Permissions Demystified: From Privilege Escalation to Design Shortcomings Rui Li∗y, Wenrui Diao∗y(B), Zhou Liz, Jianqi Du∗y, and Shanqing Guo∗y ∗School of Cyber Science and Technology, Shandong University [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] yKey Laboratory of Cryptologic Technology and Information Security, Ministry of Education, Shandong University zUniversity of California, Irvine, [email protected] Abstract—Permission is the fundamental security mechanism custom permissions [7], and use them to regulate the sharing of for protecting user data and privacy on Android. Given its their resources and capabilities with other apps. Since custom importance, security researchers have studied the design and permission is not related to system capabilities by design, usage of permissions from various aspects. However, most of the previous research focused on the security issues of system its range of action is supposed to be confined by the app permissions. Overlooked by many researchers, an app can use defining it. Therefore, in theory, dangerous operations cannot custom permissions to share its resources and capabilities with be executed through custom permissions, which may be the other apps. However, the security implications of using custom reason that custom permissions are overlooked by the security permissions have not been fully understood. community. In this paper, we systematically evaluate the design and implementation of Android custom permissions. Notably, we built To the best of our knowledge, the study of Tuncay et an automatic fuzzing tool, called CUPERFUZZER, to detect custom al. [41] is the only work focusing on the security of custom permissions related vulnerabilities existing in the Android OS. permissions. They manually discovered two privilege escala- CUPERFUZZER treats the operations of the permission mecha- tion attacks that exploit the permission upgrade and naming nism as a black-box and executes massive targeted test cases to trigger privilege escalation. In the experiments, CUPERFUZZER convention flaws, respectively. Currently, according to the discovered 2,384 effective cases with 30 critical paths successfully. Android Security Bulletins, their discovered vulnerabilities Through investigating these vulnerable cases and analyzing the have been fixed. Unfortunately, we find that, though both source code of Android OS, we further identified a series of severe attacks have been blocked, custom permission based attacks design shortcomings lying in the Android permission framework, can still be achieved with alternative execution paths bypassing including dangling custom permission, inconsistent permission- group mapping, custom permission elevating, and inconsistent the fix (more details are given in Section III). This preliminary permission definition. Exploiting any of these shortcomings, a investigation motivates us to explore whether the design of malicious app can obtain dangerous system permissions without Android custom permissions still has other flaws and how to user consent and further access unauthorized platform resources. find these flaws automatically. On top of these observations, we propose some general design guidelines to secure custom permissions. Our findings have been Our Work. In this work, we systematically evaluate the design acknowledged by the Android security team and rated as High and implementation of Android custom permissions. Notably, severity. we explored the design philosophy of custom permissions I. INTRODUCTION and measured their usage status based on a large-scale APK As the most popular mobile platform, Android provides dataset. We also built an automatic light-weight fuzzing tool rich APIs and features to support third-party apps develop- called CUPERFUZZER to discover custom permission related ments. For security concerns, Android also designs a series privilege escalation vulnerabilities. Different from the previous of mechanisms to prevent malicious behaviors. Among these approaches of permission system modeling [36], [26], CU- mechanisms, permission is the fundamental one of Android PERFUZZER treats the operations of the Android permission OS: any app must request specific permissions to access the mechanism as a black-box and dynamically generates massive corresponding sensitive user data and system resources. test cases for fuzzing. In other words, it does not rely on prior On account of the importance of the permission mechanism, knowledge of the internal permission mechanism and avoids its design and usage have been studied by lots of previous missing inconspicuous system components. After solving a research from many aspects, such as permission models [49], series of technical challenges, CUPERFUZZER achieves fully [25], [31], permission usage [33], [46], [32], and malware automated seed generation, test case construction, parallel detection [35], [48], [23]. Along with the continuous upgrade execution, and result verification. Running on four Pixel 2 of Android OS, the underlying architecture of the permission phones equipped with Android 9 / 10, finally, CUPERFUZZER mechanism becomes more and more complicated. Its current discovered 2,384 successful exploit cases after executing design and implementation are seemingly complete enough. 40,195 fuzzing tests. However, overlooked by most of the previous research, These effective cases were further converted to 30 critical Android allows apps to define their own permissions, say paths, say the least necessary operations triggering a privilege © 2021, Rui Li. Under license to IEEE. 70 DOI 10.1109/SP40001.2021.00070 escalation issue. Combined with the analysis on the source we discuss some limitations of our work. SectionIX reviews code of Android OS, we identified four severe design short- related work, and SectionX concludes this paper. comings1 in the Android permission framework. II. ANDROID CUSTOM PERMISSIONS • DS#1: Dangling custom permission: causing granting apps nonexistent custom permissions. In this section, we provide the necessary background of • DS#2: Inconsistent permission-group mapping: causing Android custom permissions and further discuss their usage obtaining incorrect permission-group members list. in the wild based on a large-scale measurement. • DS#3: Custom permission elevating: causing elevating a custom permission to a dangerous system permission. A. Android Permission Mechanism • DS#4: Inconsistent permission definition: causing break- In Android, sensitive APIs and system resources are pro- ing the integrity of custom permission definitions. tected by the permission mechanism. To access them, apps A malicious app can exploit any of the above design short- must declare the corresponding permissions in their manifest comings to obtain dangerous system permissions without files and ask users to authorize. In Android 10 (API level 29), user consent. As showcases, we present four concrete attacks the permission control functionalities are mainly implemented to demonstrate their fatal consequences. Attack demos are in PackageManager [11] and PermissionController [13]. available at https://sites.google.com/view/custom-permission. Permissions are mainly divided into three protection levels: , , and . The system grants apps Responsible Disclosure. We reported our findings to the normal signature dangerous and permissions at the install time. The Android security team, and all reported issues have been normal signature difference is that permissions can only be used confirmed with positive severity rating [19], as shown below. signature by the apps signed by the same certificate as the app that • DS#1: rated as High severity, assigned CVE-2021-0307. defines the permission [16]. On the other hand, users can • DS#2: rated as High severity, assigned CVE-2020-0418. choose to grant or deny dangerous permissions at runtime. • DS#3: rated as High severity, assigned CVE-2021-0306. Therefore, dangerous permissions are also called runtime per- • DS#4: rated as High severity, assigned CVE-2021-0317. missions, and accordingly, normal and signature permissions To mitigate the current security risks, we propose some im- are called install-time permissions. Install-time permissions mediate improvements and discuss general design guidelines cannot be revoked by users once they are granted, on the to secure custom permissions on Android. contrary, runtime permissions can be revoked at any time. Contributions. The main contributions of this paper are: All dangerous permissions belong to permission groups. For example, both READ_SMS and RECEIVE_SMS belong to • Tool Design and Implementation. We designed and im- the group. Also, permissions are granted on plemented an automatic black-box fuzzing tool, CUPER- SMS dangerous a group basis. If an app requests permissions FUZZER, to discover custom permission related privilege dangerous belonging to the same permission group, once the user grants escalation vulnerabilities in Android. one, the others will be granted automatically without user • Real-world Experiments. We deployed CUPERFUZZER confirmation. Note that any permission can be assigned to a under the real-world settings and conducted massive permission group regardless of protection level [15]. fuzzing analysis. In the end, it discovered 2,384 privilege escalation cases with 30 critical paths. From an internal view, to an app, the processes of grant and revocation of a permission are essentially changing the corre-
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mac OS X and Ios Zero- Day Exploit
    Mac OS X and iOS Zero- Day Exploit Security Advisory AE-Advisory 16-08 Criticality High Advisory Released On 28 March 2016 Impact Allows someone to escalate privileges and also to bypass system integrity Solution See the solution section below for mitigation processes. Affected Platforms Mac OS X 10.11.3 and older, iOS 9.2 and older Summary aeCERT has researched and found out about a new threat on Apple Mac OS X and iOS; with the release of OS X El Capitan, Apple introduced a security protection feature to the OS X kernel called System Integrity Protection (SIP). The feature is designed to prevent potentially malicious or bad software from modifying protected files and folders on your Mac. The purpose of SIP is to restrict the root account of OS X devices and limit the actions a root user can perform on protected parts of the system in an effort to reduce the chance of malicious code hijacking a device or performing privilege escalation. However, it has been uncovered a critical vulnerability in both OS X and iOS that allows for local privilege escalation as well as bypasses SIP without karnel exploit impacting all versions to date. Threat Details The zero day vulnerability is a Non-Memory Corruption bug that allows hackers to execute arbitrary code on any targeted machine, perform remote code execution (RCE) or sandbox escapes. The attacker then escalates the malware's privileges to bypass System Integrity Protection SIP, alter system files, and then stay on the infected system. By default, System Integrity Protection or SIP protects these folders: /System.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Ethical Hacker's Guide to System Hacking
    The Ethical Hacker's Guide To System Hacking Attacker acquires information through techniques such as foot printing, scanning and enumeration to hack the target system. 1 Footprinting Scanning Enumeration Module Vulnerability Analysis It is the process of accumulating data Vulnerability Assessment is an This is a procedure for identifying This is a method of intrusive probing, Footprinting Scanning System Hacking regarding a specific network environment. active hosts, open ports, and unnecessary through which attackers gather examination of the ability of a system or In this phase, the attacker creates a profile services enabled on ports. Attackers use information such as network user lists, application, including current security CEH concepts of the target organization, obtaining different types of scanning, such as port routing tables, security flaws, and procedures, and controls to with stand 2 information such as its IP address range, scanning network scanning, and simple network protocol data (SNMP) assault. Attackers perform this analysis Methodology Vulnerability namespace and employees. Enumeration vulnerability, scanning of target networks data. to identify security loopholes, in the target Analysis Footprinting eases the process of or systems which help in identifying organization’s network, communication system hacking by revealing its possible vulnerabilities. infrastructure, and end systems. vulnerabilities 3 Clearing Logs Maintaining Access Gaining Access Hacking Stage Escalating Privileges Hacking Stage Gaining Access It involves gaining access to To maintain future system access, After gaining access to the target low-privileged user accounts by To acquire the rights of To bypass access CEH Hacking attackers attempt to avoid recognition system, attackers work to maintain cracking passwords through Goal another user or Goal controls to gain System Hacking by legitimate system users.
    [Show full text]
  • Android Exploits Commanding Higher Price Than Ever Before
    Memo 10/09/2019 - TLP:WHITE Android exploits commanding higher price than ever before Reference: Memo [190910-1] – Version: 1.0 Keywords: Android, iOS, exploit, vulnerability Sources: Zerodium, Google, Wired Key Points The price of android exploits exceeds the price of iOS exploits for the first time This is possibly because Android security is improving over iOS The release of Android 10 is also a likely cause for the price hike Summary Zerodium1, a cyber security exploit broker dealing in zero-day vulnerabilities, has published its most recent price list. It indicates that the price of an Android full-chain exploit with persistence can fetch the developer up to 2,500,000 dollars. The going rate for a similar exploit for Apple’s iOS has gone down by 500,000 dollars and is now worth 2,000,000. This is the first confirmed time when Android exploits are valued more than iOS. Zerodium payouts for mobile devices Up to $2,500,000 Android zero click full compromise chain with persistence. Up to $2,000,000 iOS zero click full compromise chain with persistence. Up to $1,500,000 WhatsApp zero click remote code execution with iMessage remote code execution with local local privilege escalation on iOS or Android. privilege escalation. Up to $1,000,000 WhatsApp remote code execution with local privilege SMS/MMS remote code execution with local escalation on iOS or Android. privilege escalation on iOS or Android. Comments Zero-click exploits do not require interaction from the user. This is very difficult to achieve and thus commands the highest prices.
    [Show full text]
  • Extreme Privilege Escalation on Windows 8/UEFI Systems
    Extreme Privilege Escalation on Windows 8/UEFI Systems C o r e y K a l l e n b e r g @ c o r e y k a l X e n o K o v a h @ x e n o k o v a h John Butterworth @jwbutterworth3 Sam Cornwell @ssc0rnwell © 2014 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. | 2 | Introduction . Who we are: – Trusted Computing and firmware security researchers at The MITRE Corporation . What MITRE is: – A not-for-profit company that runs six US Government "Federally Funded Research & Development Centers" (FFRDCs) dedicated to working in the public interest – Technical lead for a number of standards and structured data exchange formats such as CVE, CWE, OVAL, CAPEC, STIX, TAXII, etc – The first .org, !(.mil | .gov | .com | .edu | .net), on the ARPANET © 2014 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. | 3 | Attack Model (1 of 2) . We’ve gained administrator access on a victim Windows 8 machine . But we are still constrained by the limits of Ring 3 © 2014 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. | 4 | Attack Model (2 of 2) . As attackers we always want – More Power – More Persistence – More Stealth © 2014 The MITRE Corporation. All rights reserved. | 5 | Typical Post-Exploitation Privilege Escalation . Starting with x64 Windows vista, kernel drivers must be signed and contain an Authenticode certificate . In a typical post-exploitation privilege escalation, attacker wants to bypass the signed driver requirement to install a kernel level rootkit . Various methods to achieve this are possible, including: – Exploit existing kernel drivers – Install a legitimate (signed), but vulnerable, driver and exploit it .
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Taming Privilege-Escalation Attacks on Android
    Towards Taming Privilege-Escalation Attacks on Android Sven Bugiel1, Lucas Davi1, Alexandra Dmitrienko3, Thomas Fischer2, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi1;3, Bhargava Shastry3 1CASED/Technische Universitat¨ Darmstadt, Germany 2Ruhr-Universitat¨ Bochum, Germany fsven.bugiel,lucas.davi,[email protected] thomas.fi[email protected] 3Fraunhofer SIT, Darmstadt, Germany falexandra.dmitrienko,ahmad.sadeghi,[email protected] Abstract 1. Introduction Android’s security framework has been an appealing sub- Google Android [1] has become one of the most popular ject of research in the last few years. Android has been operating systems for various mobile platforms [23, 3, 31] shown to be vulnerable to application-level privilege esca- with a growing market share [21]. Concerning security and lation attacks, such as confused deputy attacks, and more privacy aspects, Android deploys application sandboxing recently, attacks by colluding applications. While most of and a permission framework implemented as a reference the proposed approaches aim at solving confused deputy at- monitor at the middleware layer to control access to system tacks, there is still no solution that simultaneously addresses resources and mediate application communication. collusion attacks. The current Android business and usage model allows developers to upload arbitrary applications to the Android In this paper, we investigate the problem of designing and app market1 and involves the end-user in granting permis- implementing a practical security framework for Android to sions to applications at install-time. This, however, opens protect against confused deputy and collusion attacks. We attack surfaces for malicious applications to be installed on realize that defeating collusion attacks calls for a rather users’ devices (see, for instance, the recent DroidDream system-centric solution as opposed to application-dependent Trojan [6]).
    [Show full text]
  • By Zohaib & Vlad
    Follow the slides: goo.gl/bvmYgb Privilege Escalation in Windows OS by Zohaib & Vlad Follow the slides: goo.gl/bvmYgb What is Privilege Escalation? An act of exploiting a bug, design flaw or configuration oversight with the goal to gain elevated access to application resources ● Gives the ability to perform unauthorized actions in software, web apps, operating systems What is Privilege Escalation? Vertical Horizontal Accesses to functions that are Accesses functions that are reserved for higher privilege users accessible by other normal users. or applications. ● gaining administrative privileges ● Accessing accounts on the same user level ● Jailbreaking Devices ● Lock Screen Bypass ● Stealing usernames/passwords Vertical: Cross-zone scripting A web browser exploit that takes advantage of a zone-based vulnerability http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com%2f.example.com/ Windows Permission Structure ● root is “Local System” Account ● Windows UAC (User Account Control) ○ disabled admin account, instead uses UAC ● “sudo” is “runas” to run with privileges Types of Accounts: ● Local User ● Domain User ● The LocalSystem Windows with User Access Control ● All users run as an unprivileged user by default, even when logged on as an Administrator. ● Once running, the privilege of an application cannot be changed. ● Users are prompted to provide explicit consent before using elevated privilege, which then lasts for the life of the process. Windows OS Privilege Escalation ● replacing “screensaver” binary ● scan the registry for ○ logon Information ○ network
    [Show full text]
  • All Roads Lead to SYSTEM
    MWR Labs Whitepaper All Roads Lead to SYSTEM Kostas Lintovois Contents page Contents page............................................................................................ 2 1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 3 1.1 Windows Service Accounts ......................................................................... 4 2. Auditing Windows Services ......................................................................... 5 2.1 Insecure File System Permissions .................................................................. 5 2.2 Insecure Registry Permissions ...................................................................... 8 2.3 Insecure Named Pipe Permissions ................................................................ 10 2.4 Insecure Service Permissions ...................................................................... 12 2.5 Missing DLLs......................................................................................... 15 2.6 Unquoted Service Binary Paths ................................................................... 18 3. Service Exploitation ................................................................................ 21 4. Scripted Assessment ............................................................................... 23 5. Summary .............................................................................................. 24 6. References ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • W32.Stuxnet Dossier Version 1.3 (November 2010)
    Security Response W32.Stuxnet Dossier Version 1.3 (November 2010) Nicolas Falliere, Liam O Murchu, and Eric Chien While the bulk of the analysis is complete, Stuxnet is an incredibly large and Contents complex threat. The authors expect to make revisions to this document Introduction ....................................................... 1 shortly after release as new information is uncovered or may be publicly Executive Summary ........................................... 2 disclosed. This paper is the work of numerous individuals on the Syman- Attack Scenario .................................................. 3 tec Security Response team over the last three months well beyond the Timeline .............................................................. 4 cited authors. Without their assistance, this paper would not be possible. Infection Statistics ............................................. 5 Stuxnet Architecture.......................................... 8 Introduction Installation ....................................................... 12 Load Point ........................................................ 16 W32.Stuxnet has gained a lot of attention from researchers and me- Command and Control ......................................17 dia recently. There is good reason for this. Stuxnet is one of the Windows Rootkit Functionality ....................... 20 most complex threats we have analyzed. In this paper we take a de- Stuxnet Propagation Methods......................... 21 tailed look at Stuxnet and its various components and particularly
    [Show full text]
  • Active Directory Privilege Escalation
    Active Directory Privilege Escalation The World’s #1 Cyber Security Risk Contents 1. Executive Summary (Non-Technical Audience) …………….……………………………………….. 1 2. Executive Summary (Technical Audience) ……..………………………………………………………. 2 3. Root Cause Example, Top-5 Attack Vectors, Multi-step Escalation …..………….….. 3 – 5 4. Minutes to Compromise, Six Myths, 100% Mitigatable, Risk Mitigation ……....... 6 – 9 Active Directory Privilege Escalation Executive Summary Microsoft Active Directory is the very foundation of cyber security and privileged access at 85% of organizations, and within Active Directory deployments lie thousands of privilege escalation paths. Anyone who could identify these privilege escalation paths in Active Directory could easily compromise virtually any IT resource of choice, and in the worst case, the entire foundational Active Directory itself. This is alarming considering that historically 100% of all major recent cyber security breaches involved the compromise and misuse of a single account that possessed privileged access in Active Directory. In organizations that operate on the Microsoft Windows Server platform, the entirety of their building blocks of cyber security i.e. all organizational user accounts, computer accounts, and security groups that protect all organizational IT resources, are stored, managed and secured in Active Directory. These building blocks are represented as Active Directory objects and protected by access control lists (ACLs) within which lie permissions that allow and deny access to a large number of users and groups. In every Active Directory domain, within ACLs of thousands of Active Directory objects lie hundreds of thousands of permissions and it is their net cumulative resulting effect i.e. effective permissions that govern who has what privileged access on each one of these thousands of Active Directory objects.
    [Show full text]
  • Malicious Code, Aka, Malware
    Malicious Code, aka, Malware Vijay Ganesh ECE 458, Winter 2013 University of Waterloo Previous Lectures on Aacks • Control-hijack attacks • Exploiting buffer and integer overElow • How the attacker can take control of a machine • We also discusseD techniques to prevent, detect and recover from control-hijack attacks • But, what about the payload? • The entire package is often calleD a virus, worm,… Many of the sliDes are courtesy DaviD Brumley (CMU) 2 Today’s Lecture • Taxonomy of virus, worms,… • How virus propagate • How worms propagate • Detailed discussion of Stuxnet anD Aurora • 3 phases of a successful attack: • Social engineering • Exploit • Propagate, install and create havoc 3 The first worm Catch me if you can. Name: “Creeper” worm, 1971 Author: BoB Thomas, BBN Vector: ARPANET DEC PDP-10 computers 4 Taxonomy of malicious code Virus Worm Rootkit AdvanceD Trojan Malware Persistent Threat Spyware Grayware Triggered 5 Defn: ExecutaBle code Virus hosteD in a larger program. Worm Rootkit Does not self-replicate AdvanceD Trojan Host program Malware Virus Persistent Threat NotaBle example: “Elk Cloner” Spyware First virus found in the wild Grayware Triggered Written in 1981 by Rich Skrenta of Mt. LeBanon High School, PA 6 Computer B worm Defn: Virus Worm Self propagating Rootkit Exploit malicious coDe Computer A Computer C Step 1: Exploit AdvanceD Scan Persistent Trojan worm Malware worm Step 2: Threat Attack Step 3: Copy Spyware Grayware Triggered NotaBle example: “Morris worm”, 1982 Robert Tappen Morris, irst conviction of computer frauD anD aBuse act 7 Defn: Program to hide attackers Virus presence. Worm Rootkit Kernel Space redirect calls to rootkit coDe AdvanceD Example: Trojan System Call Malware Persistent Threat User Space Spyware Grayware Triggered NotaBle example: “Brain Virus”, 1986 First PC virus, intercepted and redirected calls to read boot sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Preventing Privilege Escalation
    Preventing Privilege Escalation Niels Provos Markus Friedl Peter Honeyman CITI, University of Michigan GeNUA CITI, University of Michigan Abstract gain extra privilege after successful authentication lim- its the degree of escalation because the user is already Many operating system services require special priv- authorized to hold some privilege. On the other hand, ilege to execute their tasks. A programming error in a a remote adversary gaining superuser privilege with no privileged service opens the door to system compromise authentication presents a greater degree of escalation. in the form of unauthorized acquisition of privileges. In For services that are part of the critical Internet the worst case, a remote attacker may obtain superuser infrastructure is it particularly important to protect privileges. In this paper, we discuss the methodology against programming errors. Sometimes these services and design of privilege separation, a generic approach need to retain special privilege throughout their life- that lets parts of an application run with different levels time. For example, in SSH, the SSH daemon needs to of privilege. Programming errors occurring in the un- know the private host key during re-keying to authenti- privileged parts can no longer be abused to gain unau- cate the key exchange. The daemon also needs to open thorized privileges. Privilege separation is orthogonal new pseudo-terminals when the SSH client so requests. to capability systems or application confinement and These operations require durable special privilege as enhances the security of such systems even further. they can be requested at any time during the lifetime Privilege separation is especially useful for system of a SSH connection.
    [Show full text]
  • Privilege Escalation Detect, Investigate and Respond to Privilege Escalation Incidents
    Solution Brief Privilege Escalation Detect, Investigate and Respond to Privilege Escalation Incidents Privilege escalation refers to an attack where the attacker gains higher-level permissions or unauthorized access to privileged user accounts or assets. The attacker might use an enumeration tool to find a valid account to compromise, switch to an account with greater access privileges or increase permissions on a compromised user or system to elevate their access. Security teams struggle to detect APT10, or Red Apollo, is a Chinese attacks using privilege escalation cyber espionage group that leverages privilege escalation to Privilege escalation is the fourth most common tactic deliver malware and steal intellectual used in reported data breaches1. However, many property. APT10 has been linked to legacy security systems that rely on static correlation Cloud Hopper, considered one of the rules are unable to detect when an attacker escalates largest-ever corporate espionage privileges. Additionally, a privileged user’s work efforts. patterns may not occur in regular, predictable patterns, making it difficult to detect privilege Source: Operation Cloud Hopper escalation with legacy tools. If undetected, a privilege escalation can give an adversary access to high value assets with impunity. The result of a privilege escalation attack can be devastating to an organization, as these attacks gain access to networks, typically with the aim of exfiltrating data, disrupting business activity, or installing backdoors to enable continued access to internal systems. Solution Brief Privilege Escalation EXABEAM AND PRIVILEGE and assets, or permission changes in the context of ESCALATION the historic behavior of that user, their peers and their organization to clearly distinguish adversary behavior Exabeam helps security teams outsmart adversaries from normal activity.
    [Show full text]