What Happened Before the Breach?

Your organization is in crisis mode. Systems are down, data is compromised, and customers are asking questions you’re unprepared to answer. The breach is confirmed, but how did it happen? To truly understand, we must retrace the steps, from the chaotic aftermath to the silent clues hidden in your network.

As we walk through each stage of the breach, we’ll explore how network logs—a very common data type used by network detection and response (NDR) solutions—provided limited insights and how packet data could have delivered critical, actionable intelligence.

Step 1: The Fallout

What Happened

The breach announcement spread like wildfire across your organization. Financial losses are mounting, regulatory fines loom, and your reputation is at stake. Analysts identified the entry point, but this knowledge is too late to stop the damage. The attacker exfiltrated gigabytes of sensitive customer data using encrypted protocols. Now your team is left wondering: What could have been done differently?

• What logs provided: Network logs captured high-level information, such as the time and volume of traffic involved in the exfiltration, but couldn’t reveal what specific data was stolen or the methods used to bypass controls.
• What packet data could have provided: Packet data would have shown the exact files or data exfiltrated, decrypted traffic content (when combined with decryption techniques), and the specific payloads being transmitted. This granularity would have enabled immediate and precise remediation efforts.

Step 2: The Exfiltration

What Happened

Long before the breach was public, the attacker began moving data. Network logs show unusual outbound traffic encrypted with custom protocols. The exfiltration was slow and deliberate, occurring during off-hours to evade detection.

• What logs provided: Logs flagged unusual outbound traffic volumes but couldn’t identify the nature of the traffic or its destination beyond an IP address.
• What packet data could have provided: Packet data would have provided full visibility into the encrypted traffic’s headers, including the destination’s domain, encryption methods, and potential anomalies such as packet timing and size irregularities. These details could have identified malicious activity that volume-based thresholds alone couldn’t detect.

Step 3: The Lateral Movement

What Happened

Before starting to exfiltrate data, the attacker already had gained access to multiple systems, moving laterally within your network via compromised credentials.

• What logs provided: Logs recorded successful authentication attempts and changes in access permissions, but they lacked visibility into the tools used or the techniques applied during lateral movement.
• What packet data could have provided: Packet data could have revealed the attacker’s methods in real time, such as the transmission of toolkits (e.g., Mimikatz), command executions, or abnormal authentication sequences across the network. This detailed view would have helped security teams detect lateral movement faster and more effectively.

Step 4: The Persistence

What Happened

The attacker didn’t just access your network: The attack stayed undetected for weeks. The attacker created backdoors and established a foothold for sustained access.

• What logs provided: Logs showed sporadic communication to external IPs flagged as potentially suspicious but failed to differentiate between legitimate traffic and actual command-and-control activity.
• What packet data could have provided: Packet data would have uncovered specific patterns, such as periodic beaconing to command-and-control servers, the frequency of connections, and the presence of hidden instructions embedded in the communication payload. This level of insight could have pinpointed the attacker’s foothold and persistence mechanisms.

Step 5: The Entry Point

What Happened

• The attack began with an innocuous email containing a malicious attachment. When the user opened the attachment, it exploited a zero-day vulnerability, giving the attacker an entry point into your network.
  What logs provided: Logs captured the receipt of the phishing email and the execution of the malicious payload, but they didn’t reveal the actual exploit or its interaction with your systems.
• What packet data could have been provided: Packet data would have shown the malicious attachment’s delivery method, the exploitation of the vulnerability, and the exact commands executed post-compromise. By analyzing the packets, security teams could have reconstructed the attack and patched vulnerabilities before additional compromises occurred.

What Could Have Been Done?

At every stage of this breach, network packet data offered depth that log data couldn’t match. Logs provide a useful high-level view but are often abstracted and filtered, missing critical nuances. Packet data, however, delivers the raw, unfiltered truth of what transpired on your network: complete context, payload details, and precise timing.

Could This Happen Again?

As you assess the damage, consider this: Are you relying solely on logs, or are you leveraging the full power of packet data to protect your organization? The answers to the breach were always in the packets. Are you ready to start listening?

Can You Afford Not to Act?

Learn how NETSCOUT Omnis Cyber Intelligence can help by providing comprehensive network visibility with scalable deep packet inspection (DPI) to detect, investigate, and respond to threats more efficiently.

Learn more about NETSCOUT’s Omnis CyberStream and Omnis Cyber Intelligence.