Comments
17 Things We Should Have Learned in 2017 But Probably Didn't
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
1/3/2018 | 10:59:13 AM
Re: Excellent Post!
In 1996 I became an official Netware CNE - now an antique of course but even back then, we were taught the value of BACKUPS and RESTORE points.  Many of these 17 points are NOT NEW by any means.  Some directly threat information has to be new of course, but it amazes me that firms always "discover" something new when dealing with Ransomware or power outage.  (When Delta crashed last year, it was due to a lack of power backups in the data centers.  Oh I remember those huge HEAVY APC boxes.  This is basic stuff!!! )  And yet it is always disclosed as something new.

I still have a collection of 3.5 disks containing 1990 backup data from my old 486 system.  Having reliable backups (ransomware) is NOTHING NEW.  

 

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it"
sngs7dan
50%
50%
sngs7dan,
User Rank: Strategist
1/2/2018 | 10:33:44 AM
Which English?
You wrote in your first point: "... covering everything from how much they refinanced their home for to whether they prefer ..."

Really? is 'for to' in a programming language? Where was/is your editor?

On a more content related level- don't you get tired of having to say the same thing over and over? If they're not listening, why keep saying it the same way?

Until someone is personally affected by a breach, the big numbers are just numbers that do not require action on their part. When they realize they're wrong, it's already too late!

Personally, I've been breached so many times (OPM, Yahoo, Equifax, etc.), these actions feel like trying to close the barn door after the horses are stolen.

We need an alternative to using the Social Security Number and to de-escelate it from PII and regard it as the 'publicly available' information it already is. The U.S. needs to stop being the wild west cowboy and grow up into a recognition that corporations do not recognize 'individual responsibility'. Laws need to be revised accordingly.

In order to revise the laws, we need a massive turnover in Congress. In order to have a massive turnover in Congress, we need a new grass roots effort much more mainstream and more potent than the Tea Party has been for the Republicans.

Sorry, just finished my coffee. I'll wake up now.
enhayden1321
50%
50%
enhayden1321,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/2/2018 | 10:32:12 AM
Excellent Post!
Many thanks to Sarah for her excellent summary of the security issues experienced in 2017! Your review as well as your suggested priorities for 2018 are a worthwhile read for every Security Professional and executive.


White House Cybersecurity Strategy at a Crossroads
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  7/17/2018
Lessons from My Strange Journey into InfoSec
Lysa Myers, Security Researcher, ESET,  7/12/2018
What's Cooking With Caleb Sima
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  7/12/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-14339
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-19
In Wireshark 2.6.0 to 2.6.1, 2.4.0 to 2.4.7, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.15, the MMSE dissector could go into an infinite loop. This was addressed in epan/proto.c by adding offset and length validation.
CVE-2018-14340
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-19
In Wireshark 2.6.0 to 2.6.1, 2.4.0 to 2.4.7, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.15, dissectors that support zlib decompression could crash. This was addressed in epan/tvbuff_zlib.c by rejecting negative lengths to avoid a buffer over-read.
CVE-2018-14341
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-19
In Wireshark 2.6.0 to 2.6.1, 2.4.0 to 2.4.7, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.15, the DICOM dissector could go into a large or infinite loop. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-dcm.c by preventing an offset overflow.
CVE-2018-14342
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-19
In Wireshark 2.6.0 to 2.6.1, 2.4.0 to 2.4.7, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.15, the BGP protocol dissector could go into a large loop. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-bgp.c by validating Path Attribute lengths.
CVE-2018-14343
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-19
In Wireshark 2.6.0 to 2.6.1, 2.4.0 to 2.4.7, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.15, the ASN.1 BER dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-ber.c by ensuring that length values do not exceed the maximum signed integer.