Risk

8/30/2007
04:00 PM
Keith Ferrell
Keith Ferrell
Commentary
50%
50%

Mobile Computing Makes For Risky Business

Here's one we all already know -- mobile computer users take more security risks than office-bound computer users. A new survey shows just how risky their behavior is.

Here's one we all already know -- mobile computer users take more security risks than office-bound computer users. A new survey shows just how risky their behavior is.The Trend Micro survey polled 1800 mobile computers users worldwide, and while it drew its respondents from the corporate world the results offer insights -- and concerns -- for small to midsize businesses.

For one thing, 58 percent of mobile users admitted to sending confidential material in e-mail or by IM, as opposed to 42 percent connecting via company networks.

One "no duh" result is that mobile users, being likelier to connect through public or unsecured networks, get more spam, receive more phishing baits, etc.

Being away from the boss's -- or even their co-workers' -- eyes makes mobile users likelier to visit social networking sites and download movies or executable files, again by a large margin over deskbound staff.

Curiously, Trend Micro suggests "that mobile users are often more technically savvy and better educated regarding esoteric security threats such as pharming and phishing." Good news, since they're exposing themselves to more attacks.

Curious because the company's CTO also observed that, "Mobile workers may often be unaware of the risk they pose to the corporate network and that their behavior is increasing the risk to corporate security."

How technically savvy is that?

A certain amount of risky computing practices away from the office is probably unavoidable. "Unwareness" is inexcusable.

The risky behavior of mobile computer users is matched, in my opinion, by the behavior of a company -- of any size -- that issues mobile devices to employees without first putting that employee through a rigorous security training and awareness program that includes signing a detailed computer security and usage policy that has real teeth.

Giving employees a notebook and sending them out into the world without taking such measures? Now that's risky business.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Four Faces of Fraud: Identity, 'Fake' Identity, Ransomware & Digital
David Shefter, Chief Technology Officer at Ziften Technologies,  6/14/2018
Meet 'Bro': The Best-Kept Secret of Network Security
Greg Bell, CEO, Corelight,  6/14/2018
Containerized Apps: An 8-Point Security Checklist
Jai Vijayan, Freelance writer,  6/14/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-9036
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-20
CheckSec Canopy 3.x before 3.0.7 has stored XSS via the Login Page Disclaimer, allowing attacks by low-privileged users against higher-privileged users.
CVE-2018-12327
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-20
Stack-based buffer overflow in ntpq and ntpdc of NTP version 4.2.8p11 allows an attacker to achieve code execution or escalate to higher privileges via a long string as the argument for an IPv4 or IPv6 command-line parameter. NOTE: It is unclear whether there are any common situations in which ntpq ...
CVE-2018-12558
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-20
The parse() method in the Email::Address module through 1.909 for Perl is vulnerable to Algorithmic complexity on specially prepared input, leading to Denial of Service. Prepared special input that caused this problem contained 30 form-field characters ("\f").
CVE-2018-6563
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-20
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in totemomail Encryption Gateway before 6.0.0_Build_371 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of users for requests that (1) change user settings, (2) send emails, or (3) change contact information by leveraging lack of an anti...
CVE-2018-1120
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-20
A flaw was found affecting the Linux kernel before version 4.17. By mmap()ing a FUSE-backed file onto a process's memory containing command line arguments (or environment strings), an attacker can cause utilities from psutils or procps (such as ps, w) or any other program which makes a read() call t...