Risk
1/13/2014
11:06 AM
Calum MacLeod
Calum MacLeod
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail

Why IT Security RFPs Are Like Junk Food

Buying the latest security technology won't save you if your company isn't carrying out basic health checks.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Marilyn Cohodas
100%
0%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
1/22/2014 | 9:35:48 AM
Re: *sigh*
@stratustician What are some of the most egregious items that you've seen in RFPs and if it was up to you, how would you overhaul the process to make it  credible?
Stratustician
50%
50%
Stratustician,
User Rank: Moderator
1/20/2014 | 2:05:54 PM
*sigh*
I personally like to think of RFP to stand for "Request for Punishment" since honestly, especially when it comes to security, it's really a crapshoot.  For one, as pointed out, half the time the request is a laundry list of things they'd love to see, but really unless you have the right people writing these things, half of them are really not going to solve the problem that they are really trying to solve.  It's a "tell me what you have to fix this problem, but we're not going to tell you what the problem is".  Often they are looking for solutions that they've heard are the latest and greatest and will solve all their woes, but even if the right product is positioned (Huzzah!), cost is often such a critical component that it doesn't matter anyway.  Not to mention that half these RFPs are written in conjunction with a vendor who can conviently bid on it.  It's such as strange process, that really, needs to be overhauled.
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
1/13/2014 | 5:15:30 PM
Where's the beef in your vendor security RFPs?
Are you getting the most out of your security vendors from the request for proposal process? Let's chat about your greatest successes -- and worst failures. 

 

 
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading December Tech Digest
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of end-user security training.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-8551
Published: 2014-11-26
The WinCC server in Siemens SIMATIC WinCC 7.0 through SP3, 7.2 before Update 9, and 7.3 before Update 2; SIMATIC PCS 7 7.1 through SP4, 8.0 through SP2, and 8.1; and TIA Portal 13 before Update 6 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted packets.

CVE-2014-8552
Published: 2014-11-26
The WinCC server in Siemens SIMATIC WinCC 7.0 through SP3, 7.2 before Update 9, and 7.3 before Update 2; SIMATIC PCS 7 7.1 through SP4, 8.0 through SP2, and 8.1; and TIA Portal 13 before Update 6 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via crafted packets.

CVE-2014-1421
Published: 2014-11-25
mountall 1.54, as used in Ubuntu 14.10, does not properly handle the umask when using the mount utility, which allows local users to bypass intended access restrictions via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-3605
Published: 2014-11-25
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2014-6407. Reason: This candidate is a reservation duplicate of CVE-2014-6407. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2014-6407 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to pre...

CVE-2014-6093
Published: 2014-11-25
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM WebSphere Portal 7.0.x before 7.0.0.2 CF29, 8.0.x through 8.0.0.1 CF14, and 8.5.x before 8.5.0 CF02 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted URL.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Now that the holiday season is about to begin both online and in stores, will this be yet another season of nonstop gifting to cybercriminals?