Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Attacks/Breaches

4/19/2007
06:47 AM
50%
50%

Security, Post-Va. Tech

It's time to address two common mistakes made in responding to these kinds of disasters

Even prior the Virginia Tech shootings, I'd been thinking about 9/11 for some reason and about the combination of lousy preparation and corrective action that occurred before and after the event.

It was only a matter of time before something else happened that we could have prepared for, but wouldn't. With 9/11, it seemed like much of the effort was made to look busy. Most of the damage, both financial and physical, actually occurred as a result of boneheaded responses, not the initial attack.

Now with the Virginia Tech massacre, there's a massive effort underway to make sure blame doesn't land on anyone still alive. We can anticipate renewed calls for gun control, campus weapons scanners, and restrictions on weapon access. These won't do much more than run up costs, reduce revenues, and make people who aren’t particularly competent look capable. If the goal were to waste money in an effort to make people feel less safe, then these would be good practices. But I think the goal should be to make people safer and that requires a more comprehensive, and probably much less expensive, solution.

While you can't eliminate attacks like this, you certainly can reduce their effectiveness. So it's time to address two consistent mistakes in responding to these disasters. One is not making better use of the people at risk to help protect themselves. The other is losing track of what it is you are trying to actually prevent. Addressing both of these means people don't have to be targets -- they can actually become part of the solution.

So often with security we live in a tactical, reactive world. There’s generally little time to analyze and react to a problem. 9/11 was a perfect example. All that was needed to prevent future attacks using airplanes as weapons was two things: hardened cockpit doors, and changing the policy that had pilots cooperating with hijackers. Few people appear to do good contingency planning, or if they do, they focus that planning on blame avoidance. I question that strategy from a competence standpoint, as well as its overall effectiveness. Blame always seems to find a home.

Two hours after the attack, Virginia Tech sent a mass emailing. But it was clear students had no idea what it was they were supposed to do even if they got the email. Instead, students and faculty might have been sent text messages that a life-threatening problem exists, urging them to clear common areas, lock classroom doors, and report suspicious activity to a provided number or address. Better yet, an alarm system coupled with drills; one alarm means clear common areas, a second might mean sit down wherever you are and lock doors so that a running criminal or assailant can be seen and quickly targeted.

Such a system, if kept simple and coupled with regular drills, could not only help with physical attacks like this one but with natural disasters like earthquakes and catastrophic storms.

Whether it's a virus attack, DNS, or something more physical or deadly, there’s often someone in a position to provide timely notification or assist in mitigating the problem but almost never trained to help. They are more often treated like obstacles to overcome and, over and over again, it is really clear that doesn't work.

With the broad variety of threats and security that never has sufficient budget or personnel, there's no way that we can afford to pass up any resource. Anticipate potential problems and, when practical, include the rest of the company in solutions that mitigate them. It is so much more satisfying to avoid a problem in the first place than it is to successfully push the blame for it on someone else.

— Rob Enderle is President and Founder of Enderle Group . Special to Dark Reading.

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/3/2020
Pen Testers Who Got Arrested Doing Their Jobs Tell All
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  8/5/2020
New 'Nanodegree' Program Provides Hands-On Cybersecurity Training
Nicole Ferraro, Contributing Writer,  8/3/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15058
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Lindy 42633 4-Port USB 2.0 Gigabit Network Server 2.078.000 devices allow an attacker on the same network to elevate privileges because the administrative password can be discovered by sniffing unencrypted UDP traffic.
CVE-2020-15059
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Lindy 42633 4-Port USB 2.0 Gigabit Network Server 2.078.000 devices allow an attacker on the same network to bypass authentication via a web-administration request that lacks a password parameter.
CVE-2020-15060
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Lindy 42633 4-Port USB 2.0 Gigabit Network Server 2.078.000 devices allow an attacker on the same network to conduct persistent XSS attacks by leveraging administrative privileges to set a crafted server name.
CVE-2020-15061
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Lindy 42633 4-Port USB 2.0 Gigabit Network Server 2.078.000 devices allow an attacker on the same network to denial-of-service the device via long input values.
CVE-2020-15062
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
DIGITUS DA-70254 4-Port Gigabit Network Hub 2.073.000.E0008 devices allow an attacker on the same network to elevate privileges because the administrative password can be discovered by sniffing unencrypted UDP traffic.