Cloud

6/15/2017
10:30 AM
Carson Sweet
Carson Sweet
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Trumps Executive Order: What It Means for US Cybersecurity

The provisions are all well and good, but it's hardly the first time they've been ordered by the White House.

The WannaCry ransomware attack has dominated headlines recently, and with good reason - it has infected hundreds of thousands of computers in close to 100 countries, shutting down hospitals in the UK, causing problems for companies as large as FedEx, and has so far earned the attackers at least $70,000 in ransom money.

It’s no surprise, then, that President Donald Trump’s Executive Order that seeks to improve cybersecurity across the federal government has flown under the radar since it was signed on May 11. The EO includes provisions for securing critical infrastructure, protecting against botnets and distributed attacks, and encouraging the development of more cybersecurity experts in the government’s workforce.

These provisions are all well and good, but this is hardly the first time they’ve been ordered by the White House. President Barack Obama issued a similar order in 2016, and another one in 2013. Even the Bush administration was concerned about cybersecurity.

High-level orders just like this one come out with every administration, and they all essentially say the same thing: Thou Shalt Assess and Protect. The problem is that the follow-through usually doesn’t deliver the resources agencies need to get it done. Many of the security and compliance requirements, while necessary, are so onerous to implement that they obviate much of the value that agencies seek from cloud models. The question then becomes how well the administration can identify and eliminate the obstructions agencies face as they consider adopting cloud and shared services.

Black Hat USA returns to the fabulous Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, Nevada, July 22-27, 2017. Click for information on the conference schedule and to register.

In particular, the explicit botnet research component of the order stands out as very odd. It feels almost like it was authored by someone who only very recently learned what a botnet is, was shocked to learn they existed, and now believes they’re the root of many problems. It’s entirely unclear why botnets are highlighted instead of APTs, malware, etc. Ransomware is particularly notable in its absence considering the timing of WannaCry. But in any case, a government directive at this level should be more broadly focused than to call out one individual threat vector in a sea of thousands.

The EO gives both the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 60 days to assess how well the current state of federal cybersecurity lives up to all these provisions AND to create a full plan to tackle any and all weaknesses.

The first part of this, simply putting the audit reports together, shouldn’t be too difficult since agencies are likely to have most of this info on hand and will just need to assemble it. The bigger question is how OMB will manage to get through reports for every department of the federal government in only 60 days. Even if the reports are available tomorrow, (and they won’t be), that timeframe is … ambitious. It really doesn’t seem to be informed by a solid understanding of practicalities.

If this Executive Order was part of a truly well-coordinated effort, it would call for the hiring of a Federal CISO to work with all departments to ensure security is consistently implemented across the entire government. This person would be accountable for actually understanding the practicalities and dealing with them, which is key since accountability is trumpeted throughout the order.

Most agencies already have their own CISOs and significant security organizations in place. They not only work to keep their departments secure, but also act as a convenient place for department heads to point fingers when things go awry. The EO emphasizes that this isn’t acceptable and that department heads will have to take full responsibility for their security failures, just as a corporate CEO is held accountable if their own CISO fails to live up to his or her job.

Like so much else in this order, though, this is nothing new. Agency heads have been accountable for some time, so if anything this is really just a loud reiteration of accountability. FISMA (and related standards tied to it) are one example of where accountability has already been established. Without a Federal CISO to oversee everything, it’s hard to see how repeating that people will be held accountable will actually make them accountable.

Only time will tell if this new order will be any more successful than its near identical predecessors at improving government security and keeping future WannaCry level exploits from making their way into the wild.

Related Content:

Carson Sweet is co-founder and chief technology officer for CloudPassage. As founding CEO, Carson led the team that created Halo, the patented security platform that changes the way enterprises achieve infrastructure protection and compliance. Carson's information security ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
WebAuthn, FIDO2 Infuse Browsers, Platforms with Strong Authentication
John Fontana, Standards & Identity Analyst, Yubico,  9/19/2018
Turn the NIST Cybersecurity Framework into Reality: 5 Steps
Mukul Kumar & Anupam Sahai, CISO & VP of Cyber Practice and VP Product Management, Cavirin Systems,  9/20/2018
NSS Labs Files Antitrust Suit Against Symantec, CrowdStrike, ESET, AMTSO
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/19/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Flash Poll
The Risk Management Struggle
The Risk Management Struggle
The majority of organizations are struggling to implement a risk-based approach to security even though risk reduction has become the primary metric for measuring the effectiveness of enterprise security strategies. Read the report and get more details today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-11763
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-25
In Apache HTTP Server 2.4.17 to 2.4.34, by sending continuous, large SETTINGS frames a client can occupy a connection, server thread and CPU time without any connection timeout coming to effect. This affects only HTTP/2 connections. A possible mitigation is to not enable the h2 protocol.
CVE-2018-14634
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-25
An integer overflow flaw was found in the Linux kernel's create_elf_tables() function. An unprivileged local user with access to SUID (or otherwise privileged) binary could use this flaw to escalate their privileges on the system. Kernel versions 2.6.x, 3.10.x and 4.14.x are believed to be vulnerabl...
CVE-2018-1664
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-25
IBM DataPower Gateway 7.1.0.0 - 7.1.0.23, 7.2.0.0 - 7.2.0.21, 7.5.0.0 - 7.5.0.16, 7.5.1.0 - 7.5.1.15, 7.5.2.0 - 7.5.2.15, and 7.6.0.0 - 7.6.0.8 as well as IBM DataPower Gateway CD 7.7.0.0 - 7.7.1.2 echoing of AMP management interface authorization headers exposes login credentials in browser cache. ...
CVE-2018-1669
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-25
IBM DataPower Gateway 7.1.0.0 - 7.1.0.23, 7.2.0.0 - 7.2.0.21, 7.5.0.0 - 7.5.0.16, 7.5.1.0 - 7.5.1.15, 7.5.2.0 - 7.5.2.15, and 7.6.0.0 - 7.6.0.8 as well as IBM DataPower Gateway CD 7.7.0.0 - 7.7.1.2 are vulnerable to a XML External Entity Injection (XXE) attack when processing XML data. A remote atta...
CVE-2018-1539
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-25
IBM Rational Engineering Lifecycle Manager 5.0 through 5.02 and 6.0 through 6.0.6 could allow remote attackers to bypass authentication via a direct request or forced browsing to a page other than URL intended. IBM X-Force ID: 142561.