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.

Endpoint //

Privacy

10/16/2018
11:20 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

6 Reasons Why Employees Violate Security Policies

Get into their heads to find out why they're flouting your corporate cybersecurity rules.
Previous
1 of 7
Next

Image Source: Adobe Stock (Michail Petrov)

Image Source: Adobe Stock (Michail Petrov)

Most of the time, employees break cybersecurity rules because they're trying to get their jobs done. CISOs and other security policymakers seeking better buy-in and compliance with their security policies would do well to remember that. So what exactly behind their behavior? To help improve strategies around adherence to security policies, we put together a list of six of the most common drivers for rule-breakers.

 

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 7
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
10/31/2018 | 11:23:03 PM
Re: Believe it or not
Look, let's set apologism aside and get right to the point.

Security and accessibility are mortal foes. This is not a denigration of either interest in favor of the other. It is axiomatic. 100% security necessarily means 0% accessibility (because the thing is so secure that NO ONE can EVER access it NO MATTER WHAT). 0% security necessarily means 100% accessibility (because the thing is so universally accessible as to have eliminated all conceivable barriers -- security and otherwise).

Let the devs focus on features and accessibility (like they already do), and let the security people focus on security. And have someone in charge, product-wise, to balance the interests based on a risk assessment. It is not -- and should not be -- security's job to balance the interests because the security team is naturally biased. Likewise for the feature creeps.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
10/31/2018 | 12:00:48 AM
Re: Believe it or not
You wouldn't believe what I've seen (or maybe you would) in terms of employees essentially committing out-and-out fraud just to get around their company's security and compliance requirements.
3Dmerchant
0%
100%
3Dmerchant,
User Rank: Guru
10/26/2018 | 8:29:17 AM
Re: Believe it or not
To "get their job done" is right on point. I talk to people every day doing things against company policy, like using paper credit card authorization forms that have been forbidden. But these same people are held accountable when the company gets burned on a fraudulent transaction. If management doesn't provide a solution to help them comply with policy while protecting them from blow back on fraud losses, their going to find another way to get it done.
silyrics@hotmail.com
50%
50%
[email protected],
User Rank: Apprentice
10/24/2018 | 4:03:24 PM
Re: Believe it or not
With regard to this comment I would like to add the following: The Security world does not seek to restrict the user, in fact the security world has a very responsible balancing act to achieve. We are advised that a layered security archiecture is a requirement and at least one of those layers involves the uers. If users were comletely safe in all they say and do, there would be no requirement for many of the restritions imposed. Unfortunatel my experience shows the users to be the most valuable asset and the most vulnerable segment of the system picture.

If we look at protecting the system today to ensure there is a system tomorrow, many of the users inconvieniences become quite small in relation. The user opens the pandoras box at logon, i would hope the systems employed are close to transparent from there on....if not then the company may have created a budget environment, sometimes this can lead to not only overly clunky security requirements but also the creation of holes inthe security capability.

Please do not be disapointed when you cannot automatically access files, it is quite possible you are not aware of the security brief from above your head..

 
wmw
67%
33%
wmw,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/19/2018 | 1:21:58 AM
Believe it or not
The most important and missing reason is, that IT does not focus on the user. IT has the duty to support the user, not to restrict the user. In an agile world, it's also outdated to restrict the user to access only for day-to-day work. This might work in a taylorism company, but not in modern beta codex based companies. IT should be the consultant of the users, to not inhibit the work flow of innovative technologies while maintaining necessary security and mitigating risks. To be honest, there is no such thing as 100% security. IT has'n realized that its work is complexity and this is not be done by standardized processes.
A Realistic Threat Model for the Masses
Lysa Myers, Security Researcher, ESET,  10/9/2019
USB Drive Security Still Lags
Dark Reading Staff 10/9/2019
How to Think Like a Hacker
Dr. Giovanni Vigna, Chief Technology Officer at Lastline,  10/10/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
The transition from DevOps to SecDevOps is combining with the move toward cloud computing to create new challenges - and new opportunities - for the information security team. Download this report, to learn about the new best practices for secure application development.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-4031
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-16
IBM Workload Scheduler Distributed 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5 contains a vulnerability that could allow a local user to write files as root in the file system, which could allow the attacker to gain root privileges. IBM X-Force ID: 155997.
CVE-2019-17626
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-16
ReportLab through 3.5.26 allows remote code execution because of toColor(eval(arg)) in colors.py, as demonstrated by a crafted XML document with '<span color="' followed by arbitrary Python code.
CVE-2019-17627
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-16
The Yale Bluetooth Key application for mobile devices allows unauthorized unlock actions by sniffing Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) traffic during one authorized unlock action, and then calculating the authentication key via simple computations on the hex digits of a valid authentication request. This a...
CVE-2019-17625
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-16
There is a stored XSS in Rambox 0.6.9 that can lead to code execution. The XSS is in the name field while adding/editing a service. The problem occurs due to incorrect sanitization of the name field when being processed and stored. This allows a user to craft a payload for Node.js and Electron, such...
CVE-2019-17624
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-16
In X.Org X Server 1.20.4, there is a stack-based buffer overflow in the function XQueryKeymap. For example, by sending ct.c_char 1000 times, an attacker can cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact.