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.

Database Security
Authentication
Mobile
Privacy
Compliance
Careers and People
Identity & Access Management
Security Monitoring
Advanced Threats
Insider Threats
Vulnerability Management
Comments
Be Careful Beating Up Target
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
Duane T
100%
0%
Duane T,
 User Rank: Apprentice
4/1/2014 | 12:13:32 PM
False premise of manual processes
Target was certified via PCI DSS in September, so some might believe that they were doing what was necessary to secure their data. Unfortunately, Compliance ≠ Security, and malware detection is like a red flashing light and siren. If you do nothing about it, all you can say is that you were warned.

That's why it's about time that these companies all invested in automated incident response systems that lock down a detected threat. What's odd in this situation is that FireEye has an entire "mitigation" partner page for this on their website, and Target did not use any of them. Think about it - if they used automated detection tools, why not use automated incident response tools that reduce manual tasks and eliminate human error? This doesn't have to be that complicated.

Wait, in a few seconds I found NetCitadel, Bradford Networks, and ForeScout as mitigation options.
marcelbrown
100%
0%
marcelbrown,
 User Rank: Apprentice
4/1/2014 | 11:43:41 AM
It's Windows, Stupid!
Target was better prepared than most of the industry, yet they still couldn't shake the one simple, inherent weakness that most of the industry still chooses to ignore - Microsoft Windows.

Until companies get serious about moving away from Windows, they aren't really serious about security. You can't be serious about protecting your company and your customers if you build your information technology infrastructure on top of a foundation that is full of security holes.

Sure, let's not blame Target because they seemed to do almost everything right - except the choice of their core technology.
speshul
100%
0%
speshul,
 User Rank: Strategist
4/1/2014 | 9:52:31 AM
Seriously?
So we're supposed to take it easy on Target because other companies are just as bad? That's the most insane thing I've ever heard. So because other companies are just as bad at protecting our sensitive personal information, we should be nice?

 

We should be crucifying every last one of them. I can guarantee that all of these companies have I.T. teams that warn them about these problems, but the companies choose to ignore them due to budget or other reasons. Just like Target had been warned by it's team.

 

But yet, we are supposed to go easy on them. Because clearly Target's credit was screwed over right? Their negligence for their customers' information in some way hurt them financially right?! WRONG. The customers were the ones who lost in this, all because of corporate greed.

 

CRUCIFY THEM ALL!
<<   <   Page 2 / 2


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
In this report learn how enterprises are building their incident response teams and processes, how they research potential compromises, how they respond to new breaches, and what tools and processes they use to remediate problems and improve their cyber defenses for the future.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-32788
PUBLISHED: 2021-07-27
Discourse is an open source discussion platform. In versions prior to 2.7.7 there are two bugs which led to the post creator of a whisper post being revealed to non-staff users. 1: Staff users that creates a whisper post in a personal message is revealed to non-staff participants of the personal mes...
CVE-2021-32796
PUBLISHED: 2021-07-27
xmldom is an open source pure JavaScript W3C standard-based (XML DOM Level 2 Core) DOMParser and XMLSerializer module. xmldom versions 0.6.0 and older do not correctly escape special characters when serializing elements removed from their ancestor. This may lead to unexpected syntactic changes durin...
CVE-2021-32748
PUBLISHED: 2021-07-27
Nextcloud Richdocuments in an open source self hosted online office. Nextcloud uses the WOPI (&quot;Web Application Open Platform Interface&quot;) protocol to communicate with the Collabora Editor, the communication between these two services was not protected by a credentials or IP check. Whilst th...
CVE-2021-34432
PUBLISHED: 2021-07-27
In Eclipse Mosquitto versions 2.07 and earlier, the server will crash if the client tries to send a PUBLISH packet with topic length = 0.
CVE-2021-20399
PUBLISHED: 2021-07-27
IBM Qradar SIEM 7.3.0 to 7.3.3 Patch 8 and 7.4.0 to 7.4.3 GA is vulnerable to an XML External Entity Injection (XXE) attack when processing XML data. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability to expose sensitive information or consume memory resources. IBM X-Force ID: 196073.