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.

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


Why Vulnerable Code Is Shipped Knowingly
Chris Eng, Chief Research Officer, Veracode,  11/30/2020
Inside North Korea's Rapid Evolution to Cyber Superpower
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  12/1/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Todays Enterprises
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Todays Enterprises
COVID-19 has created a new IT paradigm in the enterprise and a new level of cybersecurity risk. This report offers a look at how enterprises are assessing and managing cyber-risk under the new normal.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-25465
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-04
Null Pointer Dereference. in xObjectBindingFromExpression at moddable/xs/sources/xsSyntaxical.c:3419 in Moddable SDK before OS200908 causes a denial of service (SEGV).
CVE-2020-25461
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-04
Invalid Memory Access in the fxProxyGetter function in moddable/xs/sources/xsProxy.c in Moddable SDK before OS200908 causes a denial of service (SEGV).
CVE-2020-25462
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-04
Heap buffer overflow in the fxCheckArrowFunction function at moddable/xs/sources/xsSyntaxical.c:3562 in Moddable SDK before OS200903.
CVE-2020-25463
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-04
Invalid Memory Access in fxUTF8Decode at moddable/xs/sources/xsCommon.c:916 in Moddable SDK before OS200908 causes a denial of service (SEGV).
CVE-2020-25464
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-04
Heap buffer overflow at moddable/xs/sources/xsDebug.c in Moddable SDK before before 20200903. The top stack frame is only partially initialized because the stack overflowed while creating the frame. This leads to a crash in the code sending the stack frame to the debugger.