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
Report: Slow Detection, Slow Response
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Marilyn Cohodas
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
6/13/2014 | 3:50:47 PM
Re: Customer Relations
From a PR perspective, I hope that most companies are coming to the conclusion that they are better off getting out in front of the problem of a data breach, because it's going to come our eventually anyway. From a cybersecurity standpoint, I'm with @securityaffairs, when the effect of a data breach are discovered too late, the losses are often much greater. So a fast response is warranted on both counts.
Kelly Jackson Higgins
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
6/13/2014 | 2:58:18 PM
Re: Customer Relations
That's a really good point, @Whoopty. The sooner customers get word, the better for their privacy and financial security AND the rep of the breached company. Not all companies see it that way, though.
securityaffairs
securityaffairs,
User Rank: Ninja
6/13/2014 | 2:48:08 PM
Not surprised
The issue mentioned in the post is considered one of the greatest problems of the threat mitigation. Slow detection is the primary cause of losses ... in many cases the effects of a data breach or of a cyber attack are discovered too late, in other cases they will never be discovered.

It is necessary a layered approach to security to detect early the cyber threat.

 
RetiredUser
RetiredUser,
User Rank: Ninja
6/13/2014 | 1:19:46 PM
Re: Customer Relations
@Whoopty

Amen to that, brother.  There's nothing more frustrating than working for a company that not only won't own up out of fear of losing credibility, or more important to them, customers, but to see the same thing happen again and again.  If they would only have come clean the first time, a solution might have come from other sources that actually works instead of trying to solve the problem on their own... 
RetiredUser
RetiredUser,
User Rank: Ninja
6/13/2014 | 1:03:12 PM
Human vs Machine
I suspect there is a wide variety of conditions that lend to delayed response times from org to org.  For instance, I believe in a DevOps style security team, where you have security-oriented developers, hackers with experience on the systems doing real-time auditing and partial forensics on suspicious behavior, even if it isn't popping up on an alarm generated by the automated security suite; I also believe pushing the boundaries of your own network and apps but pen-testing.

However, I suspect there is a combination of lack of resources to pull off a team like this, and finding folks with the right set of expertise to bring it all together.  I'd be curious to see just how much longer delays in responding to intrusions are for companies with nothing but automated security software protecting them compared to real humans actively reviewing logs, watching/sniffing network traffic and auditing user activity.  I'm guessing leaving everything up to a collection of apps has the longer intrusion response time...
Whoopty
Whoopty,
User Rank: Ninja
6/13/2014 | 12:10:32 PM
Customer Relations
As much as I'd like to see security teams responding to issues in a more timely manner, whether it's automated or manual, I'm more interested in seeing better customer relations, with companies owning up when their security has been breached. 

Just as the company that's been hacked stands to lose data and resources from a hack, customers of that firm are also at risk, yet too often those that are breached either cover it up or wait a long time to let anyone know, meaning the problem is compounded.

Come clean about your security issues and everyone will feel far more accepting of them. 
Kelly Jackson Higgins
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
6/13/2014 | 7:45:29 AM
Re: hours
I know, @Brian. The report didn't drill down into types of events, so finding malware was lumped into this question from what I understand. It's the more advanced attacks that are tougher to detect (the ones that AV does not sniff out), and these numbers were more inclusive of non-advanced events as well.

 
Bprince
Bprince,
User Rank: Ninja
6/13/2014 | 12:32:15 AM
hours
I am surprised to even see this talked about in hours. I have seen reports talking about weeks and months. The Verizon report for example talked about something like 60 percent of breaches going undetected for months after an attack.

BP


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
Black Hat USA 2022 Attendee Report
Black Hat attendees are not sleeping well. Between concerns about attacks against cloud services, ransomware, and the growing risks to the global supply chain, these security pros have a lot to be worried about. Read our 2022 report to hear what they're concerned about now.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-38193
PUBLISHED: 2022-08-16
There is a code injection vulnerability in Esri Portal for ArcGIS versions 10.8.1 and below that may allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to pass strings which could potentially cause arbitrary code execution in a victims browser.
CVE-2022-38194
PUBLISHED: 2022-08-16
In Esri Portal for ArcGIS versions 10.8.1, a system property is not properly encrypted. This may lead to a local user reading sensitive information from a properties file.
CVE-2022-38192
PUBLISHED: 2022-08-16
A stored Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Esri Portal for ArcGIS may allow a remote, authenticated attacker to pass and store malicious strings via crafted queries which when accessed could potentially execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the userâ€â&b...
CVE-2022-38362
PUBLISHED: 2022-08-16
Apache Airflow Docker's Provider prior to 3.0.0 shipped with an example DAG that was vulnerable to (authenticated) remote code exploit of code on the Airflow worker host.
CVE-2022-30264
PUBLISHED: 2022-08-16
The Emerson ROC and FloBoss RTU product lines through 2022-05-02 perform insecure filesystem operations. They utilize the ROC protocol (4000/TCP, 5000/TCP) for communications between a master terminal and RTUs. Opcode 203 of this protocol allows a master terminal to transfer files to and from the fl...