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
50%
50%
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
50%
50%
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
50%
50%
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
50%
50%
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
50%
50%
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
100%
0%
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
50%
50%
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
50%
50%
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


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/3/2020
Pen Testers Who Got Arrested Doing Their Jobs Tell All
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  8/5/2020
Exploiting Google Cloud Platform With Ease
Dark Reading Staff 8/6/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-16219
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Delta Electronics TPEditor Versions 1.97 and prior. An out-of-bounds read may be exploited by processing specially crafted project files. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may allow an attacker to read/modify information, execute arbitrary code, and/or crash the application.
CVE-2020-16221
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Delta Electronics TPEditor Versions 1.97 and prior. A stack-based buffer overflow may be exploited by processing a specially crafted project file. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may allow an attacker to read/modify information, execute arbitrary code, and/or crash the application.
CVE-2020-16223
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Delta Electronics TPEditor Versions 1.97 and prior. A heap-based buffer overflow may be exploited by processing a specially crafted project file. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may allow an attacker to read/modify information, execute arbitrary code, and/or crash the application.
CVE-2020-16225
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Delta Electronics TPEditor Versions 1.97 and prior. A write-what-where condition may be exploited by processing a specially crafted project file. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may allow an attacker to read/modify information, execute arbitrary code, and/or crash the application.
CVE-2020-16227
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-07
Delta Electronics TPEditor Versions 1.97 and prior. An improper input validation may be exploited by processing a specially crafted project file not validated when the data is entered by a user. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may allow an attacker to read/modify information, execute a...