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
Identity & Access Management
Security Monitoring
Advanced Threats
Insider Threats
Vulnerability Management
Comments
President's Plan To Crack Down On Hacking Could Hurt Good Hackers
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Wolf6305
50%
50%
Wolf6305,
 User Rank: Apprentice
1/23/2015 | 8:09:02 AM
Re: Proponent
Thanks for the voice of agreement.  I think that a small group of people who embrace the concept of leveraging the state legislative process could rather handily create this model.  Practicioners, rather than Security product vendors ought to be pushing the agenda.  Vendors are likely to see everything through the lense of their solution, whether they want to or not.  Legislators who are not trained in security should not be expected to understand the obvious implications of criminalizing the tools.  They don't see it is rather like criminalizing the posession of bricks because it is easy to use a brick to break into a car or building.  Some of the brilliant security researchers I know, are leery of the idea, because

1.) They don't want to take on the job of lobbying and organizing (even if it supports their own interests).  They are busy doing the fun job of security research.

2.) Because they are anti-establishment, they have decided that there is no solution for dim-witted legislators mucking up the water.

I think of this as one of the ultimate social engineering experiments, and a way to hack the parameters of reality as it is currently imagined. 

 
SgS125
100%
0%
SgS125,
 User Rank: Ninja
1/22/2015 | 2:09:10 PM
a ticket to ride
Think of it as you would a cissp or other such certification.  Plenty of professionals are willing to test for the certifications needed to land jobs.  I would be happy to have a White Hat/ Ethical hacking license.
Ericka Chickowski
100%
0%
Ericka Chickowski,
 User Rank: Moderator
1/22/2015 | 2:03:01 PM
Re: Proponent
I really wonder how well that would fit within the security research community, given its culture? There are a lot of brilliant, ethical and very anti-establishment researchers who would be turned off by the whole process. I'm not sure that kind of mandatory licensing would fly. 
Marilyn Cohodas
100%
0%
Marilyn Cohodas,
 User Rank: Strategist
1/22/2015 | 11:12:47 AM
What would work as a national cybersecurity policy?
Certainly not all of the recommendations are bad? Who can object to a 30-day breach disclosure law? 
SgS125
100%
0%
SgS125,
 User Rank: Ninja
1/22/2015 | 10:58:04 AM
Re: Proponent
That is an awesome concept!  We should have a license structure like you mention that offers us the ability to do the work we need to do, using the tools that can be used for both good and bad.  Like a locksmith.  Your analogy is spot on!

The concepts in the speech are not yet written into any kind of proposed law change so I can't really comment on how badly the politicians will muck it up.

It is very dangerous for us to trust this group of representatives to deliver comprehensive sensible legislation that does not give groups the right to go overboard on enforcement, or use it to further reduce the privacy of American citizens.

 

 
Ericka Chickowski
50%
50%
Ericka Chickowski,
 User Rank: Moderator
1/22/2015 | 10:54:14 AM
Re: Classic failures
GonzSTL: You aren't the only one worked up on this, believe me. J.J. and Jeremaiah are just a subset of lots of security people who feel this is, put politely, misguided policy. But I think there are other choice words going around about it, too. 
Wolf6305
50%
50%
Wolf6305,
 User Rank: Apprentice
1/22/2015 | 10:36:31 AM
Re: Proponent
Very true.  We have to look at who benefits from such a law.  There is a law in Germany, I am told, that prohibits a very broadly defined category of "hacking tools."  This has not made anybody any safer.  It will definitely make it harder to do routine security testing.  If the client doesn't like your results, will they get you arrested for felony "Accessing authorized resources in an unauthorized way?" 

People are the answer.  Well-trained security staff, as well as training the rank and file workers to recognize odd behavior and report it.  Actual response-team policy might be a good idea, too. 

In the field of locksmithing, there are states like California that control the tools of the trade, making state licensure a cost of doing business for locksmiths.  IT Security Specialists could start pushing for licenture rules, as well.  The costs need not be high, but the license would be a defense against facing felony arrest because you are doing your job. 
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
 User Rank: Ninja
1/22/2015 | 10:21:27 AM
Proponent
Behind most detriments to an idea there is a postulated proponent. What does the government believe that instantiating this new verbiage and changing certain cyber security laws/rules will accomplish? Is there a report advocating the changes?
GonzSTL
50%
50%
GonzSTL,
 User Rank: Ninja
1/22/2015 | 10:16:57 AM
Classic failures
This is a classic case of politicians operating in a vacuum!

Meanwhile, another change to existing law around "computer and cell phone spying devices" makes it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, possess or advertise "electronic communication intercepting devices." Really? Simply reading those words tell me that my packet sniffer will now be illegal to simply possess. In fact, a broader interpretation could be that your wireless NIC will be illegal because in its attempt to determine if a wireless access point is in service, it "intercepts" a broadcast electronic communication.

"Thompson says it is clear that the proposed law changes were made without much input from the security industry". I realize that an overhaul of existing cybersecurity laws is certainly in order, but it should not be done without consultation with experts in that field. To be more precise, those "experts" should not simply be lawyers, aides, and advisors, but should also include people who actually work, live, and breathe IT security.

"Additionally, allocating dollars toward professional cybersecurity education as a vocation would give us the talent needed to execute these goals. Policies that protect real cybersecurity research and promote education would dramatically improve our defenses against cyberattacks." Providing scholarships to students who want to pursue an education in IT security is an initiative that I would wholeheartedly agree with and support as a wise use of my tax dollars.

I think the IT security community should be more vocal on this issue, and not just addressing the IT security community, but targeting the message to the politicians. In the attempt to strengthen IT infrastructures through legislation, that same legislation must not hinder our ability to properly assess the security posture of the infrastructure we wish to protect.

Maybe its too early in the morning and I haven't had my proper dose of coffee yet, but reading this article just got me a little worked up.


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 5/28/2020
Stay-at-Home Orders Coincide With Massive DNS Surge
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/27/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Can you smell me now?
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-11844
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
There is an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in Micro Focus Service Management Automation (SMA) product affecting version 2018.05 to 2020.02. The vulnerability could be exploited to provide unauthorized access to the Container Deployment Foundation.
CVE-2020-6937
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
A Denial of Service vulnerability in MuleSoft Mule CE/EE 3.8.x, 3.9.x, and 4.x released before April 7, 2020, could allow remote attackers to submit data which can lead to resource exhaustion.
CVE-2020-7648
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker before 4.72.2 are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read. It allows arbitrary file reads for users who have access to Snyk's internal network by appending the URL with a fragment identifier and a whitelisted path e.g. `#package.json`
CVE-2020-7650
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker after 4.72.0 including and before 4.73.1 are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read. It allows arbitrary file reads to users with access to Snyk's internal network of any files ending in the following extensions: yaml, yml or json.
CVE-2020-7654
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker before 4.73.1 are vulnerable to Information Exposure. It logs private keys if logging level is set to DEBUG.