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
How To Avoid Collateral Damage In Cybercrime Takedowns
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/3/2015 | 10:42:27 AM
Re: More Stringent Vetting Process
> Even though you used reductio ad absurdum to make it

What's wrong with that?  :p  It's a technique, not a logical fallacy.

> I don't think registration of trusted parties is comparable to a myriad of ID's.

Just another form of multifactor identification.  ;)

In any case, tell NSTIC that...
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
7/2/2015 | 7:42:08 AM
Re: More Stringent Vetting Process
Very much agree with your statement. Even though you used reductio ad absurdum to make it as I don't think registration of trusted parties is comparable to a myriad of ID's.

To your point, balance is important. Otherwise, other methods that provide an increased ease of use will be leveraged and those could contain even less security measures then the previously mentioned. This premise is not exclusive to OpenDNS.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
6/30/2015 | 11:03:41 PM
Re: More Stringent Vetting Process
Well, that's always the detriment/tradeoff, isn't it?  Alas, security and accessibility are fated to be eternal mortal foes.

We could secure access to email and other systems rather well by eliminating networks altogether by requiring face-to-face authentication at a designated computer terminal with three forms of government ID, along with eye and fingerprint scans, but that would be highly impractical.  Cybersecurity is only partly about protection; it's about finding the balance -- the line -- in that tradeoff between functionality and protection.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
6/25/2015 | 11:37:23 AM
More Stringent Vetting Process
I think a better approach from a security standpoint would be a more stringent registration practice. This way, all malicious intenders would have a more difficult time getting into the "group". This would minimize the collateral damage substantially as any outside the database could be purged with minimal risk. Some would slip through obviously but revocation is always available upon discovery. Benefits: It would strengthen security posture. Detriments: It would take longer to register due to more stringent protocols and handling. This is also dependent on a centralized model of DNS providers.


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
How Enterprises Are Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Environment
The adoption of cloud services spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in pressure on cyber-risk professionals to focus on vulnerabilities and new exposures that stem from pandemic-driven changes. Many cybersecurity pros expect fundamental, long-term changes to their organization's computing and data security due to the shift to more remote work and accelerated cloud adoption. Download this report from Dark Reading to learn more about their challenges and concerns.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-26044
PUBLISHED: 2022-01-19
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2021. Notes: none.
CVE-2021-26045
PUBLISHED: 2022-01-19
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2021. Notes: none.
CVE-2021-26046
PUBLISHED: 2022-01-19
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2021. Notes: none.
CVE-2021-26047
PUBLISHED: 2022-01-19
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2021. Notes: none.
CVE-2021-26048
PUBLISHED: 2022-01-19
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2021. Notes: none.