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
Tell DR: What Are Your Biggest Unanswered Security Questions?
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
victorhotel
50%
50%
victorhotel,
User Rank: Strategist
3/31/2016 | 3:40:03 PM
Backups for ransomware
There is no dearth of advice about protection from ransomware and it always mentions (glibly) the importance of making backups and keeping them offline. But the data may be crypto-locked before it gets backed up.

The key is to verify that the (daily) backups are clean, as a means of early ransomware detection and preventing good backups from being over-written.  Nowhere do I see detailed advice on verifying backup integrity:  a) How do you verify that a backup is not encrypted? Can it be automated or would it need a human to detect encrypted data?  b) Keep in mind databases, Exchange, Active Directory and data in non-readable formats.

One solution to automating the integrity check is to seed your data with known static data- static files, database records, a mailbox, etc. Only the seed data could be restored and checked against the expected value.  But this would be a custom solution, not something off the shelf as far as I know.  In fact, seed data could be copied (low-level copy to bypass ransomware hooks into the OS) to another system and checked against expected values even hourly, as an early warning system for ransomware.  Has anyone tried this approach?
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
3/24/2016 | 8:04:32 PM
Re: weighing in
Indeed, I asked the CFO this question, and he was totally stunned by it.  He just told me a less graceful version of "I'd trust your recommendations" -- which is nice, but tells me nothing about the financial or risk-management side of things from his office's perspective.  Which apparently means they wanted me to do that part of it too.  CFO Jr.

Okay.  Fine.  That's cool.

But, you know, like, pay me for it maybe?  ;)
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
3/24/2016 | 8:01:34 PM
Re: weighing in
Well, it can't *always* be the case -- by virtue of what "below average" means.  ;)

But yes, I get the "Murphy's Law-ness" of it all.

In general, I've found that the companies that have better business plans, better business models, and better product or service quality tend to have better approaches to data protection.

(Emphasis on "tend")
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
3/23/2016 | 12:07:27 PM
Re: Darkreading
"... a secure member login ..."

I assume because what we have here is a public data.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
3/23/2016 | 12:04:59 PM
Re: weighing in
"... no real budget for the department/goals of the role. ..."

This is quite common, there is no real budget for security, it comes in after the attacks.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
3/23/2016 | 12:00:29 PM
Re: weighing in
"... one person shop ..."

I really do not have an answer but this is the reality. Just one step at a time. Unless we start using robots.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
3/23/2016 | 11:57:46 AM
Re: weighing in
"... the fact that the pay is below average .."

Unfortunately this is  always the case. They want you to do more work with less salary.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
3/23/2016 | 11:55:46 AM
What else dont we know
My question is always around what are those unknown unknowns.
theb0x
50%
50%
theb0x,
User Rank: Ninja
3/23/2016 | 11:20:09 AM
Darkreading
I would like to know why Darkreading/Information Week still to this day does not offer a secure member login? I suppose this is also a risk for any Authors that post articles to the site as well.
jwsh143
50%
50%
jwsh143,
User Rank: Apprentice
3/21/2016 | 11:42:15 AM
Re: weighing in
Yep, cloning myself isn't in the budget.  I wish it was.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


How to Better Secure Your Microsoft 365 Environment
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/25/2021
Attackers Leave Stolen Credentials Searchable on Google
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/21/2021
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
2020: The Year in Security
Download this Tech Digest for a look at the biggest security stories that - so far - have shaped a very strange and stressful year.
Flash Poll
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Enterprises
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's 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-2020-4682
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-28
IBM MQ 7.5, 8.0, 9.0, 9.1, 9.2 LTS, and 9.2 CD could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code on the system, caused by an unsafe deserialization of trusted data. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code on the system. IBM X-Force ID: 186509.
CVE-2020-4888
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-28
IBM QRadar SIEM 7.4.0 to 7.4.2 Patch 1 and 7.3.0 to 7.3.3 Patch 7 could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the system, caused by insecure deserialization of user-supplied content by the Java deserialization function. By sending a malicious serialized Java object, an attacker co...
CVE-2020-13569
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-28
A cross-site request forgery vulnerability exists in the GACL functionality of OpenEMR 5.0.2 and development version 6.0.0 (commit babec93f600ff1394f91ccd512bcad85832eb6ce). A specially crafted HTTP request can lead to the execution of arbitrary requests in the context of the victim. An attacker can...
CVE-2021-20620
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-28
Cross-site scripting vulnerability in Aterm WF800HP firmware Ver1.0.9 and earlier allows remote attackers to inject an arbitrary script via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2021-20621
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-28
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Aterm WG2600HP firmware Ver1.0.2 and earlier, and Aterm WG2600HP2 firmware Ver1.0.2 and earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators via unspecified vectors.