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
Careers and People
Identity & Access Management
Security Monitoring
Advanced Threats
Insider Threats
Vulnerability Management
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 don’t 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   >   >>


Commentary
Ransomware Is Not the Problem
Adam Shostack, Consultant, Entrepreneur, Technologist, Game Designer,  6/9/2021
Edge-DRsplash-11-edge-ask-the-experts
How Can I Test the Security of My Home-Office Employees' Routers?
John Bock, Senior Research Scientist,  6/7/2021
News
New Ransomware Group Claiming Connection to REvil Gang Surfaces
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  6/10/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Google's new See No Evil policy......
Current Issue
The State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
In this report learn how enterprises are building their incident response teams and processes, how they research potential compromises, how they respond to new breaches, and what tools and processes they use to remediate problems and improve their cyber defenses for the future.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-31664
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-18
RIOT-OS 2021.01 before commit 44741ff99f7a71df45420635b238b9c22093647a contains a buffer overflow which could allow attackers to obtain sensitive information.
CVE-2021-33185
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-18
SerenityOS contains a buffer overflow in the set_range test in TestBitmap which could allow attackers to obtain sensitive information.
CVE-2021-33186
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-18
SerenityOS in test-crypto.cpp contains a stack buffer overflow which could allow attackers to obtain sensitive information.
CVE-2021-31272
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-18
SerenityOS before commit 3844e8569689dd476064a0759d704bc64fb3ca2c contains a directory traversal vulnerability in tar/unzip that may lead to command execution or privilege escalation.
CVE-2021-31660
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-18
RIOT-OS 2021.01 before commit 85da504d2dc30188b89f44c3276fc5a25b31251f contains a buffer overflow which could allow attackers to obtain sensitive information.