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
'Zero Trust': The Way Forward in Cybersecurity
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Suberman99
50%
50%
Suberman99,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/25/2017 | 1:48:20 PM
Re: Nothing new except the name
Cool sounding maybe but, not many companies adhere to anything but perimeter security, including fortune 1000.

How many IT staffs/managers adhere to LAN segmentation or data center east/west, north/south security.  I'm not just talking about allowing a few ports like 443, 80,8080,25,53 etc.  Bad stuff rides on these ports as well because threat actors know they are most likely to be open.  Zero trust is about knowing the precise application regardless of port or protocol as well as connecting a username to that session.
ClarenceR927
50%
50%
ClarenceR927,
User Rank: Strategist
1/25/2017 | 10:37:14 AM
Re: Nothing new except the name
Our management has fallen in love with "Cyber kill chain" as if it has value.  Same deal, put a cool sounding name on the same stuff security has been recommending for a decade and all of a sudden theypay attention.
Joe Stanganelli
100%
0%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
1/14/2017 | 2:44:11 PM
Nothing new except the name
This strategy is what top cybersecurity experts have recommended for years.  Few listened.

The only difference now is that, as of sometime in the last year+, somebody came up with a catchy name ("Zero Trust") for it.

I guess buzzterms have their place.
Shantaram
0%
100%
Shantaram,
User Rank: Ninja
1/13/2017 | 6:21:53 AM
Re: 192.168.0.1
Cool! i like it!
netwatcher
50%
50%
netwatcher,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/12/2017 | 3:25:21 PM
Re: Isn't this what we were supposed to be doing all along?
some reasons why...
  • Executive is not aware of the risks – "We have a firewall and anti-virus so I think we are covered..."headinsand
  • Executive has bad information – "Hackers only attack the big companies, what would they want from us?"
  • Executive is a risk taker – "I'll take the risk, the probability for us getting attacked is low."
  • Executive is cheap – "No ROI means no priority."
  • Executive doesn't believe investment in security is worth it – "The loss involved will be so small compared to our revenues. It's easier to take a chance and write off any losses should they occur."
  • Executive is overwhelmed by the size of the necessary investment required to add additional security measures – "We can't afford Fire Eye, IBM, HP, Palo Alto etc.. those tools are only affordable to the fortune 1000"
  • Executive believes they are covered when they are not – "Our POS (or EMR) vendor is responsible for our security not us..."
  • Executive doesn't believe any investment will have much of an impact – "Big companies have all the tools and they are still getting hacked."
ClarenceR927
100%
0%
ClarenceR927,
User Rank: Strategist
1/12/2017 | 9:10:58 AM
Isn't this what we were supposed to be doing all along?
Seriously, how far removed from the real world is IT/CISO management that this concept needs to be explained to them?  This exact structure has been undersood and recommeneded for at least 25 years.  The more important article would be one that examines the excuses, roadblocks and technical challenges that have prevented people from actually making it happen.
DamnDesert
50%
50%
DamnDesert,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/10/2017 | 10:47:06 PM
If only it were that simple
If it were just up to cybersecurity to get it done it would be so simple. I've spent 5 years trying to get the company I'm at to get such controls in place to government requirements SP-800-53 for a contract we have. I the end it takes executive buy in, available Capex/Opex budget, priority from other IT departments, and patience for needed downtime for many of the changes that need to take place. No small task, needed yes, getting people to understand it's a high priority is a whole other challenge.


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/21/2020
Cybersecurity Bounces Back, but Talent Still Absent
Simone Petrella, Chief Executive Officer, CyberVista,  9/16/2020
Meet the Computer Scientist Who Helped Push for Paper Ballots
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/16/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Latest Comment: Exactly
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
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
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-6564
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Inappropriate implementation in permissions in Google Chrome prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to spoof the contents of a permission dialog via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6565
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Inappropriate implementation in Omnibox in Google Chrome on iOS prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to spoof the contents of the Omnibox (URL bar) via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6566
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Insufficient policy enforcement in media in Google Chrome prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6567
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Insufficient validation of untrusted input in command line handling in Google Chrome on Windows prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to bypass navigation restrictions via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6568
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Insufficient policy enforcement in intent handling in Google Chrome on Android prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to bypass navigation restrictions via a crafted HTML page.