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
'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.


Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: I read to new remote worker security policy and have it covered!
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
Data breaches and regulations have forced organizations to pay closer attention to the security incident response function. However, security leaders may be overestimating their ability to detect and respond to security incidents. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-11107
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-02
An issue was discovered in XAMPP before 7.2.29, 7.3.x before 7.3.16 , and 7.4.x before 7.4.4 on Windows. An unprivileged user can change a .exe configuration in xampp-contol.ini for all users (including admins) to enable arbitrary command execution.
CVE-2020-11444
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-02
Sonatype Nexus Repository Manager 3.x up to and including 3.21.2 has Incorrect Access Control.
CVE-2020-7617
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-02
ini-parser through 0.0.2 is vulnerable to Prototype Pollution.The library could be tricked into adding or modifying properties of Object.prototype using a '__proto__' payload.
CVE-2020-8835
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-02
In the Linux kernel 5.5.0 and newer, the bpf verifier (kernel/bpf/verifier.c) did not properly restrict the register bounds for 32-bit operations, leading to out-of-bounds reads and writes in kernel memory. The vulnerability also affects the Linux 5.4 stable series, starting with v5.4.7, as the intr...
CVE-2020-8423
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-02
A buffer overflow in the httpd daemon on TP-Link TL-WR841N V10 (firmware version 3.16.9) devices allows an authenticated remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via a GET request to the page for the configuration of the Wi-Fi network.