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
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
DamnDesert
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.
ClarenceR927
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.
netwatcher
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."
Joe Stanganelli
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.
ClarenceR927
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.
Suberman99
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.


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
Improving Enterprise Cybersecurity With XDR
Enterprises are looking at eXtended Detection and Response technologies to improve their abilities to detect, and respond to, threats. While endpoint detection and response is not new to enterprise security, organizations have to improve network visibility, expand data collection and expand threat hunting capabilites if they want their XDR deployments to succeed. This issue of Tech Insights also includes: a market overview for XDR from Omdia, questions to ask before deploying XDR, and an XDR primer.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-31883
PUBLISHED: 2022-06-28
Marval MSM v14.19.0.12476 is has an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability. A low privilege user is able to see other users API Keys including the Admins API Keys.
CVE-2022-31885
PUBLISHED: 2022-06-28
Marval MSM v14.19.0.12476 is vulnerable to OS Command Injection due to the insecure handling of VBScripts.
CVE-2022-31886
PUBLISHED: 2022-06-28
Marval MSM v14.19.0.12476 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF). An attacker can disable the 2FA by sending the user a malicious form.
CVE-2021-3430
PUBLISHED: 2022-06-28
Assertion reachable with repeated LL_CONNECTION_PARAM_REQ. Zephyr versions >= v1.14 contain Reachable Assertion (CWE-617). For more information, see https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/security/advisories/GHSA-46h3-hjcq-2jjr
CVE-2021-3431
PUBLISHED: 2022-06-28
Assertion reachable with repeated LL_FEATURE_REQ. Zephyr versions >= v2.5.0 contain Reachable Assertion (CWE-617). For more information, see https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/security/advisories/GHSA-7548-5m6f-mqv9