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
Black Hat Survey: Security Pros Expect Major Breaches in Next Two Years
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/13/2017 | 7:36:06 AM
Defining "cyberattack"
> Sixty percent of respondents to the Black Hat survey believe that a successful cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure will occur in the next two years.

How loosely or strictly are we defining "cyberattack" here?

Because, depending upon the definition, there have already been such successful cyberattacks.

Case in point from six years ago here: pastebin.com/Wx90LLum
Dario.Forte
50%
50%
Dario.Forte,
User Rank: Author
7/10/2017 | 9:08:48 AM
Disparity in priorities
I think the concern over the disparity between the practitioner priorities and those of top management in their organizations is probably one of the most relevant of the survey and it denotes a misalignment between business and technical requirements. While it is clear that compliance is a driver (and probably it always will be), the importance of creating a common playground for technical and business management is mandatory. I think GDPR will provide a huge opportunity to create (and maintain) this common layer, as it is a clear example of how compliance cannot be reached without technical execution.
tcritchley07
50%
50%
tcritchley07,
User Rank: Moderator
7/7/2017 | 9:57:54 AM
Re:Breaches over Next 2 Years
The 'breach' (in its broadest sense) figures are climbmg inexorable despite all the talk and flannel os vendors and consultants. It is like fixng rust spots on a rust bucket car whre as soon as you fix one, another appears. This will never work and the whole issue needs a new, solid cybersecurity architecture. This will take much of the onus off the end user or organisation and quite rightly. When I fly, I am not expected to take my own oxygen, life vest etc. It is supplied by the body that sold me the ticket. We expect the equivalent of users/organisations over cybersecurity.

The architecture wil inevitabky involve:

1. Changes to existing internet SW (DNS, Windows etc.) or even scrapping and repleacing. This will allow intimate knowledge of 'user', whether good guy or bad guy, including location, SW level, his PC ID/serial no. etc.

2, Hardware innovation such as built in memory and storage encryption.

3. Judicious data placement ( I am working on this) and other tricks of the trade to prevent malicious encryption and possibly make it theft-proof. These things will not happen by fiddling, patching and twiddling with the current setup. The internet is open, was conceived that way and the SW around it reflects that ethos. It MUST change if we are to have true security.

4. The redoubt (miltary fallback for a last stand); this means a proper disaster recovery (DR) plan where the organisation or user is not wiped out when data is lost (deleted) or encrypted. The recent UK NHS Wannacry debacle showed the need for, and in this case the absence of, a good, rapid recovery DR plan.

If you think about this you will see the sense in it. The architecture must be agreed by all (conforming nations at least) which will get over the disaster I see promised by the dozen or more cybersecurity initiatives being developed by government bodies and other bodies. If they all come to pass, I dread to think what will happen when a system with cybersecurity 1 tries to talk to one with cybersecurity 6; it will be 'request rejected. I don't recognise you'. Take a look at the US and UK cybersecurity initiatives as a starter, then look at all the cybersecurity vendors (about 50 or more) and what their initaitives are and you will see what I see as a final result; a complete dog's breakfast'.

Terry Critchley
Joe Stanganelli
0%
100%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/6/2017 | 12:30:41 PM
2 years, and compliance
Coincidentally, as per an old stat that's been floating around a few years now (from Gartner, I think? I don't quite remember) indicating that within two years of a major breach, a small business goes out of business.

On a separate note, I'm not sure how I feel about compliance gaining a bigger percentage of the "top priority" pie here. On the one hand, it's good to see more security pros taking it seriously. On the other hand, it's kind of sad when you think about it that compliance has to take so much away from actual security and privacy issues. While compliance can help make you way more secure, compliance and security are not the same thing -- and, sometimes, even contradict each other!


Stop Defending Everything
Kevin Kurzawa, Senior Information Security Auditor,  2/12/2020
Small Business Security: 5 Tips on How and Where to Start
Mike Puglia, Chief Strategy Officer at Kaseya,  2/13/2020
Architectural Analysis IDs 78 Specific Risks in Machine-Learning Systems
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  2/13/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
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
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. 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-2020-1842
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-18
Huawei HEGE-560 version 1.0.1.20(SP2); OSCA-550 and OSCA-550A version 1.0.0.71(SP1); and OSCA-550AX and OSCA-550X version 1.0.0.71(SP2) have an insufficient authentication vulnerability. An attacker can access the device physically and perform specific operations to exploit this vulnerability. Succe...
CVE-2020-8010
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-18
CA Unified Infrastructure Management (Nimsoft/UIM) 9.20 and below contains an improper ACL handling vulnerability in the robot (controller) component. A remote attacker can execute commands, read from, or write to the target system.
CVE-2020-8011
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-18
CA Unified Infrastructure Management (Nimsoft/UIM) 9.20 and below contains a null pointer dereference vulnerability in the robot (controller) component. A remote attacker can crash the Controller service.
CVE-2020-8012
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-18
CA Unified Infrastructure Management (Nimsoft/UIM) 9.20 and below contains a buffer overflow vulnerability in the robot (controller) component. A remote attacker can execute arbitrary code.
CVE-2020-1791
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-18
HUAWEI Mate 20 smartphones with versions earlier than 10.0.0.185(C00E74R3P8) have an improper authorization vulnerability. The system has a logic judging error under certain scenario, successful exploit could allow the attacker to switch to third desktop after a series of operation in ADB mode.