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
First US Federal CISO Shares Security Lessons Learned
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
11/30/2017 | 8:32:12 PM
Re: Executives wait for "technologists" to lock their own front doors
@SchemaCzar: Not just executives -- even the very top executives. An MIT professor once told me a story of how a company sent out "fake" phishing emails to its employees as a test, and one of the people who clicked on the link was a C-suite executive. When asked why he clicked on the link, the C-suiter responded, "I wanted to see what would happen."
SchemaCzar
50%
50%
SchemaCzar,
User Rank: Strategist
11/30/2017 | 9:32:07 AM
Executives wait for "technologists" to lock their own front doors
Reading security news and the general news, I conclude that Touhill needs to talk tougher to executives.  There are too many stories of executives who can't be bothered to follow the same security policies that must be followed by others in the organization.  They are the highest-value person targets in the organization, and they often feel they can dump their own security on an underling, or worse, that security is the organization's problem rather than their personal responsibility.  I recently heard of a high-level VP in a large, regulated business who flat-out refused to follow password change, or even password complexity policy.  This was before password change policies were brought into question, but long after secure password managers were available that make password change and complexity requirements manageable.

Touhill is right that these executives think cybersecurity is a technology problem.  So is the physical security of their own homes: a technology problem.  If they treated home security the way they do organizational security, they wouldn't even lock their own front doors.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
11/29/2017 | 8:30:55 PM
Basics
Reminds me of that old reality show "To Catch a Thief," which demonstrated to people how easy it was for burglars to break in and steal them blind in a matter of about ten minutes. Almost all the time, there was an unlocked window or unlocked door.

Same thing in cybersecurity. The bad guys don't go right to sophisticated techniques. They go to basic, common passwords and they go to recently announced zero-days to check for a lack of a patch.


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 6/4/2020
Abandoned Apps May Pose Security Risk to Mobile Devices
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/29/2020
How AI and Automation Can Help Bridge the Cybersecurity Talent Gap
Peter Barker, Chief Product Officer at ForgeRock,  6/1/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: What? IT said I needed virus protection!
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-13842
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). A dangerous AT command was made available even though it is unused. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200010 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13843
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS software before 2020-06-01. Local users can cause a denial of service because checking of the userdata partition is mishandled. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200014 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13839
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via a custom AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200007 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13840
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via an MTK AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200008 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13841
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 9 and 10 (MTK chipsets). An AT command handler allows attackers to bypass intended access restrictions. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200009 (June 2020).