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
NSS Labs Files Antitrust Suit Against Symantec, CrowdStrike, ESET, AMTSO
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
pdcz
pdcz,
User Rank: Apprentice
12/7/2018 | 6:36:46 AM
Re: NSS Antitrust Law Suit
Exactly. I do not see any problem. And if there IS some problem with standard (which really is actually just guideline) then why they do not publish openly what are the problematic parts and how they would like to change them. As somebody said alrerady this brings questions what NSS has to hide by not accepting this open "standard".
HardenStance
HardenStance,
User Rank: Strategist
9/21/2018 | 6:57:24 AM
It's important that the NSS Labs Suit should not succeed.
 

Can't say I'm in the least bit surprised.

It's important that the NSS Labs suit against AMTSO should not succeed, in my view.

What AMTSO is trying to achieve is self-evidently a 'good thing'. Its goals - as supported by a who's-who of pretty much anybody who's anybody in endpoint security - are entirely consistent with bringing more open, transparent, security testing standards to consumers and businesses.

Has AMTSO somewhere in its articles of incorporation or operating practices left some kind of miniscule loophole - some missing word, some un-crossed 't' or some upside down full-stop - that a lawyer can seize upon as a 'gotcha' for their client? I haven't the faintest idea. You have to hope not.

Something else. IT security professionals have long complained about lack of transparency in endpoint security testing. Many look at independent test house results based on proprietary test methods and the first thing the eyes do is look to the clouds (if they don't glaze over first).

You get the politicians you deserve? I don't altogether go along with that. But do enterprise IT organizations get the security testing standards they deserve? Yeah, they do. AMTSO needs support from its lawyers and its members, right now. But it needs a lot more support from enterprise users too.
tdsan
tdsan,
User Rank: Ninja
9/20/2018 | 5:17:18 PM
Thank you for your insight
I appreciate the background information you provided, it seems that NSS is going after a number of companies (not just Crowdstrike), this seems to be backlash from other encounters they have had outside of this specific incident:

→ Cybersecurity vendors CrowdStrike, ESET, and Symantec

However, the question still remains, if Crowdstrike has nothing to hide and if they have confidence in their product, then why is there such resistance, seems to me that Crowdstrike has something to hide (also, per the recommendation from the courts). NSS labs uses tools from the wild that will more resemble attacks as opposed to running simple tests that don't really give the user a clear indication of how their product will fair when it is attacked using surreptious and/or zero-day attack methods.

In addition, I would like to know which methods they thought did not meet their approval, in the wild, there will be numerous things that don't meet their approval, especially after spending $150K.

I am curious what the courts will rule, again, time will tell.

Todd
Kelly Jackson Higgins
Kelly Jackson Higgins,
User Rank: Strategist
9/20/2018 | 3:20:33 PM
Re: NSS Antitrust Law Suit
@tdsan,

That's a good question and there a few things going on here. NSS Labs maintains that the AMTSO is skewed to the vendors and not independent, and that its own testing is more independent than one approved by vendors (AMTSO's). There also appears to be some bad blood between NSS Labs and CrowdStrike, publicly dating back to 2017 when CrowdStrike attempted (and failed) to get a restraining order to prevent NSS from publishing test results. According to CrowdStrike, it found NSS's testing methods questionable and the results based on incorrect and incomplete information. So it pulled out of the test, and then NSS accessed CrowdStrike's Falcon product via reseller in a violation of CrowdStrike's EULA. CrowdStrike said the test didn't have all of the product's features enabled, so it wasn't an accurate asssessment: https://www.darkreading.com/endpoint/crowdstrike-fails-in-bid-to-stop-nss-labs-from-publishing-test-results-at-rsa/d/d-id/1328154

CrowdStrike called NSS Labs' antitrust suit "baseless" this morning, and now NSS is firing back and calling out CrowdStrike's "smear tactics" and dismissing AMTSO as a "pay to play" thing. 

So...I really don't think NSS Labs has any plans to go AMTSO. 
tdsan
tdsan,
User Rank: Ninja
9/20/2018 | 2:35:15 PM
NSS Antitrust Law Suit
What I am confused about is as follows:

→ Why can't NSS Adopt the ATMSO protocol/methodology as part of their overall testing strategy?

→ Why don't they provide ATMSO and their independent testing concept and compare the two?

If they did this, then they would be the defacto standard when it comes to security pentesting.

I think it is about pride and money as opposed to anything else.

Oh well, time will tell.

Todd


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
Black Hat USA 2022 Attendee Report
Black Hat attendees are not sleeping well. Between concerns about attacks against cloud services, ransomware, and the growing risks to the global supply chain, these security pros have a lot to be worried about. Read our 2022 report to hear what they're concerned about now.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-35942
PUBLISHED: 2022-08-12
Improper input validation on the `contains` LoopBack filter may allow for arbitrary SQL injection. When the extended filter property `contains` is permitted to be interpreted by the Postgres connector, it is possible to inject arbitrary SQL which may affect the confidentiality and integrity of data ...
CVE-2022-35949
PUBLISHED: 2022-08-12
undici is an HTTP/1.1 client, written from scratch for Node.js.`undici` is vulnerable to SSRF (Server-side Request Forgery) when an application takes in **user input** into the `path/pathname` option of `undici.request`. If a user specifies a URL such as `http://127.0.0.1` or `//127.0.0.1` ```js con...
CVE-2022-35953
PUBLISHED: 2022-08-12
BookWyrm is a social network for tracking your reading, talking about books, writing reviews, and discovering what to read next. Some links in BookWyrm may be vulnerable to tabnabbing, a form of phishing that gives attackers an opportunity to redirect a user to a malicious site. The issue was patche...
CVE-2022-35956
PUBLISHED: 2022-08-12
This Rails gem adds two methods to the ActiveRecord::Base class that allow you to update many records on a single database hit, using a case sql statement for it. Before version 0.1.3 `update_by_case` gem used custom sql strings, and it was not sanitized, making it vulnerable to sql injection. Upgra...
CVE-2022-35943
PUBLISHED: 2022-08-12
Shield is an authentication and authorization framework for CodeIgniter 4. This vulnerability may allow [SameSite Attackers](https://canitakeyoursubdomain.name/) to bypass the [CodeIgniter4 CSRF protection](https://codeigniter4.github.io/userguide/libraries/security.html) mechanism with CodeIgniter ...