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.

Operations

6/27/2017
04:30 PM
50%
50%

No-Name Security Incidents Caused as Many Tears as WannaCry, Pros Say

Half of security pros say they've worked just as frantically this year to fix other incidents that the public never heard about.

Despite the widespread media attention and panic that WannaCry inspired, nearly half (49%) of infosec professionals say they worked just as frantically in the past year responding to incidents that the public has never heard of, according to a new survey by FarSight.

Of those 49 percent, 72 percent said they've had at least three such occasions in the past year alone. Twenty percent said they have experienced six occasions.

"WannaCry made the headlines and got the general public listening," said Dr. Paul Vixie, CEO and Cofounder of Farsight Security, in a statement, "however, cybersecurity professionals actually work on incidents like this all throughout the year."   

The survey was conducted at the InfoSecurity Europe 2017 conference earlier this month. 

Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
6/28/2017 | 12:07:09 PM
Commonality
These incidents that the general public may never hear about could be driven by customer requirements, management interests, or the technology utilized by the corporate environment.
Commentary
What the FedEx Logo Taught Me About Cybersecurity
Matt Shea, Head of Federal @ MixMode,  6/4/2021
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
A View From Inside a Deception
Sara Peters, Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  6/2/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
In this report learn how enterprises are building their incident response teams and processes, how they research potential compromises, how they respond to new breaches, and what tools and processes they use to remediate problems and improve their cyber defenses for the future.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-32552
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-12
It was discovered that read_file() in apport/hookutils.py would follow symbolic links or open FIFOs. When this function is used by the openjdk-16 package apport hooks, it could expose private data to other local users.
CVE-2021-32553
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-12
It was discovered that read_file() in apport/hookutils.py would follow symbolic links or open FIFOs. When this function is used by the openjdk-17 package apport hooks, it could expose private data to other local users.
CVE-2021-32554
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-12
It was discovered that read_file() in apport/hookutils.py would follow symbolic links or open FIFOs. When this function is used by the xorg package apport hooks, it could expose private data to other local users.
CVE-2021-32555
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-12
It was discovered that read_file() in apport/hookutils.py would follow symbolic links or open FIFOs. When this function is used by the xorg-hwe-18.04 package apport hooks, it could expose private data to other local users.
CVE-2021-32556
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-12
It was discovered that the get_modified_conffiles() function in backends/packaging-apt-dpkg.py allowed injecting modified package names in a manner that would confuse the dpkg(1) call.