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

12/14/2016
10:00 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Vendor Accountability & The Security Supply Chain

A large majority of security leaders say they would switch to suppliers that offer product and service guarantees, according to a new survey.

If they had their druthers, enterprises overwhelmingly would like to see their IT security vendors held accountable for their failures in the event of a costly security breach. According to a new survey out this week, 95% of U.S. companies say they want to see their IT security vendors offer a guarantee on their products and services and 88% say they'd be willing to switch vendors if they could find a competitor who did offer such a guarantee.

Conducted among 500 cybersecurity leaders by Vanson Bourne, the survey was carried out on behalf of SentinelOne to confirm the company's suspicions that customers crave vendors who'll put their money where their mouth is.

"Security vendors are not economically aligned with their customers. From any vendor, you buy a product—firewall, data loss prevention, anti-virus, whatever—and if the product doesn’t work and the customer gets hacked, the vendor suffers no liability as a result," says Jeremiah Grossman, chief of security strategy at SentinelOne, an advanced endpoint protection firm. "We don't see this in any other industry. Not in consumer electronics, not in the clothes we buy, the phones we buy, the watches we buy—nothing. Everything comes with a warranty, a service level agreement or something except in software and security."

Grossman considers himself a passionate supporter of security guarantees. He initially made waves in the industry several years ago when he led the company he previously founded, WhiteHat Security, to offer a money-back guarantee. He says that a big part of the impetus behind his move to SentinelOne following his long run at WhiteHat was its willingness to work with him to develop a guarantee.

"I think security vendors should know full well how well their product performed or not, and if they know their metrics, they should be able to provide some financial incentives for themselves to do a good job and provide that assurance to customers," he says.

SentinelOne kicked off its guarantee program earlier this year, offering customers $1,000 per endpoint with a cap of $1 million if they suffer a ransomware attack. And now Grossman is advocating among his peers in the industry to get them to fall into line, too.

"When I launched the warranty at Black Hat in the summer of this year, I put a call out to the rest of the industry and put them on notice that everybody is eventually going to do this, and if you need help, please ask," he says.

So far, he's had a couple of takers. Most recently was Cymmetria, maker of the MazeRunner Deception Platform. Earlier this month, the firm launched a $1 million guarantee against breaches attributed to the successful lateral movement of advanced persistent threats (APTs).

According to Grossman, guarantees like this should complement a company's solid cybersecurity insurance policy. He likens security guarantees to the relationships between cyberinsurance, car warranties and insurance.

"Our cars carry auto insurance in the event of accidents, and if we get into an accident, the insurance pays off. If, however, your car breaks down, the engine falls out of it or the tire pops, that’s where the manufacturer’s warranty comes in," he says. "While not a perfect corollary, security guarantees by security vendors function more like a warranty and cyber insurance is mostly meant to cover catastrophes."

Related Content:

 

 

Ericka Chickowski specializes in coverage of information technology and business innovation. She has focused on information security for the better part of a decade and regularly writes about the security industry as a contributor to Dark Reading.  View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Row3n
50%
50%
Row3n,
User Rank: Strategist
1/4/2017 | 10:47:10 PM
Hi
I think that this is why finance companies mostly prefer to have their own in-house security teams taking care of any of these issues. They might not be as inclined as a stand alone security company to implement new products that provide better protection, but they should at least be able to handle the protection that they already do have in place right?
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/14/2020
Lock-Pickers Face an Uncertain Future Online
Seth Rosenblatt, Contributing Writer,  8/10/2020
Hacking It as a CISO: Advice for Security Leadership
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  8/10/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 New Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities That Could Put Your Enterprise at Risk
In this Dark Reading Tech Digest, we look at the ways security researchers and ethical hackers find critical vulnerabilities and offer insights into how you can fix them before attackers can exploit them.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-17475
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of authentication in the network relays used in MEGVII Koala 2.9.1-c3s allows attackers to grant physical access to anyone by sending packet data to UDP port 5000.
CVE-2020-0255
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2020-10751. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2020-10751. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2020-10751 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-14353
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2017-18270. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2017-18270. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2017-18270 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidenta...
CVE-2020-17464
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none.
CVE-2020-17473
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-14
Lack of mutual authentication in ZKTeco FaceDepot 7B 1.0.213 and ZKBiosecurity Server 1.0.0_20190723 allows an attacker to obtain a long-lasting token by impersonating the server.