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
Oldest First  |  Newest 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?
Commentary
Ransomware Is Not the Problem
Adam Shostack, Consultant, Entrepreneur, Technologist, Game Designer,  6/9/2021
Edge-DRsplash-11-edge-ask-the-experts
How Can I Test the Security of My Home-Office Employees' Routers?
John Bock, Senior Research Scientist,  6/7/2021
News
New Ransomware Group Claiming Connection to REvil Gang Surfaces
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  6/10/2021
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-2021-35196
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-21
** DISPUTED ** Manuskript through 0.12.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted settings.pickle file in a project file, because there is insecure deserialization via the pickle.load() function in settings.py. NOTE: the vendor's position is that the product is not intended fo...
CVE-2010-1433
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-21
Joomla! Core is prone to a vulnerability that lets attackers upload arbitrary files because the application fails to properly verify user-supplied input. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability to upload arbitrary code and run it in the context of the webserver process. This may facilitate unauth...
CVE-2010-1434
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-21
Joomla! Core is prone to a session fixation vulnerability. An attacker may leverage this issue to hijack an arbitrary session and gain access to sensitive information, which may help in launching further attacks. Joomla! Core versions 1.5.x ranging from 1.5.0 and up to and including 1.5.15 are vulne...
CVE-2010-1435
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-21
Joomla! Core is prone to a security bypass vulnerability. Exploiting this issue may allow attackers to perform otherwise restricted actions and subsequently retrieve password reset tokens from the database through an already existing SQL injection vector. Joomla! Core versions 1.5.x ranging from 1.5...
CVE-2010-0413
PUBLISHED: 2021-06-21
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Notes: none.