Operations

12/14/2016
10:00 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
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

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
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?
Veterans Find New Roles in Enterprise Cybersecurity
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  11/12/2018
Understanding Evil Twin AP Attacks and How to Prevent Them
Ryan Orsi, Director of Product Management for Wi-Fi at WatchGuard Technologies,  11/14/2018
7 Free (or Cheap) Ways to Increase Your Cybersecurity Knowledge
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  11/15/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Online Malware and Threats: A Profile of Today's Security Posture
Online Malware and Threats: A Profile of Today's Security Posture
This report offers insight on how security professionals plan to invest in cybersecurity, and how they are prioritizing their resources. Find out what your peers have planned today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-19349
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-17
In SeaCMS v6.64, there is SQL injection via the admin_makehtml.php topic parameter because of mishandling in include/mkhtml.func.php.
CVE-2018-19350
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-17
In SeaCMS v6.6.4, there is stored XSS via the member.php?action=chgpwdsubmit email parameter during a password change, as demonstrated by a data: URL in an OBJECT element.
CVE-2018-19341
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-17
The u3d plugin 9.3.0.10809 (aka plugins\U3DBrowser.fpi) in FoxitReader.exe in Foxit Reader 9.3.0.10826 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read) or obtain sensitive information via a U3D sample because of a "Read Access Violation near NULL starting at FoxitReader...
CVE-2018-19342
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-17
The u3d plugin 9.3.0.10809 (aka plugins\U3DBrowser.fpi) in FoxitReader.exe in Foxit Reader 9.3.0.10826 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read) or obtain sensitive information via a U3D sample because of a "Read Access Violation starting at U3DBrowser+0x00000000...
CVE-2018-19343
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-17
The u3d plugin 9.3.0.10809 (aka plugins\U3DBrowser.fpi) in FoxitReader.exe in Foxit Reader 9.3.0.10826 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read), obtain sensitive information, or possibly have unspecified other impact via a U3D sample because of a "Data from Faul...