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.

Perimeter

5/1/2009
09:00 AM
Gadi Evron
Gadi Evron
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

The Irony Of Preventing Security Failures

It used to be that we were judged by not suffering security incidents. But today everyone gets hit, so we are now judged by how we deal with a breach. But what if nothing happens because we stopped it? That may be the most dangerous option in the long term.

It used to be that we were judged by not suffering security incidents. But today everyone gets hit, so we are now judged by how we deal with a breach. But what if nothing happens because we stopped it? That may be the most dangerous option in the long term.Last month, we all experienced the Conficker worm hype. While the worm was real, it was misrepresented, with a lot of fear placed on the April 1 date, which turned out to be nothing. The Conficker worm is still a threat, however, but nothing happened and the world at large has dismissed it.

The obvious risk is that the security industry will be accused of crying wolf and not believed next time when something serious happens. The less obvious risk is that this will happen again a few years from now when people have long forgotten.

But what if April 1 was a real doomsday, and nothing happened because we were successful in stopping the worm?

I once heard the story about Howard Schmidt being hired by Fortune 500 companies to help them prepare for Y2K. Y2K came and went without incident. The boards then called him in and demanded an explanation about why they had spent so much money and then nothing happened. The answer lies within the question. What Schmidt could have done better was to manage their expectations.

When we as security professionals stop a threat, how can we prove it was real in the first place to justify our work? One example from my own personal history is Blackworm. It was widespread and dangerous. We worked hard to coordinate incident response globally -- in my opinion the most impressive global coordination up to that point. D-Day came and went, and while many were hit, the world did not come to an end. To this day, I am still called on about Blackworm not existing, and we are accused of inventing the whole thing. Luckily, CAIDA researched the worm, and I have that research handy.

A similar issue faces CISOs when they ask for a budget to handle a threat. Picture the following scenario: You showed losses of $100,000 in dealing with virus outbreaks, and you justified purchasing new antivirus software for your company, noting that the infection costs would be significantly reduced if not eliminated.

Then your organization suffers no further virus outbreaks, but now you can't justify to the board purchasing a new license or continuing the update service because there is no longer a loss caused by outbreaks. Treating security as a part of the business and justifying financially what the department does is a good idea, but the concept of a return on investment in security doesn't always fit perfectly.

There is no easy solution. The two factors are risk analysis, which is often limited by historical data, and human psychology (seeing is believing).

Gathering measurements of the successes and advancements of the corporate security program is important both for justifying costs and preventing disappearing funds.

Keeping management in the loop by presenting success stories and the challenges ahead, as well as a broader picture of what others face, is important. Limiting the surprise factor on spending, and showing management that you are business-oriented and working toward the same business ends, will make you more trustworthy and help you make your case for security.

You won't become obsolete by taking care of problems because there will always be new security threats. What we need to do better is show the business that we are a part of the solution, and that we are fiscally responsible, rather than financial burdens.

Follow Gadi Evron on Twitter: http://twitter.com/gadievron

Gadi Evron is an independent security strategist based in Israel. Special to Dark Reading. Gadi is CEO and founder of Cymmetria, a cyber deception startup and chairman of the Israeli CERT. Previously, he was vice president of cybersecurity strategy for Kaspersky Lab and led PwC's Cyber Security Center of Excellence, located in Israel. He is widely recognized for ... View Full Bio

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
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.