Vulnerabilities / Threats

8/16/2017
10:30 AM
Daniel Schwalbe
Daniel Schwalbe
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

Discover a Data Breach? Try Compassion First

The reactions to a big data breach often resemble the five stages of grief, so a little empathy is needed.

Many of the big data breaches over the past few years can be traced back to things such as stolen laptops and flash drives or compromised end-user accounts that get leveraged for horizontal movement inside the organization. Sometimes permissions on Internet-accessible systems are left wide open by accident or security patches didn't get applied in time, leaving the system vulnerable to attack.

But in virtually every case, there is an individual or small group of individuals whose action or inaction can be directly linked to the data breach. There are the organizational users, who get tricked into opening a malicious attachment or clicking on a bad link, and either have their passwords stolen or their computers compromised. But there are also the IT professionals who maintain servers and other computing infrastructure — the sysadmins, Web developers, or even the office managers who are put in charge of "making sure things get patched" under the rubric of "other duties as assigned" on their job description. If they make a mistake or fall behind on their work, the organizational consequences can be disastrous.

The Agile Adversary
The speed at which technology evolves is a big challenge for those who are charged with defending networks and the information for which they provide access. As security professionals, it's our job to keep track of every emerging technology and analyze almost in real time how it could affect the security of the enterprise.

This is made more difficult because attackers have become more sophisticated. This is especially true when we look at nation-state actors. Unlike some "smash-and-grab" cybercriminals, who have profit and speed as their motivators, many of the advanced persistent threat actors are playing the long game. They will quietly compromise systems and build up "wartime reserves" for a later attack, all while being careful to keep associated "noise" to a minimum in order to avoid detection.

The performance of sysadmins is typically measured by how well they keep systems up and running. Anything that interferes with that mission will likely be met with pushback. If security measures are simply dictated by information security professionals and are perceived by sysadmins as overly prescriptive, they run the risk of getting ignored or deprioritized. By showing a bit of empathy for the demanding job a sysadmin has, security professionals can bridge that gap and form a working partnership between the two groups. This is critical, since even as we fortify networks and systems, the sysadmins remain a preferred target of the adversary, who wants to leverage a sysadmin's access to do harm.

The Five Stages of Data Breach Grief
During my time as a frontline security engineer, forensic investigator, assistant director, and later director and associate chief information security officer for a top-tier U.S. research institution, I have led countless institutional incident response efforts. In my experience, most people who my team and I encountered during an investigation cared very much about their work and their organization's data. Once we would notify them of a likely compromise and potential data breach, their reactions would almost always follow the Kübler-Ross model of grief.

Their initial response would be denial — clearly, we must be wrong, as there "is no way the system was actually compromised." Then there would be some amount of anger, usually from a supervisor: "How could you let this happen?" "Who didn't do their job?" Next, the bargaining would set in: "Maybe the bad guys didn't steal any data." "Maybe we got lucky?" Sadly, that wishful thinking hardly ever panned out. Once we concluded our investigation and presented a report of what exactly happened, people would reach the depression stage and start to worry about whether they'd get fired. By helping them work through these "data breach grief stages," we were often able to let them reach acceptance, which is a key step toward recovering from a compromise, picking up the pieces, and making sure it doesn't happen again.

The Blame Game
In my many years of incident management, I can recall only one or two instances where the individuals who caused the data breach refused to accept any responsibility at all. Most of them were distraught about the compromise and felt awful that it happened. This is an important point that often gets missed in any public debate of an incident. When the word of a big data breach gets out, the media is typically quick to blame it on the alleged carelessness or even negligence of the organization that got hacked. This makes for juicy headlines that generate clicks, and because it's hard to confront a faceless hacker, victims who had their personal data stolen prefer to focus their anger on the organization that "allowed" their data to be stolen.

Once the dust has settled, sometimes there's no denying that an organization acted irresponsibly. But in an age of highly sophisticated attack methodologies and weaponized zero-day exploits, even a fully patched and secured system may be no match for a motivated attacker. This often leaves the people charged with securing the critical systems outgunned and getting blamed even if they did everything within their power to do the right thing.

The Good News
Here's the good news: Security professionals across all sectors of industry are starting to realize that being empathetic with their constituents in times of crisis goes a lot further than coming down hard on anybody who falls victim to a scam or opens a malicious attachment on their work computer. The security business is a people business, and the need for empathy in this industry has never been greater. Security professionals alone can't protect an organization. They must partner with the organization's end users and sysadmins, who are often the targets of today's cyber adversaries. Yes, security tools and procedures are important — but it's the human-to-human connection that will help us successfully fight and win this battle.

Related Content:

Daniel Schwalbe is Deputy Chief Information Security Officer and Director of Engineering for Farsight Security, Inc. He is a veteran information security professional with 17 years of experience leading incident response and digital forensics efforts in large enterprise ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
New Bluetooth Hack Affects Millions of Vehicles
Dark Reading Staff 11/16/2018
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
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Data breach fears and the need to comply with regulations such as GDPR are two major drivers increased spending on security products and technologies. But other factors are contributing to the trend as well. Find out more about how enterprises are attacking the cybersecurity problem by reading our report today.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-19406
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-21
kvm_pv_send_ipi in arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c in the Linux kernel through 4.19.2 allows local users to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and BUG) via crafted system calls that reach a situation where the apic map is uninitialized.
CVE-2018-19407
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-21
The vcpu_scan_ioapic function in arch/x86/kvm/x86.c in the Linux kernel through 4.19.2 allows local users to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and BUG) via crafted system calls that reach a situation where ioapic is uninitialized.
CVE-2018-19404
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-21
In YXcms 1.4.7, protected/apps/appmanage/controller/indexController.php allow remote authenticated Administrators to execute any PHP code by creating a ZIP archive containing a config.php file, hosting the .zip file at an external URL, and visiting index.php?r=appmanage/index/onlineinstall&url= ...
CVE-2018-19387
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-20
format_cb_pane_tabs in format.c in tmux 2.7 through 2.8 might allow attackers to cause a denial of service (NULL Pointer Dereference and application crash) by arranging for a malloc failure.
CVE-2018-19388
PUBLISHED: 2018-11-20
FoxitReader.exe in Foxit Reader 9.3.0.10826 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read, access violation, and application crash) via TIFF data because of a ConvertToPDF_x86!ReleaseFXURLToHtml issue.