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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

5/4/2015
05:15 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

Security Product Liability Protections Emerge

WhiteHat Security, FireEye each offer product liability protections to their customers.

In what may be the first signs of a major shift in security, WhiteHat and FireEye in the past couple of weeks have announced product liability protection for their security customers.

While the two vendors are taking different approaches to liability protection, the underlying theme is offering organizations who buy their products and services some guarantee of financial protection in the wake of a data breach. WhiteHat has enhanced its full-refund warranty guarantee policy for its Sentinel Elite Web vulnerability assessment service by doubling breach loss coverage to $500,000. FireEye, meantime, has obtained US Department of Homeland Security certification of its Multi-Vector Virtual Execution engine and its Dynamic Threat Intelligence cloud offering under the agency's SAFETY Act program, which protects its customers from lawsuits and other litigation in the wake of a major cyberattack.

Several security experts long have touted the concept of security- and other software vendors offering product liability protections to shield users from the fallout of exploited bugs in those products, or failures of them to catch attacks. Dan Geer, CISO for nonprofit In-Q-Tel, most recently called for legal measures that force software makers to accept liability responsibility for vulnerabilities.

WhiteHat Security first rolled out its warranty program last August, guaranteeing a full refund if it misses a bug that leads to a customers' website getting hacked. It initially offered up to $250,000 in breach loss coverage, a figure that it has now doubled. WhiteHat's customers are required under the policy to fix the bugs it finds, and if they suffer a breach via a bug WhiteHat missed, they get their money back, plus coverage of up to $500,000 in losses from the attack. No WhiteHat customers have filed claims as yet under the warranty program.

Jeremiah Grossman, founder of WhiteHat, says the timing is right for security product guarantees, and he is urging other security vendors to do the same. "Also, the tipping point for me is watching the growth rate for cybersecurity insurance," which current makes up about one-third of security spending, he says.

"So cyber insurance has one-third of the pie. Customers are not approaching a point of spending that on pure downside protection. This is a big missed opportunity for information security," he says.

Grossman got the inspiration for security guarantees after a conversation with his father a few years ago. His dad asked whether WhiteHat's Web vulnerability assessment service was like insurance, and that struck a chord with Grossman. "I said, 'Not really. Our job is to protect our customers,'" Grossman recalls of the conversation. "That stuck with me: we're [security vendors] not accountable for those we purport to protect."

FireEye, meanwhile, is the first major cybersecurity firm to be certified under DHS's SAFETY Act, which was originally created in 2002 by the DHS to foster anti-terrorism technology development and protects both the vendors and customers of those technologies from legal threats in the wake of attacks. One of the first security vendors to attain certification under the Act was MorphoTrust USA, a document authentication vendor. To date, the certification has not been well-known in the cybersecurity realm.

If FireEye Multi-Vector Virtual Execution engine and Dynamic Threat Intelligence customers suffer a cyberattack, they are protected from lawsuits or legal claims that ensue, provided that the DHS Secretary deems the attack damaging and harmful economically or with the intent to cause harm.

Brian Finch, outside counsel to FireEye, says while it's up to DHS to define the attack, major cybercriminal hacks could indeed fall into that category. "It provides a number of procedural defenses to FireEye as a vendor and its customers" in the wake of a major attack, he says.

FireEye general counsel and senior vice president Alexa King says the SAFETY Act certification offers the company's customers another level of protection. The certification process itself is "incredibly rigorous," King says.

"It took us almost a year," she says. "It's not for the faint of heart. Not all technologies [from vendors] are going to make it through" the vetting process by the DHS, she says.

One of the big protections it offers is relief from unnecessary litigation. "A lot of claims [for breaches] are baseless," Finch notes. "This manages to help limit some of the really expansive litigation out there."

Any legal claims filed related to MVX or DTI would be "limited" or "dismissed" for FireEye customers, and FireEye itself would be exempt from any "applicable" litigation associated with the certified products, the company said.

[The SAFETY Act can offer a layer of legal protection for cyber security vendors, providers, and enterprise security policies in the wake of an attack, an attorney says. Read DHS Anti-Terrorism Program Could Provide Cyberattack Liability Protection.]

Both WhiteHat and FireEye say their liability offerings also give them a value-add in their markets, and go hand-in-hand with cybersecurity insurance policies.

 

Kelly Jackson Higgins is the Executive Editor of Dark Reading. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Manchester United Suffers Cyberattack
Dark Reading Staff 11/23/2020
As 'Anywhere Work' Evolves, Security Will Be Key Challenge
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  11/23/2020
Cloud Security Startup Lightspin Emerges From Stealth
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  11/24/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-20934
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-28
An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel before 5.2.6. On NUMA systems, the Linux fair scheduler has a use-after-free in show_numa_stats() because NUMA fault statistics are inappropriately freed, aka CID-16d51a590a8c.
CVE-2020-29368
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-28
An issue was discovered in __split_huge_pmd in mm/huge_memory.c in the Linux kernel before 5.7.5. The copy-on-write implementation can grant unintended write access because of a race condition in a THP mapcount check, aka CID-c444eb564fb1.
CVE-2020-29369
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-28
An issue was discovered in mm/mmap.c in the Linux kernel before 5.7.11. There is a race condition between certain expand functions (expand_downwards and expand_upwards) and page-table free operations from an munmap call, aka CID-246c320a8cfe.
CVE-2020-29370
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-28
An issue was discovered in kmem_cache_alloc_bulk in mm/slub.c in the Linux kernel before 5.5.11. The slowpath lacks the required TID increment, aka CID-fd4d9c7d0c71.
CVE-2020-29371
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-28
An issue was discovered in romfs_dev_read in fs/romfs/storage.c in the Linux kernel before 5.8.4. Uninitialized memory leaks to userspace, aka CID-bcf85fcedfdd.