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

1/30/2019
02:30 PM
Ira Winkler
Ira Winkler
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Yes, You Can Patch Stupid

Before you start calling users stupid, remember that behind every stupid user is a stupider security professional.

There are many catchy phrases in the security community referring to users in both grandiose and condescending terms. They are often treated like the gospel, yet they're often based on a rather myopic view of the subject. This view is typically naive and dangerous when actions are based on those catchy phrases. I will deal with others in future columns, but I want to start with this one: "You can't patch stupid." I often hear this phrase during conference presentations, when speakers are trying to be clever about how their technical countermeasures will always be ruined by some stupid user.

There are many things wrong with that phrase. The most important aspect is the actual meaning of "stupid." "Stupid" is generally defined as showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense. Breaking that down, let's understand that if you are assuming a fundamental level of intelligence in the use of a computer, you either have to knowingly enforce a minimum level of intelligence or assume there is a barely functional level of intelligence on the part of the users. It is impractical for the average security team to assume that all users have any base level of intelligence.

Regarding "common sense," you cannot have it without common knowledge. I have found that computer personnel tend to assume everyone has the same base of common knowledge that they have regarding security matters. Unless there is a rather thorough, comprehensive security awareness program in place, no assumption of common knowledge — and therefore common sense — can be assumed.

For these reasons, I say, "Behind every stupid user is a stupider security professional."

That being said, you do have to assume that users will potentially cause damage, either due to naivete or a mistaken action. You therefore must "patch" your systems and network to account for such potential damage. Awareness and training can help to address the naivete by informing users how to make better decisions. At the same time, you should also implement technology and process that reduce the opportunities for users to be presented with choices where they may make mistakes or to mitigate when they do make mistakes.

For example, you can educate users about phishing attacks and safe web browsing. At the same time, anti-malware software should be implemented to filter out ransomware attacks before they reach the user. Setting system permissions to not provide users with administrator privileges will stop malware from loading on the system, while anti-malware loaded on the clients will stop the damage of the malware should it actually load on the system.

All of this will not completely prevent the possibility of successful malware attacks because there is no such thing as perfect security. However, you are essentially patching potentially damaging user actions by putting an environment around users that prevents the actions from being taken or mitigates the action after they are taken.

I won't contend that there are no "stupid users." I am certain that about 3% of users will click on a phishing message that says, "This is a phishing message, and if you click on this message, it will ruin your company." There are also studies that indicate that around 5% of users cause 90% of damage to organizations, and organizations must deal those users.

However, we know these people exist and there are known ways to proactively mitigate the inevitable actions of these people. That is how you patch "stupid," and if you're not doing it, you are stupider than the users.

Related Content:

Ira Winkler is president of Secure Mentem and author of Advanced Persistent Security. View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
mjwiii2020
50%
50%
mjwiii2020,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/3/2019 | 9:50:59 AM
Cybersecurity ecosystems
Yes, the users connected to hosts are the first line of defense. The user population is a vital and integral component of the ecosystem of cybersecurity. 80% of all network attacks occur behind the security appliances.
mjwiii2020
50%
50%
mjwiii2020,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/3/2019 | 9:45:58 AM
Re: Not Sure I agree
The etymology of the word 'stupid' derives from the latin term, 'stupere' which translates to be stunned, or amazed. In present English modern morphology, versus mid 16th century: from French stupide or Latin stupidus, from stupere 'be amazed or stunned'.
enhayden1321
100%
0%
enhayden1321,
User Rank: Author
1/31/2019 | 12:53:36 PM
Not Sure I agree
The comments are really not helping the situation.  Frankly, as a "seasoned" security professional I tend to view the user as the "first line of defense."  Therefore, the Security manager/CISO/CSO needs to train and encourage the staff to be more secure and practice the proper hygiene.  Inferring someone is "stupid" doesn't help.  My 2 cents.
ASTEVENSN/A
67%
33%
ASTEVENSN/A,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/31/2019 | 5:22:26 AM
Users, users, users
Interesting article. Early on it talks about condescending terms - isn't calling people 'users' condescending? It appears 23 times in the article. If we're talking about people then can we call them people? 'Users' is a term from the past.
REISEN1955
0%
100%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
1/30/2019 | 3:07:17 PM
Stupid includes mamangement
The C-Suite - well remember the CEO of Equifax blaming their entire, total and complete catasrophe on one, just one (1) IT drone unit who failed to patch software.  One guy now revealed TOTALLY CRITICAL TO THE ENTIRE FIRM and if he did not do his job NIGHTMARE ENDING OF THE WORLD.   This is also STUPID.  
Commentary
How SolarWinds Busted Up Our Assumptions About Code Signing
Dr. Jethro Beekman, Technical Director,  3/3/2021
News
'ObliqueRAT' Now Hides Behind Images on Compromised Websites
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  3/2/2021
News
Attackers Turn Struggling Software Projects Into Trojan Horses
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/26/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: George has not accepted that the technology age has come to an end.
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
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-2021-23351
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-08
The package github.com/pires/go-proxyproto before 0.5.0 are vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) via the parseVersion1() function. The reader in this package is a default bufio.Reader wrapping a net.Conn. It will read from the connection until it finds a newline. Since no limits are implemented in ...
CVE-2009-20001
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-07
An issue was discovered in MantisBT before 2.24.5. It associates a unique cookie string with each user. This string is not reset upon logout (i.e., the user session is still considered valid and active), allowing an attacker who somehow gained access to a user's cookie to login as them.
CVE-2020-28466
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-07
This affects all versions of package github.com/nats-io/nats-server/server. Untrusted accounts are able to crash the server using configs that represent a service export/import cycles. Disclaimer from the maintainers: Running a NATS service which is exposed to untrusted users presents a heightened r...
CVE-2021-27364
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-07
An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel through 5.11.3. drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_iscsi.c is adversely affected by the ability of an unprivileged user to craft Netlink messages.
CVE-2021-27365
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-07
An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel through 5.11.3. Certain iSCSI data structures do not have appropriate length constraints or checks, and can exceed the PAGE_SIZE value. An unprivileged user can send a Netlink message that is associated with iSCSI, and has a length up to the maximum length...