Vulnerabilities / Threats

8/13/2010
02:26 PM
Dark Reading
Dark Reading
Slideshows
50%
50%

Strategic Security Survey: Global Threat, Local Pain

Highlights of exclusive InformationWeek Analytics research as it appears in "Global Threat, Local Pain," our report assessing whether the high-profile infiltration of corporate networks worldwide (Google China leaps to mind) is forcing execs to reconsider their security strategies and pony up related resources.
Previous
1 of 6
Next


Operation Aurora, the massive cyberassault on Google, Adobe, Juniper, Rackspace and others, proved that intellectual property is as much a target as credit-card data and other customer info, so perhaps it's no coincidence that more than 90% of the 1,002 business technology and security professionals who responded to our survey expressed concern that such an exploit could affect their organizations. Nearly one-third are "very concerned" that it could happen to them.

As we watched the news and read the coverage in both technical and mainstream media outlets, we saw people finally waking up. CISOs everywhere got copies of the venerable, "Could this happen to us?" email from management and had to answer questions about how they could hope to fend off these attacks if Google, which employs hundreds of security pros, had to withdraw from the largest emerging market and leave millions on the table.

Security researchers group these attacks under the category of advanced persistent threat, or APT. We see APT as shorthand for a targeted assault, where the attacker’s skill level and resources are advanced. When they get in, often via social engineering, they seek to stay undetected and tunnel deeper into the network, then quietly export valuable data. Cleaning up the mess is an expensive nightmare. As we said, government entities have been using this terminology for some time, but this was the first major announcement of a successful zero-day attack being conducted against a private company. The fact is, after several years of both our budgets and our data being under siege, few organizations have the means to fight off world-class attackers. But putting your head in the sand is a bad plan, as is throwing up your hands and blaming upper management. As we’ve said before, in every security survey we deploy, a healthy percentage of commenters say they long for a major breach to wake business leaders up.


Learn more about InformationWeek Analytics' Global Threat, Local Pain: 2010 Strategic Security Survey.

Previous
1 of 6
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Election Websites, Back-End Systems Most at Risk of Cyberattack in Midterms
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  8/14/2018
Intel Reveals New Spectre-Like Vulnerability
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  8/15/2018
Data Privacy Careers Are Helping to Close the IT Gender Gap
Dana Simberkoff, Chief Compliance and Risk Management Officer, AvePoint, Inc,  8/20/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-15601
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-21
apps/filemanager/handlers/upload/drop.php in Elefant CMS 2.0.3 performs a urldecode step too late in the "Cannot upload executable files" protection mechanism.
CVE-2018-15603
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-21
An issue was discovered in Victor CMS through 2018-05-10. There is XSS via the Author field of the "Leave a Comment" screen.
CVE-2018-15598
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-21
Containous Traefik 1.6.x before 1.6.6, when --api is used, exposes the configuration and secret if authentication is missing and the API's port is publicly reachable.
CVE-2018-15599
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-21
The recv_msg_userauth_request function in svr-auth.c in Dropbear through 2018.76 is prone to a user enumeration vulnerability because username validity affects how fields in SSH_MSG_USERAUTH messages are handled, a similar issue to CVE-2018-15473 in an unrelated codebase.
CVE-2018-0501
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-21
The mirror:// method implementation in Advanced Package Tool (APT) 1.6.x before 1.6.4 and 1.7.x before 1.7.0~alpha3 mishandles gpg signature verification for the InRelease file of a fallback mirror, aka mirrorfail.