Comments
CISOs' Cyber War: How Did We Get Here?
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Dimitri Chichlo
50%
50%
Dimitri Chichlo,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/14/2018 | 4:23:33 AM
Re: Software == Bugs
Thnak you for your article, Jack. Indeed, software==bugs but, yes, we know means of programming that avoids most of code mistakes. Plus by stretching the time to market, you are putting your business at risk (ex.: Diginotar).

What puzzles me in this industry, is that we take for granted something which is completely unacceptable in other industries. Take automotive for instance. Do you imagine that every month the car dealer calls you to fix something in your newly acquired car (ABS, airbag, brakes, etc.)? By the way, this can very much be the case in the future, as cars are no more than driving appliances but so far, we have seen limited cases, but they do exist. 

However, do you have to be a CISO to understand the need for security? I do not completely agree with that. I think that this is rather a question of common sense. One of the challenges we face as infosec professionals is to pass the message higher. Do we really succedd in that? I doubt. It is just that security is still not embedded in IT (yet) and not considered as a (potential) competitive advantage. 

Not sure also about the concept of cyber war. I would leave that term to a state level concern, not at business level, although some businesses are strategic for countries, but this is another story. I would rather use "IT security" (not really sexy though :). 

 

 
jackmillerciso@gmail.com
50%
50%
[email protected],
User Rank: Author
1/9/2018 | 11:39:06 PM
Re: Software == Bugs
Thank you for your comment. I do agree with you, these points you clearly articulate are valid and must be taken into consideration for developing any meaningful and workable policies or regulations.

While some discovered vulnerabilities might have been virtually impossible to find with even the best QA program, unfortunately, there have been many that should have easily been identified and remediated but were not and that problem must be resolved. 

Likewise, with concern to innovation, I don't think it is an either/or conversation.  Even in the most regulated industries there is always innovation, the most important thing is that we have a level playing field. 
Brook S.E.S308
50%
50%
Brook S.E.S308,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/9/2018 | 1:53:30 PM
Software == Bugs
The Turing Proof has not yet fallen. Short summary: an automated process cannot prove that an automated process is correct.

IOW, software can be proven to have errors, but not proven to be absolutely correct. That means that we will be living with software errors for sometime - imagining that viulnerability is entirely a business problem missed a key technical fact of life. 

Plus, not all vulnerabilities are equal. Many are not really of value to real-world adversaries. Risk assessment will continue to be important.

As I have noted both in my books and elsewhere, error is also an artifact of innovation. When attempting something new, it's not going to be "right" for a while; mistakes will be made. 

Finally, designs for yesteryear will likely not survive tomorrow's research.

Meltdown/Spectre is precisely this situation. Speculative execution has provided enormous CPU gains. We now know that those gains came with a security cost, because dedicated researchers probed and prodded to find holes in the design. future designs are thus improved. 

This last point is key: it's very hard to anticipate every possible use case and mis-use case for a design. While analytic tools like Threat Modeling can anticipate known techniques, it's very hard to see far into research and attack future.

While your points are certainly valid, the argument, I believe is incomplete without my additions

cheers

/brook s.e. schoenfield


White House Cybersecurity Strategy at a Crossroads
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  7/17/2018
The Fundamental Flaw in Security Awareness Programs
Ira Winkler, CISSP, President, Secure Mentem,  7/19/2018
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
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-14492
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-21
Tenda AC7 through V15.03.06.44_CN, AC9 through V15.03.05.19(6318)_CN, and AC10 through V15.03.06.23_CN devices have a Stack-based Buffer Overflow via a long limitSpeed or limitSpeedup parameter to an unspecified /goform URI.
CVE-2018-3770
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-20
A path traversal exists in markdown-pdf version <9.0.0 that allows a user to insert a malicious html code that can result in reading the local files.
CVE-2018-3771
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-20
An XSS in statics-server <= 0.0.9 can be used via injected iframe in the filename when statics-server displays directory index in the browser.
CVE-2018-5065
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-20
Adobe Acrobat and Reader 2018.011.20040 and earlier, 2017.011.30080 and earlier, and 2015.006.30418 and earlier versions have a Use-after-free vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution in the context of the current user.
CVE-2018-5066
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-20
Adobe Acrobat and Reader 2018.011.20040 and earlier, 2017.011.30080 and earlier, and 2015.006.30418 and earlier versions have an Out-of-bounds read vulnerability. Successful exploitation could lead to information disclosure.