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.

Perimeter

5/1/2009
09:00 AM
Gadi Evron
Gadi Evron
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

The Irony Of Preventing Security Failures

It used to be that we were judged by not suffering security incidents. But today everyone gets hit, so we are now judged by how we deal with a breach. But what if nothing happens because we stopped it? That may be the most dangerous option in the long term.

It used to be that we were judged by not suffering security incidents. But today everyone gets hit, so we are now judged by how we deal with a breach. But what if nothing happens because we stopped it? That may be the most dangerous option in the long term.Last month, we all experienced the Conficker worm hype. While the worm was real, it was misrepresented, with a lot of fear placed on the April 1 date, which turned out to be nothing. The Conficker worm is still a threat, however, but nothing happened and the world at large has dismissed it.

The obvious risk is that the security industry will be accused of crying wolf and not believed next time when something serious happens. The less obvious risk is that this will happen again a few years from now when people have long forgotten.

But what if April 1 was a real doomsday, and nothing happened because we were successful in stopping the worm?

I once heard the story about Howard Schmidt being hired by Fortune 500 companies to help them prepare for Y2K. Y2K came and went without incident. The boards then called him in and demanded an explanation about why they had spent so much money and then nothing happened. The answer lies within the question. What Schmidt could have done better was to manage their expectations.

When we as security professionals stop a threat, how can we prove it was real in the first place to justify our work? One example from my own personal history is Blackworm. It was widespread and dangerous. We worked hard to coordinate incident response globally -- in my opinion the most impressive global coordination up to that point. D-Day came and went, and while many were hit, the world did not come to an end. To this day, I am still called on about Blackworm not existing, and we are accused of inventing the whole thing. Luckily, CAIDA researched the worm, and I have that research handy.

A similar issue faces CISOs when they ask for a budget to handle a threat. Picture the following scenario: You showed losses of $100,000 in dealing with virus outbreaks, and you justified purchasing new antivirus software for your company, noting that the infection costs would be significantly reduced if not eliminated.

Then your organization suffers no further virus outbreaks, but now you can't justify to the board purchasing a new license or continuing the update service because there is no longer a loss caused by outbreaks. Treating security as a part of the business and justifying financially what the department does is a good idea, but the concept of a return on investment in security doesn't always fit perfectly.

There is no easy solution. The two factors are risk analysis, which is often limited by historical data, and human psychology (seeing is believing).

Gathering measurements of the successes and advancements of the corporate security program is important both for justifying costs and preventing disappearing funds.

Keeping management in the loop by presenting success stories and the challenges ahead, as well as a broader picture of what others face, is important. Limiting the surprise factor on spending, and showing management that you are business-oriented and working toward the same business ends, will make you more trustworthy and help you make your case for security.

You won't become obsolete by taking care of problems because there will always be new security threats. What we need to do better is show the business that we are a part of the solution, and that we are fiscally responsible, rather than financial burdens.

Follow Gadi Evron on Twitter: http://twitter.com/gadievron

Gadi Evron is an independent security strategist based in Israel. Special to Dark Reading. Gadi is CEO and founder of Cymmetria, a cyber deception startup and chairman of the Israeli CERT. Previously, he was vice president of cybersecurity strategy for Kaspersky Lab and led PwC's Cyber Security Center of Excellence, located in Israel. He is widely recognized for ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Cybersecurity Team Holiday Guide: 2019 Gag Gift Edition
Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer,  12/2/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19647
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
radare2 through 4.0.0 lacks validation of the content variable in the function r_asm_pseudo_incbin at libr/asm/asm.c, ultimately leading to an arbitrary write. This allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via crafted input.
CVE-2019-19648
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
In the macho_parse_file functionality in macho/macho.c of YARA 3.11.0, command_size may be inconsistent with the real size. A specially crafted MachO file can cause an out-of-bounds memory access, resulting in Denial of Service (application crash) or potential code execution.
CVE-2019-19642
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
On SuperMicro X8STi-F motherboards with IPMI firmware 2.06 and BIOS 02.68, the Virtual Media feature allows OS Command Injection by authenticated attackers who can send HTTP requests to the IPMI IP address. This requires a POST to /rpc/setvmdrive.asp with shell metacharacters in ShareHost or ShareNa...
CVE-2019-19637
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
An issue was discovered in libsixel 1.8.2. There is an integer overflow in the function sixel_decode_raw_impl at fromsixel.c.
CVE-2019-19638
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-08
An issue was discovered in libsixel 1.8.2. There is a heap-based buffer overflow in the function load_pnm at frompnm.c, due to an integer overflow.