One Article Review
| Source |  taosecurity |
|---|---|
| Identifiant | 361051 |
| Date de publication | 2016-10-18 11:17:49 (vue: 2016-10-18 11:17:49) |
| Titre | Five Ways That Good Guys Share More Than Bad Guys |
| Texte | It takes a lot for me to write a cybersecurity blog post these days. I spend most of my writing time working on my PhD. Articles like Nothing Brings Banks Together Like A Good Hack drive me up the wall, however, and a Tweet rant is insufficient. What fired me up, you might ask? Please read the following excerpt:[Troels] Oerting, with no small dose of grudging admiration, says his adversaries excel at something that can't be addressed with deep pockets or killer software: They're superb networkers. “The organized crime groups in cyber are sharing much better than we are at the moment,†says Oerting, a Dane with a square jaw and the watchful eyes of a cop who's investigated the underworld for 35 years. “They are sharing methodologies, knowledge, tools, practices-what works and what doesn't.â€Statements like these are regularly submitted without evidence. In response, I provide five sources of evidence why organized crime groups do not share more than defenders.1. Solution providers share. Both commercial and not-for-profit solution providers share enormous amounts of information on the security landscape. Some of it is free, and some of it is sold as products or consulting. Thousands of security companies and not-for-profit providers compete for your attention, producing white papers, Webinars, and other resources. You might argue that all of them claim to be the answer to your problem. However, this situation is infinitely better than the 1980s and early 1990s. Back then, hardly any solutions, or even security companies and organizations, existed at all.Criminal solution providers share, but they do so by selling their wares. This is true for the open world as well, but the volume of the open world is orders of magnitude greater.2. Government agencies share. My fellow Americans, has your organization you been visited by the FBI? Federal agents notified more than 3,000 U.S. companies [in 2013] that their computer systems had been hacked. The agents didn't just walk in, drop a letter, and leave. If a relationship did not exist previously, it will now be developed.Beyond third party breach notifications, agencies such as NIST, DHS, and others regularly share information with organizations. They may not share as much as we would like, but again, historical perspective reveals great progress.3. Books, articles, and social media share. The amount of readable material on security is astounding. Again, in the late 1980s and early 1990s hardly any books or articles were available. Now, thousands of resources exist, with new material from publishers like No Starch arriving monthly. Where are the books written by the underground?4. Security conferences share. You could spend every week of the year at a security conference. If you happen to miss a talk, it's likely the incomparable Iron Geek recorded it. Does the underground offer similar opportunities?5. Private groups and limited information exchange groups share. A final category of defender sharing takes place in more controlled settings. These involve well-established Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs), developing Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations (ISAOs), and private mailing lists and forums with limited membership. These could possibly be the closest analogue to the much-esteemed underground. Even if you disregard points 1-4 above, the quality of information shared in this final category a |
| Envoyé | Oui |
| Condensat | a federal 000 1980s 1990s 2003 2013 2016 35 years above absolutely addressed admiration adversaries again agencies agents all americans amount amounts analogue analysis answer any anything are argue arriving articles ask astounding attention available back bad banks been bejtlich better beyond blog blogspot books both breach brings but can category centers claim closest com commercial companies compete computer conference conferences consulting continue controlled cop copyright could crime criminal cyber cybersecurity dane days deep defender defenders developed developing information dhs did didn disagree disregard does doesn dose drive drop early enormous equals established esteemed even every evidence exceeds excel excerpt: exchange exist existed eyes fbi fellow final find fired five following forums free from geek good government great greater groups grudging guys hack hacked had happen hardly has his historical however incomparable infinitely information insufficient investigated involve iron isacs isaos jaw just killer knowledge lament landscape late leave letter like likely limited lists lot magnitude mailing material may media membership methodologies might miss moment monthly more most much networkers new nist not nothing notifications notified now oerting offer open opportunities orders organization organizations organized other others papers party perspective phd place please pockets points possibly post practices previously private problem producing products profit progress provide providers publishers quality rant read readable recorded regularly relationship resources response reveals richard says security selling settings share shared sharing similar situation small social software: sold solution solutions some something sources spend square starch submitted such superb systems takes talk taosecurity than them then these they third thousands time together tools troels true tweet underground underworld visited volume walk wall wares watchful ways webinars week well what where white who why organized will without working works world would write writing written www year your †â€Âstatements “the “they are |
| Tags | |
| Stories | |
| Notes | |
| Move | 
|
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris aprés sa publication.
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris sur un précédent.