This CNET report tells us what we’ve probably known for a few years now: in the hacker/securist cyberwar, the hackers are winning. Or at the very least, making it pretty apparent that the cybersecurity companies aren’t making much headway.
Notable quotes from the article:
Art Coviello, executive chairman of RSA, at least had the presence of mind to be humble, acknowledging in his keynote that current "security models" are inadequate. Yet he couldn't help but lapse into rah-rah boosterism by the end of his speech. "Never have so many companies been under attack, including RSA," he said. "Together we can learn from these experiences and emerge from this hell, smarter and stronger than we were before."
Really? History would suggest otherwise. Instead of finally locking down our data and fencing out the shadowy forces who want to steal our identities, the security industry is almost certain to present us with more warnings of newer and scarier threats and bigger, more dangerous break-ins and data compromises and new products that are quickly outdated. Lather, rinse, repeat.
The industry's sluggishness is enough to breed pervasive cynicism in some quarters. Critics like [Josh Corman, director of security intelligence at Akamai] are quick to note that if security vendors really could do what they promise, they'd simply put themselves out of business. "The security industry is not about securing you; it's about making money," Corman says. "Minimum investment to get maximum revenue."
Getting companies to devote time and money to adequately address their security issues is particularly difficult because they often don't think there's a problem until they've been compromised. And for some, too much knowledge can be a bad thing. "Part of the problem might be plausible deniability, that if the company finds something, there will be an SEC filing requirement," Landesman said.
The most important quote in the whole piece?
Of course, it would help if software in general was less buggy. Some security experts are pushing for a more proactive approach to security much like preventative medicine can help keep you healthy. The more secure the software code, the fewer bugs and the less chance of attackers getting in.
"Most of RSA, especially on the trade show floor, is reactive security and the idea behind that is protect broken stuff from the bad people," said Gary McGraw, chief technology officer at Cigital. "But that hasn't been working very well. It's like a hamster wheel."
(Fair disclosure in the interests of journalistic integrity: Gary is something of a friend; we’ve exchanged emails, met at SDWest many years ago, and Gary tried to recruit me to write a book in his Software Security book series with Addison-Wesley. His voice is one of the few that I trust implicitly when it comes to software security.)
Next time the company director, CEO/CTO or VP wants you to choose “faster” and “cheaper” and leave out “better” in the “better, faster, cheaper” triad, point out to them that “worse” (the opposite of “better”) often translates into “insecure”, and that in turn puts the company in a hugely vulnerable spot. Remember, even if the application under question, or its data, aren’t obvious targets for hackers, you’re still a target—getting access to the server can act as a springboard to attack other servers, and/or use the data stored in your database as a springboard to attack other servers. Remember, it’s very common for users to reuse passwords across systems—obtaining the passwords to your app can in turn lead to easy access to the more sensitive data.
And folks, let’s not kid ourselves. That quote back there about “SEC filing requirement”s? If CEOs and CTOs are required to file with the SEC, it’s only a matter of time before one of them gets the bright idea to point the finger at the people who built the system as the culprits. (Don’t think it’s possible? All it takes is one case, one jury, in one highly business-friendly judicial arena, and suddenly precedent is set and it becomes vastly easier to pursue all over the country.)
Anybody interested in creating an anonymous cybersecurity whisteblowing service?