Connect with us

Security

Australia’s cybersecurity chief Alastair MacGibbon resigns

Published

on

Alastair MacGibbon, the head of the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC), has tendered his resignation and will return to the private sector.

MacGibbon led the ACSC since January 2018, when it first became part of the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD).

He also held the title of National Cyber Security Adviser at the Department of Home Affairs (DHA), where he was charged with the implementation of government’s Cyber Security Strategy.

ASD director-general Mike Burgess said in a statement on Saturday that he regretted the announcement of MacGibbon’s resignation, saying that MacGibbon “leaves a considerable legacy”.

“Alastair has been a fierce advocate for the importance of cyber security for the community, businesses and governments. He is indeed the face of cyber security in Australia and, through his leadership, helped raise the nation’s cyber security standards,” Burgess said.

During his time at the ACSC, MacGibbon oversaw the transition of other parts of government into the newly-independent ASD as it became a statutory authority.

He also oversaw the completion of the network of Joint Cyber Security Centres (JCSC) for coordination with the private sector, a reshaping of the government’s Information Security Manual (ISM), and a tightening of access controls for government systems as part of a new Essential Eight Maturity Model.

Prior to his ACSC role, MacGibbon was then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s Special Adviser on Cyber Security, during which he led an investigation into the debacle that was the the 2016 Census.

And prior to that, from April 2015, MacGibbon was Australia’s first eSafety Commission. In that role, his office achieved a remarkable amount of work in its first 12 months.

The perfect time to leave

“Alastair believes the end of the electoral cycle is an appropriate time for renewal,” Burgess said of MacGibbon’s departure from the ACSC.

The timing makes sense, and not just because MacGibbon’s work at the agency had reached a natural inflection point.

It’s also just days until Australia’s federal election on May 18, an election that the Labor opposition is widely expected to win. At least at this stage.

For at least a year now, the consensus of the Canberra rumour mill has been that a Labor government would dismantle DHA. Word is that some public servants who were transferred into the new mega-department hadn’t bothered printing new business cards because they expected their previous places in the bureaucracy would soon return.

The expectation is not unreasonable. The creation of DHA was as much a political act as it was organisational development.

It was driven in part by power struggles within the Coalition government — particularly the need for then-Prime Minister Turnbull to slap down Australia’s then-favourite attorney-general, Senator George Brandis QC, in order to placate then-Immigration and Border Protection Minister Peter Dutton.

Your writer also understands that DHA isn’t a happy ship at the moment.

There’s dissatisfaction with the apparent lack of efficiency in certain areas, including the cybers. MacGibbon’s twin hat roles, reporting to both DHA for policy matters and ASD for operational concerns, could not have been easy.

MacGibbon has spent the past 17 months getting that curious structure to work. I can’t imagine he would have been thrilled about the prospect of having to take it apart again.

He was also a Coalition choice, having originally been chosen for the special adviser role personally by Turnbull. That presumably put some noses out of joint at the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), where some senior staff might have been eyeing the job for themselves.

The partisan politicisation of the public service is a disappointing reality. Axing the department or axing the person might well appeal to a new government wanting to make its mark.

Should the Coalition manage to win the election and remain in power, however, it’s likely there would be a new minister for Home Affairs. Peter Dutton holds his seat by a narrow margin, and is likely to exit Parliament even if his side wins.

Ministerial attention to cybersecurity has already gone missing under Prime Minister Scott Morrison. What would the future hold?

All this is speculation, however.

MacGibbon’s final day with ASD will be May 28. Until the role is permanently filled, the ACSC will be led by Lieutenant General John Frewen, the ASD’s Principal Deputy Director-General.

Alastair MacGibbon has been contacted for comment.

Related Coverage

Morrison pledges AU$156m to build cyber workforce and fight cybercrime if re-elected

The multi-million dollar investment will be used to thwart ‘organised cybercrime gangs’, build a cyber workforce, and help small businesses stay protected.

ASIO eyes Microsoft Azure for phase one of tech transformation

Six packages are up for grabs under the spy agency’s systems integration tender, with protected, secret, and top secret information to be hosted solely on Azure.

Australian Budget 2019: Census 2021 gets AU$38m to ‘address issues from 2016’

Almost AU$40 million in additional funding will be provided to the ABS that aims to prevent incidents like the 2016 Census debacle from reoccurring in 2021, while the government will continue to digitise its services.

Australia should name parliament cyber attackers

In the case of such a blatant attack on Australia’s institutions of government, we should stand ready to point the finger and impose some real costs on the adversary.

ACSC dumps annual conference, partners with AISA for cyber events

Australia’s cybersecurity agency joins the nation’s peak body for cyber professionals to deliver development programs through the government’s Joint Cyber Security Centres.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Security

Defeating Distributed Denial of Service Attacks

Published

on

It seems like every day the news brings new stories of cyberattacks. Whether ransomware, malware, crippling viruses, or more frequently of late—distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. According to Infosec magazine, in the first half of 2020, there was a 151% increase in the number of DDoS attacks compared to the same period the previous year. That same report states experts predict as many as 15.4 million DDoS attacks within the next two years.

These attacks can be difficult to detect until it’s too late, and then they can be challenging to defend against. There are solutions available, but there is no one magic bullet. As Alastair Cooke points out in his recent “GigaOm Radar for DDoS Protection” report, there are different categories of DDoS attacks.

And different types of attacks require different types of defenses. You’ll want to adopt each of these three defense strategies against DDoS attacks to a certain degree, as attackers are never going to limit themselves to a single attack vector:

Network Defense: Attacks targeting the OS and network operate at either Layer 3 or Layer 4 of the OSI stack. These attacks don’t flood the servers with application requests but attempt to exhaust TCP/IP resources on the supporting infrastructure. DDoS protection solutions defending against network attacks identify the attack behavior and absorb it into the platform.

Application Defense: Other DDoS attacks target the actual website itself or the web server application by overwhelming the site with random data and wasting resources. DDoS protection against these attacks might handle SSL decryption with hardware-based cryptography and prevent invalid data from reaching web servers.

Defense by Scale: There have been massive DDoS attacks, and they show no signs of stopping. The key to successfully defending against a DDoS attack is to have a scalable platform capable of deflecting an attack led by a million bots with hundreds of gigabits per second of network throughput.

Table 1. Impact of Features on Metrics
[chart id=”1001387″ show=”table”]

DDoS attacks are growing more frequent and more powerful and sophisticated. Amazon reports mitigating a massive DDoS attack a couple of years ago in which peak traffic volume reached 2.3 Tbps. Deploying DDoS protection across the spectrum of attack vectors is no longer a “nice to have,” but a necessity.

In his report, Cooke concludes that “Any DDoS protection product is only part of an overall strategy, not a silver bullet for denial-of-service hazards.” Evaluate your organization and your needs, read more about each solution evaluated in the Radar report, and carefully match the right DDoS solutions to best suit your needs.

Learn More About the Reports: Gigaom Key Criteria for DDoS, and Gigaom Radar for DDoS

The post Defeating Distributed Denial of Service Attacks appeared first on GigaOm.

Continue Reading

Security

Assessing Providers of Low-Power Wide Area Networks

Published

on

/*! elementor – v3.6.4 – 13-04-2022 */
.elementor-widget-text-editor.elementor-drop-cap-view-stacked .elementor-drop-cap{background-color:#818a91;color:#fff}.elementor-widget-text-editor.elementor-drop-cap-view-framed .elementor-drop-cap{color:#818a91;border:3px solid;background-color:transparent}.elementor-widget-text-editor:not(.elementor-drop-cap-view-default) .elementor-drop-cap{margin-top:8px}.elementor-widget-text-editor:not(.elementor-drop-cap-view-default) .elementor-drop-cap-letter{width:1em;height:1em}.elementor-widget-text-editor .elementor-drop-cap{float:left;text-align:center;line-height:1;font-size:50px}.elementor-widget-text-editor .elementor-drop-cap-letter{display:inline-block}

Blog Title: Assessing Providers of Low-Power Wide Area Network Technology

Companies are taking note of how Low-Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) can provide long-distance communications for certain use cases. While its slow data transfer rates and high latency aren’t going to be driving any high intensity video streaming or other bandwidth-hungry situations, it can provide inexpensive, low power, long-distance communication.

According to Chris Grundemann and Logan Andrew Green’s recent report “GigaOm Radar for LPWAN Technology Providers (Unlicensed Spectrum) v1.0,” this growing communications technology is suitable for use cases with the following characteristics:

  • Requirement for long-distance transmission—10 km/6 miles or more wireless connectivity from sensor to gateway
  • Low power consumption, with battery life lasting up to 10 years
  • Terrain and building penetration to circumvent line-of-sight issues
  • Low operational costs (device management or connection subscription cost)
  • Low data transfer rate of roughly 20kbps

These use cases could include large-scale IoT deployments within heavy industry, manufacturing, government, and retail. The LPWAN technology providers evaluated in this Radar report are currently filling a gap in the IoT market. They are certainly poised to benefit from the anticipated rapid adoption of LPWAN solutions.

Depending on the use case you’re looking to fulfill, you can select from four basic deployment models from these LPWAN providers:

  • Physical Appliance: This option would require a network server on-premises to receive sensor data from gateways.
  • Virtual Appliance: Network servers could also be deployed as virtual appliances, running either on-premises or in the cloud.
  • Network Stack as a Service: With this option, the LPWAN provider fully manages your network stack and provides you with the service. You only need devices and gateways to satisfy your requirements.
  • Network as a Service: This option is provided by mobile network operators, with the provider operating the network stack and gateways. You would only need to connect to the LPWAN provider.

Figure 1. LPWAN Connectivity

The LPWAN providers evaluated in this report are well-positioned from both a business and technical perspective, as they can function as a single point of contact for building IoT solutions. Instead of cobbling together other solutions to satisfy connectivity protocols, these providers can set up your organization with a packaged IoT solution, reducing time to market and virtually eliminating any compatibility issues.

The unlicensed spectrum aspect is also significant. The LPWAN technology providers evaluated in this Radar report use at least one protocol in the unlicensed electromagnetic spectrum bands. There’s no need to buy FCC licenses for specific frequency bands, which also lowers costs.

Learn More: Gigaom Enterprise Radar for LPWAN

The post Assessing Providers of Low-Power Wide Area Networks appeared first on GigaOm.

Continue Reading

Security

The Benefits of a Price Benchmark for Data Storage

Published

on

Why Price Benchmark Data Storage?

Customers, understandably, are highly driven by budget when it comes to data storage solutions. The cost of switching, upkeep and upgrades are high risk factors for businesses, and therefore, decision makers need to look for longevity in their chosen solution. Many factors influence how data needs to be handled within storage, including data that is frequently accessed, or storing rarely-accessed legacy data. 

Storage performance may also be shaped by geographic location, from remote work or global enterprises that need to access and share data instantly, or by the necessity of automation. Each element presents a new price-point that needs to be considered, by customers and by vendors.

A benchmark gives a comparison of system performance based on a key performance indicator, such as latency, capacity, or throughput. Competitor systems are analyzed in like-for-like situations that optimize the solution, allowing a clear representation of the performance. Price benchmarks for data storage are ideal for marketing, showing customers exactly how much value for money a solution has against competitor vendors.

Benchmark tests reinforce marketing collateral and tenders with verifiable evidence of performance capabilities and how the transactional costs relate to them. Customers are more likely to invest in long-term solutions with demonstrable evidence that can be corroborated. Fully disclosed testing environments, processes, and results, give customers the proof they need and help vendors stand out from the crowd.

The Difficulty in Choosing

Storage solutions vary greatly, from cloud options to those that utilize on-premises software. Data warehouses have different focuses which impact the overall performance, and they can vary in their pricing and licensing models. Customers find it difficult to compare vendors when the basic data storage configurations differ and price plans vary. With so many storage structures available, it’s hard to explain to customers how output relates to price, appeal to their budget, and maintain integrity, all at the same time.

Switching storage solutions is also a costly, high-risk decision that requires careful consideration. Vendors need to create compelling and honest arguments that provide reassurance of ROI and high quality performance.

Vendors should begin by pitching their costs at the right level; they need to be profitable but also appealing to the customer. Benchmarking can give an indication of how competitor cost models are calculated, allowing vendors to make judgements on their own price plans to keep ahead of the competition. 

Outshining the Competition

Benchmark testing gives an authentic overview of storage transaction-based price-performance, carrying out the test in environments that imitate real-life. Customers can gain a higher understanding of how the product works in terms of transactions per second, and how competitors process storage data in comparison.

The industry-standard for benchmarking is the TPC Benchmark E (TPC-E), a recognized standard for storage vendors. Tests need to be performed in credible environments; by giving full transparency on their construction, vendors and customers can understand how the results are derived. This can also prove systems have been configured to offer the best performance of each platform.

A step-by-step account allows tests to be recreated by external parties given the information provided. This transparency in reporting provides more trustworthy and reliable outcomes that offer a higher level of insight to vendors. Readers can also examine the testing and results themselves, to draw independent conclusions.

Next Steps

Price is the driving factor for business decisions and the selection for data storage is no different. Businesses often look towards low-cost solutions that offer high capacity, and current trends have pushed customers towards cloud solutions which are often cheaper and flexible. The marketplace is full in regard to options: new start-ups are continually emerging, and long serving vendors are needing to reinvent and upgrade their systems to keep pace. 

Vendors need evidence of price-performance, so customers can be reassured that their choice will offer longevity and functionality at an affordable price point. Industry-standard benchmarking identifies how performance is impacted by price and which vendors are best in the market – the confirmation customers need to invest.

 

The post The Benefits of a Price Benchmark for Data Storage appeared first on GigaOm.

Continue Reading

Trending