Connect with us

Security

Click Here to Kill Everybody, book review: Meeting the IoT security challenge

Published

on

Click Here to Kill Everybody: Security and Survival in a Hyper-Connected World • By Bruce Schneier • Norton • 319 pages • ISBN: 978-0-393-60888-5 • £19.99 / $27.95

Sometimes the human race just isn’t that smart. The Internet of Things is a case in point: today’s internet is a mess of security vulnerabilities and coding errors. As the size of data breaches and cost of cyber attacks escalates week by week, now we want to exponentially increase the complexity, attack surface and dangers by wirelessing up billions of ultra-cheap devices, any one of which might bring the whole thing down. In the words of the great Jewish prophets: Oy.

Surveying the shape of this monster takes up the first third of Bruce Schneier’s latest book, Click Here to Kill Everybody: Security and Survival in a Hyper-Connected World. Anyone who follows security can probably skip most of it, as it’s largely familiar material. Schneier outlines three primary use cases: a cyber attack against a power grid; murder by remote hacking of a connected car; and the “click here to kill everybody” of the title, in which a hacked bioprinter goes into overdrive replicating a lethal virus. That background over, Schneier tries to come up with solutions to this unwelcome security nightmare that’s rushing towards us.

Most of Schneier’s recommendations are about policy and regulation rather than technology. To create ‘Internet+’ (that is, internet plus security), he suggests developing standards (both principles and rules), promoting public education, correcting information asymmetries, closing the skills gap, and funding research, maintenance and upkeep.

More difficult is his recommendation to correct misaligned incentives, which means introducing product liability into the software industry. In this suggestion Schneier is not alone; Cambridge University professor Ross Anderson and Gresham College professor Martyn Thomas, among many others, have advocated liability for years. The industry’s fierce resistance may have been acceptable when the stakes were purely financial, but when we’re talking cars, power grids and medical equipment, human lives are at stake. Schneier also suggests granting customers the right to sue IT vendors when things go badly wrong.

Regulation and co-operation

Schneier also suggests a new regulatory agency for cyber security, given that the effectiveness of agencies such as the current Federal Communications Commission waxes and wanes as their governments’ administrations change policy. This is hard to assess, but Schneier is certainly right to say that governments have a crucial regulatory role to play in forcing industry to adopt better security practices. His argument that governments should “demilitarise” the internet by shifting from focusing on offence to promoting defence and strengthening the resilience of every part of the infrastructure is also sound. He also argues for international cooperation, since no single country can hope to change a global, cooperative infrastructure. In return, he says, we will have to trade away some ability to innovate. The passenger getting into a self-driving car will almost certainly feel it’s a good trade.

By now you’re probably thinking: yeah, right, you and whose army is going to make this happen? Schneier is right there with you. Admitting that many of his recommendations have been in the public sphere for more than a decade with little progress, he concludes by assessing the state of the art of the possible. The US is unlikely to do anything helpful for the moment, but: “When the internet starts killing people it will be regulated.” The EU’s GDPR is a genuine help. We — consumers and organisations — can play our own part by making more careful purchasing choices. Ultimately, however, we are left to make the most difficult decision on our own: who can we trust?

RECENT AND RELATED CONTENT

Researchers find Stuxnet, Mirai, WannaCry lurking in industrial USB drives
The malware strains have all been found in industrial settings due to removal media.

This is how hackers can take down our critical energy systems through the Internet
Human Interface Systems lacking any kind of security have the potential to cause serious damage to critical services worldwide.

China has been ‘hijacking the vital internet backbone of western countries’
Chinese government turned to local ISP for intelligence gathering after it signed the Obama-Xi cyber pact in late 2015, researchers say.

This botnet snares your smart devices to perform DDoS attacks with a little help from Mirai
Chalubo is a new botnet which is being used in attacks against servers and IoT devices.

FireEye links Russian research lab to Triton ICS malware attacks
FireEye: Clues link Russia’s Central Scientific Research Institute of Chemistry and Mechanics research lab to Triton-related activity.

Read more book reviews

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Security

GigaOm Radar for Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR)

Published

on

Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR) emerged as a product category in the mid-2010s. At that point, SOAR solutions were very much an automation and orchestration engine based on playbooks and integrations. Since then, the platforms have developed beyond the initial core SOAR capabilities to offer more holistic experiences to security analysts, with the aim of developing SOAR as the main workspace for practitioners.

Newer features offered by this holistic experience include case management, collaboration, simulations, threat enrichment, and visual correlations. Additionally, SOAR vendors have gradually implemented artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies to enable their platforms to learn from past events and fine-tune existing processes. This is where evolving threat categorization and autonomous improvement become differentiators in the space. While these two metrics are not critical for a SOAR platform, they may offer advantages in terms of reduced mean time to resolution (MTTR), resilience against employee turnover, and overall flexibility.

We’ve observed a lot of acquisition activity in the SOAR space. This was to be expected considering that, after 2015, a sizable number of pure-play SOAR vendors entered the market. Larger players with a wider security portfolio are acquiring these SOAR-specific vendors in order to enter the automation and orchestration market. We expect to see more SOAR acquisitions as the security tools converge, very likely into next-generation Security Information & Event Management products and services (SIEMs).

SIEM is a great candidate for a central management platform for security activities. It was designed to be a single source of truth, an aggregator of multiple security logs, but has been limited historically in its ability to carry out actions. In the past few years, however, SIEMs have either started developing their own automation and orchestration engines or integrated with third-party SOAR vendors. Through a number of acquisitions and developments, multiple players with wider security portfolios have begun to offer SOAR capabilities natively as part of other security solutions.

Going forward, we expect SOAR solutions to be further integrated into other products. This will include not only SIEM, but also solutions such as Extended Detection and Response (XDR) and IT automation. The number of pure-play SOAR vendors is unlikely to increase, although a handful may remain as fully agnostic solutions that enterprises can leverage in instances when their existing next-generation SIEM platforms do not meet all their use cases. However, for pure-play SOAR vendors to remain competitive, they will need to either expand into other security areas or consistently outperform their integrated counterparts.

How to Read this Report

This GigaOm report is one of a series of documents that helps IT organizations assess competing solutions in the context of well-defined features and criteria. For a fuller understanding consider reviewing the following reports:

Key Criteria report: A detailed market sector analysis that assesses the impact that key product features and criteria have on top-line solution characteristics—such as scalability, performance, and TCO—that drive purchase decisions.

GigaOm Radar report: A forward-looking analysis that plots the relative value and progression of vendor solutions along multiple axes based on strategy and execution. The Radar report includes a breakdown of each vendor’s offering in the sector.

Solution Profile: An in-depth vendor analysis that builds on the framework developed in the Key Criteria and Radar reports to assess a company’s engagement within a technology sector. This analysis includes forward-looking guidance around both strategy and product.

The post GigaOm Radar for Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR) appeared first on Gigaom.

Continue Reading

Security

GigaOm Radar for Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS)

Published

on

Very few organizations see disaster recovery (DR) for their IT systems as a business differentiator, so they often prefer to outsource the process and consume it as a service (DRaaS) that’s billed monthly. There are many DRaaS providers with varying backgrounds, whose services are often shaped by that background. Products that started as customer-managed DR applications tend to have the most mature orchestration and automation, but vendors may face challenges transforming their application into a consumable service. Backup as a Service (BaaS) providers typically have great consumption models and off-site data protection, but they might be lacking in rich orchestration for failover. Other DRaaS providers come from IaaS backgrounds, with well-developed, on-demand resource deployment for recovery and often a broader platform with automation capabilities.

Before you invest in a DRaaS solution, you should attempt to be clear on what you see as its value. If your motivation is simply not to operate a recovery site, you probably want a service that uses technology similar to what you’re using at the protected site. If the objective is to spend less effort on DR protection, you will be less concerned about similarity and more with simplicity. And if you want to enable regular and granular testing of application recovery with on-demand resources, advanced failover automation and sandboxing will be vital features.

Be clear as well on the scale of disaster you are protecting against. On-premises recovery will protect against shared component failure in your data center. A DRaaS location in the same city will allow a lower RPO and provide lower latency after failover, but might be affected by the same disaster as your on-premises data center. A more distant DR location would be immune to your local disaster, but what about the rest of your business? It doesn’t help to have operational IT in another city if your only factory is under six feet of water.

DR services are designed to protect enterprise application architectures that are centered on VMs with persistent data and configuration. A lift-and-shift cloud adoption strategy leads to enterprise applications in the cloud, requiring cloud-to-cloud DR that is very similar to DRaaS from on-premises. Keep in mind, however, that cloud-native applications have different DR requirements.

How to Read this Report

This GigaOm report is one of a series of documents that helps IT organizations assess competing solutions in the context of well-defined features and criteria. For a fuller understanding consider reviewing the following reports:

Key Criteria report: A detailed market sector analysis that assesses the impact that key product features and criteria have on top-line solution characteristics—such as scalability, performance, and TCO—that drive purchase decisions.

GigaOm Radar report: A forward-looking analysis that plots the relative value and progression of vendor solutions along multiple axes based on strategy and execution. The Radar report includes a breakdown of each vendor’s offering in the sector.

Solution Profile: An in-depth vendor analysis that builds on the framework developed in the Key Criteria and Radar reports to assess a company’s engagement within a technology sector. This analysis includes forward-looking guidance around both strategy and product.

The post GigaOm Radar for Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS) appeared first on Gigaom.

Continue Reading

Security

GigaOm Radar for DDoS Protection

Published

on

With ransomware getting all the news coverage when it comes to internet threats, it is easy to lose sight of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks even as these attacks become more frequent and aggressive. In fact, the two threats have recently been combined in a DDoS ransom attack, in which a company is hit with a DDoS and then a ransom demanded in exchange for not launching a larger DDoS. Clearly, a solid mechanism for thwarting such attacks is needed, and that is exactly what a good DDoS protection product will include. This will allow users, both staff and customers, to access their applications with no indication that a DDoS attack is underway. To achieve this, the DDoS protection product needs to know about your applications and, most importantly, have the capability to absorb the massive bandwidth generated by botnet attacks.

All the DDoS protection vendors we evaluated have a cloud-service element in their products. The scale-out nature of cloud platforms is the right response to the scale-out nature of DDoS attacks using botnets, thousands of compromised computers, and/or embedded devices. A DDoS protection network that is larger, faster, and more distributed will defend better against larger DDoS attacks.

Two public cloud platforms we review have their own DDoS protection, both providing it for applications running on their public cloud and offering only cloud-based protection. We also look at two content delivery networks (CDNs) that offer only cloud-based protection but also have a large network of locations for distributed protection. Many of the other vendors offer both on-premises and cloud-based services that are integrated to provide unified protection against the various attack vectors that target the network and application layers.

Some of the vendors have been protecting applications since the early days of the commercial internet. These vendors tend to have products with strong on-premises protection and integration with a web application firewall or application delivery capabilities. These companies may not have developed their cloud-based protections as fully as the born-in-the-cloud DDoS vendors.

In the end, you need a DDoS protection platform equal to the DDoS threat that faces your business, keeping in mind that such threats are on the rise.

How to Read this Report

This GigaOm report is one of a series of documents that helps IT organizations assess competing solutions in the context of well-defined features and criteria. For a fuller understanding consider reviewing the following reports:

Key Criteria report: A detailed market sector analysis that assesses the impact that key product features and criteria have on top-line solution characteristics—such as scalability, performance, and TCO—that drive purchase decisions.

GigaOm Radar report: A forward-looking analysis that plots the relative value and progression of vendor solutions along multiple axes based on strategy and execution. The Radar report includes a breakdown of each vendor’s offering in the sector.

Solution Profile: An in-depth vendor analysis that builds on the framework developed in the Key Criteria and Radar reports to assess a company’s engagement within a technology sector. This analysis includes forward-looking guidance around both strategy and product.

Continue Reading

Trending