Connect with us


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



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?


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 *


Cloud Data Security



Data security has become an immutable part of the technology stack for modern applications. Protecting application assets and data against cybercriminal activities, insider threats, and basic human negligence is no longer an afterthought. It must be addressed early and often, both in the application development cycle and the data analytics stack.

The requirements have grown well beyond the simplistic features provided by data platforms, and as a result a competitive industry has emerged to address the security layer. The capabilities of this layer must be more than thorough, they must also be usable and streamlined, adding a minimum of overhead to existing processes.

To measure the policy management burden, we designed a reproducible test that included a standardized, publicly available dataset and a number of access control policy management scenarios based on real world use cases we have observed for cloud data workloads. We tested two options: Apache Ranger with Apache Atlas and Immuta. This study contrasts the differences between a largely role-based access control model with object tagging (OT-RBAC) to a pure attribute-based access control (ABAC) model using these respective technologies.

This study captures the time and effort involved in managing the ever-evolving access control policies at a modern data-driven enterprise. With this study, we show the impacts of data access control policy management in terms of:

  • Dynamic versus static
  • Scalability
  • Evolvability

In our scenarios, Ranger alone took 76x more policy changes than Immuta to accomplish the same data security objectives, while Ranger with Apache Atlas took 63x more policy changes. For our advanced use cases, Immuta only required one policy change each, while Ranger was not able to fulfill the data security requirement at all.

This study exposed the limitations of extending legacy Hadoop security components into cloud use cases. Apache Ranger uses static policies in an OT-RBAC model for the Hadoop ecosystem with very limited support for attributes. The difference between it and Immuta’s attribute-based access control model (ABAC) became clear. By leveraging dynamic variables, nested attributes, and global row-level policies and row-level security, Immuta can be quickly implemented and updated in comparison with Ranger.

Using Ranger as a data security mechanism creates a high policy-management burden compared to Immuta, as organizations migrate and expand cloud data use—which is shown here to provide scalability, clarity, and evolvability in a complex enterprise’s data security and governance needs.

The chart in Figure 1 reveals the difference in cumulative policy changes required for each platform configuration.

Figure 1. Difference in Cumulative Policy Changes

The assessment and scoring rubric and methodology is detailed in the report. We leave the issue of fairness for the reader to determine. We strongly encourage you, as the reader, to discern for yourself what is of value. We hope this report is informative and helpful in uncovering some of the challenges and nuances of data governance platform selection. You are encouraged to compile your own representative use cases and workflows and review these platforms in a way that is applicable to your requirements.

Continue Reading


GigaOm Radar for Data Loss Prevention



Data is at the core of modern business: It is our intellectual property, the lifeblood of our interactions with our employees, partners, and customers, and a true business asset. But in a world of increasingly distributed workforces, a growing threat from cybercriminals and bad actors, and ever more stringent regulation, our data is at risk and the impact of losing it, or losing access to it, can be catastrophic.

With this in mind, ensuring a strong data management and security strategy must be high on the agenda of any modern enterprise. Security of our data has to be a primary concern. Ensuring we know how, why, and where our data is used is crucial, as is the need to be sure that data does not leave the organization without appropriate checks and balances.

Keeping ahead of this challenge and mitigating the risk requires a multi-faceted approach. People and processes are key, as, of course, is technology in any data loss prevention (DLP) strategy.

This has led to a reevaluation of both technology and approach to DLP; a recognition that we must evolve an approach that is holistic, intelligent, and able to apply context to our data usage. DLP must form part of a broader risk management strategy.

Within this report, we evaluate the leading vendors who are offering solutions that can form part of your DLP strategy—tools that understand data as well as evaluate insider risk to help mitigate the threat of data loss. This report aims to give enterprise decision-makers an overview of how these offerings can be a part of a wider data security approach.

Continue Reading


Key Criteria for Evaluating Data Loss Prevention Platforms



Data is a crucial asset for modern businesses and has to be protected in the same way as any other corporate asset, with diligence and care. Loss of data can have catastrophic effects, from reputational damage to significant fines for breaking increasingly stringent regulations.

While the risk of data loss is not new, the landscape we operate in is evolving rapidly. Data can leave data centers in many ways, whether accidental or malicious. The routes for exfiltration also continue to grow, ranging from email, USB sticks, and laptops to ever-more-widely-adopted cloud applications, collaboration tools, and mobile devices. This is driving a resurgence in the enterprise’s need to ensure that no data leaves the organization without appropriate checks and balances in place.

Keeping ahead of this challenge and mitigating the risk requires a multi-faceted approach. Policy, people, and technology are critical components in a data loss prevention (DLP) strategy.

As with any information security strategy, technology plays a significant role. DLP technology has traditionally played a part in helping organizations to mitigate some of the risks of uncontrolled data exfiltration. However, both the technology and threat landscape have shifted significantly, which has led to a reevaluation of DLP tools and strategy.

The modern approach to the challenge needs to be holistic and intelligent, capable of applying context to data usage by building a broader understanding of what the data is, who is using it, and why. Systems in place must also be able to learn when user activity should be classified as unusual so they can better interpret signs of a potential breach.

This advanced approach is also driving new ways of defining the discipline of data loss prevention. Dealing with these risks cannot be viewed in isolation; rather, it must be part of a wider insider risk-management strategy.

Stopping the loss of data, accidental or otherwise, is no small task. This GigaOM Key Criteria Report details DLP solutions and identifies key criteria and evaluation metrics for selecting such a solution. The corresponding GigOm Radar Report identifies vendors and products in this sector that excel. Together, these reports will give decision-makers an overview of the market to help them evaluate existing platforms and decide where to invest.

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