Infosec – Page 3 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Your security policy be like …

The theme of your security policy and how good it is (not), is of course a recurring one. The recurring one, annual cycle (Is that still frequent enough? Yes if it’s truly a policy like here) included, with an all else follows attached. But then, it’s only Bronze when only a top-10 bulleted list extracted from … ISO2700x, mostly. It’s Silver when actually compliant in all directions, which includes serious ‘local’ adaptations…
And it’s Gold, when over and above that, it looks like this.

Not even kiddin’, really. Since your information security policy, next to the other security policies …, covers all of information of any kind and medium processed anywhere in the business. Which means that the from-IT angle will very probably not suffice.
But which also means that it helps when it rocks, in ways that interests all of your audience which is all of your colleagues including all colleagues at outsourced, cloudsourced and what have you processes and lines of business. Transparency, right ..? Runs all the way down the food/supply chain.

Indeed, the maturity of a company may be gleaned from the maturity (rocks’iness) of the information security policy. Get that right, and all else need not follow since it has gone before.

And oh, did I mention that in the implementation, resilience should be built in and not only be through formal (for-) BCM practices ..? I’ll return to that tomorrow. Plus:

[Lightning (-) rocks (pavement), too; Ottawa]

Copying it bluntly, for you

Just like that, a full page of niceness and arguments to consider. Guess which one I’m switching to. So should you. Competition, leading to improvement.

Where art thou, APT ..?

In line with some previous posts, about e.g., the Maker Movement, I’d like to ask if anyone knows the whereabouts of all those pesky APTs that were around a couple of years ago. Oh, yes I do know they’re in your infra everywhere all the time, but qua publicity, qua countermeasures ..?
I would like to hope that in this case, more contrary to its nature you can’t get, it would indeed bebecause (sic) of having been dealt with sufficiently in the past. Or the whole APT thing turned out to be a [any country’s] TLA move – of a side with ample publicity-suppressive powers everywhere.
But that would be day-dreaming. So, I’d like to ask your insights…

And:

[[Fuzzyfied] Oh, just some storage room in my house. Or, somewhat more, at the Royal palace, Dam, Amsterdam]

Too late for GDPR compliance ..? Click here to pay up

It seems like everyone’s finally waking up to the fact that ‘GDPR D-day’ is less than 283 days ahead.
Yes I checked. And I didn’t discount for weekends – minus 80 days, more of less –, holidays – either the normal kind, at some three weeks in this period, or the sanctified ‘bank holidays’ for those that say they don’t believe in holidays, or say they do but still are too awkward sheep to actually go on normal holidays, maybe a week in total – and the year-end curfew on all IT changes because business is doing things they have done for years, decades, and still haven’t mastered apparently.
So, we’re more in the area of 100-150 business days left.

Before what …!?

GDPR has power of law per … 20 days after its publication in the EU Official Journal, on 4 May 2016 … !!!

It’s just that officially, it’s not enforceable.
And would one be able to challenge organisations already today, e.g., with the letters from hell just not from the duds?
[To the latter: The Dutch DPA was sanctioned in court four times recently for not having acted sufficiently in spirit and to the letter of their tasks. Suggest to estimate what percentage this constitutes to the actual number of cases they didn’t act sufficiently where legally, they were and are forced to; refusal to obey instructions…]

No really: ‘Civil’ law is other than administrative law, right? Enforcement is postponed, but is the requirement to comply as well ..?

Will ask legal advice. And:
[The Classics, may stay even when at an angle; NY-NY]

Forever young, immature infosec

Sometimes one feels like one’s in a partial Gourndhog Day or 2:22 …
When 7 december 2006, there was this meet about the maturity of infosec, as a field. Which was compared, by Yours Truly, to the then (and now!) equally immature IS audit world – which had a couple of decades more under its development belt but ~~was~~ is still quite immature still.

Then there’s the first paragraph of this. ’nuff said..?

And:
[This, still fresh which is a different thing …; Barça of course]

Diving under, almost, everything

Dindn’t we feel it coming, if not in the air tonight than at least, after we signalled that BIOSes had been targeted… that there’s always a layer deeper one has to be on guard for infosec leakage and backdoors… How did this ‘surface’? Bypassing all the O/S features …

Just putting in down here. E.g., which, how many, platforms would be vulnerable to this; how much and what sorts of traffic could you send around through this …? Would one be able, when in so deep, to pick up system/sysadmin/root rights/credentials when browsing around ..?

And here we (not) are, all fleeing to the End User Is Stupid mantra, away from our own failings in tech but hey, users are the weakest link so we shove tons of hard protocol i.e., stupidity, on them. And burying them in awareness smotherlectures, instead of creating real behavioural change.

Oh well. And:
[Buried under the tons of network traffic, there’s a pay(ing)load you see? Nyagra]

Sending the right message

This of course being the right message. If you can read it when I Send it you. And, for your viewing pleasure:

[Anonymous but blurry and far from privacy-complete, this physical cloud exchange…; NY Grand Central]

Goldielocks versus information security

If you expect some fable about budgets; not so much.
This post’s about the generation thing called the Goldielocks syndrome – every generation (aren’t they ever shorter, these days?) believing that they had it, and made the society they ‘created’ no less, better than any generation before and after them.
For many generations, tech is still something that ‘came in later’ [venturing that even the newest ones, will see major tech-driven societal / tools changes in their lives], and information security nitty-gritty stuff is a major part of what they experience of that technology.
And ‘we’ (all) have done a very poor job of making it easier, actually improving over what was, to take away rational arguments for the G syndrome. We rather have heaped tons of infosec micromanagement of the worst kind onto the mere use of the technology, not even mentioning the troubles in the content where automation turned into change and inefficiencies of the polished work that was, and all that to cope with issues not in the actual work but in the operation of that very technology and its (sometimes gross) imperfections that didn’t exist before.

So, we may have to re-strategise and re-implement about all that we have, qua technology and qua information security dyeing on top and after it.

There’s other reasons, too. And:
[When defences were, quite, a bit less buggy; Haut Koenigsbourg]

Weak Humans, the Top-10

Again, the reference in the title is useless but may attract more readers through Timeline/Prio Gaming(™ from now on) – and, this in return might have referred to the title but yet again, close but no cigar (again, less chances of a Cuban, anyway, for some by their own mistake).
What I meant was that humans are targeted by hackers since they’re so vulnerable read stupid may be true — relatively… actually meaning apparently Technology and [the empty shell phrase of; ed.] Process may be so perfected that hackers have nowhere else to turn to.

That, of course, is not true. Simply, false.

When looking at the disastrous error rates (bugs to be fixed, sometimes easily) in software, how would anyone be able to claim Technology is anywhere near kinda OK. And Process… Show me an office (however formal, or strikingly similar to a coffee shop of not the Amsterdam original kind, or any beach with WiFi [→ why aren’t we all there, yet …!? ed.]), and show me a ‘process’ there. Wrong. All you can show, is either concrete, chairs, etc. even if of the kanban billboard kind [how idiotically silly can one get ..?], or humans. I.e., Technology or People. Neither of which is Process. No, printer paper with some ink blots .. also not process (descriptions) but Tech..! Don’t believe the lies, people! Process doesn’t exist!
So, we have something half-crappy [surprise this blog editor still runs … ;-] and something non-existent, … and People. On what now would you want to build your security?

Ah, on the People that are the most flexible, attentive (to business objectives, not your overhead), and creative (well… but including the most meta<sup2 of abstract/meme evolution evah) that Nature has ever developed with her genetic algorithm play of Evolution.
Where did you leave your own mis- and totally-zero-understandings on Humans, to pursue Tech and “Process” (quod non) solutions to Human threats ..? Why weren’t human threats from the word Go protected against by the best that human defences could muster to protect human vulnerabilities ..? Not only qua passwords, with a method aligning with cardinal sin number …. [should re-read the Bible for that; ed.] being the quest for ever more money i.e. including the protection of what you have (see the link). But qua overall about-all controls you’d need. If done right, I bet a lot of tech controls would dwindle in significance (and possibly be executed much worse than today; zero gain).

Now I start to ramble. But you get the point, and you get:
[From here, the Strong came in. NY]

Yup, called, confirmed

Always pleasant, to read one’s (almost…) correct, on off-off-Broadway analysis and postpredictions. Like this one, corroberated here, in a way.
Yes, I kno. I almost got that correct. Enough to confirm the line of reasoning, if you read it / both correctly, they turn out correct. I’ll stop now. And:

[Check, for Dutch ad viewers; Valencia]