Skip to content

CyberSecurity Institute

Security News Curated from across the world

Menu
Menu

Month: July 2004

Cost dictates security plans

Posted on July 12, 2004December 30, 2021 by admini

Some 91 per cent of North American and 88 per cent of European businesses use basic passwords to protect their data.

Only 45 per cent of North American businesses and 32 per cent in Europe use multiple log-ons or passwords with tiered or graded authentication.

Just 19 per cent of North American businesses use one-time passwords or access tokens, compared with five per cent of Europeans, six per cent of Asia-Pacific businesses and seven per cent of South Americans.

Meta Group analyst Tom Scholtz pointed out that businesses often have good intentions when it comes to improving security, but cost inevitably becomes a problem. “When it comes to things such as passwords, the whole issue is around strong authentication. You should have things like tokens and smartcards, but the issue always comes down to cost versus benefit,” he said.

“Many organisations have been investing in strong authentication but, when they’ve done the initial pilots and calculated the costs, not just for software and hardware but for management, they realise that the cost per user is usually high, and the business maybe doesn’t want to pay for it.”

Beatrice Rogers, e-business manager at industry trade body Intellect, accepts that cost is a major factor in the adherence to security best practice. “During the downturn there was a cutback in IT spending and people were looking for direct return on investment for their bottom line,” she explained. “It is very difficult to make a proposition on internal investment, especially for IT directors not reporting directly to the board, until there has been a problem and it’s too late. What will make an impact is the spate of regulations that are coming out around corporate governance – Basel, Basel II, Sarbanes-Oxley, FSA regulations that create the need for more data security – and that will probably push up IT spend over all.”

Peter Sommer, security expert at the London School of Economics, maintains that laziness is to blame. “The trouble is that we have 10 years of literature about this sort of thing, from the unreadably academic to the downright popular, and it’s astonishing that people are still being very lazy about it. The only thing that works is a well publicised disaster,” he said.

Biometrics, touted for the past seven years or so as the next great security solution, is still very much in its infancy, according to the survey.

Just two per cent of European respondents use biometric-based security, compared with five per cent of North Americans, four per cent of South American businesses and eight per cent of those in the Asia-Pacific region. According to Scholtz, these companies are going to stay in the minority for some time to come.

When it comes to security spending, the survey found that European companies allocate 11 per cent of their budgets to security, compared with 12 per cent in North America, 16 per cent in South America and 17 per cent in Asia-Pacific.

In the UK, the mean figure came out at just 9.4 per cent.

“These figures are very interesting,” said Scholtz. “As a rule we recommend organisations spend between three and eight per cent. If they’re spending 11 per cent, I’m not sure organisations always know how to capture that number.”

But Rogers suggested that company culture dictates the level of security spending.

“Security is only as good as the people who run it, so it comes down to training and culture and embedding that within the organisation,” she said.

“Having the systems and the policies are not enough if they are not being used and the policy sits on the shelf.

Culture has to be embedded from the very top right down to the very bottom.

“Best practice is about knowing which parts of your systems need which level of security.

“Each organisation must understand its own risk profile and allow this to drive its security spend.

However, even with an ample budget, if the spend is not effectively placed, then it will do little to mitigate risk,” he explained.

Enhancing application security has emerged as the biggest security priority over the next 12 months, followed by the installation of better access controls, securing remote access and monitoring user compliance in conjunction with policies.

http://www.vnunet.com/features/1156593

Read more

Metasploit Framework (Part One of Three) – The Prometheus Of Exploitation (Technical article)

Posted on July 12, 2004December 30, 2021 by admini

This article provides an insight into the basics of exploit development frameworks, with a special focus on the Metasploit Framework and how it can be exploited to save time and resources. It describes its usage with graphical illustrations, detail the various commands available, describe features, give practical examples, and most importantly, use these skills to develop new exploits and test out new techniques.

The article concludes with elucidating why MSF will influence the future of exploitation in a momentous and positive way.

http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1789

Read more

The attack of the US$2 million worm

Posted on July 7, 2004December 30, 2021 by admini

Out of 162 companies contacted, 84 percent said their business operations have been disrupted and disabled by Internet security events during the last three years.

Though the average rate of business operations disruption was one incident per year, about 15 percent of the surveyed companies said their operations had been halted and disabled more than seven times over a three-year period.

The portents for enterprises are alarming, given the increased use of the Internet for core business activities.

About three-fourths of the companies contacted by Aberdeen indicated they are increasing online sales and customer service, 55 percent will do more procurement and sourcing through the Web, and 48 percent want to enhance online distribution and fulfillment activities.

“Increasing usage of the Internet for these core business functions means that business disruptions from Internet security can seriously impact a company’s revenue,” Aberdeen analyst Jim Hurley said in a release.

The market researcher calculates that the median annual revenue loss rate can vary from US$6,700 for a US$10 million company to US$20.1 million for a Global 5,000 company with US$30 billion revenue.

The first six months of 2004 saw an increasing number of attacks on Internet security.

Disruptive Internet agents that have raised the level of concern include worms, viruses, spyware, hacker attacks, denial-of-service attacks, attacks on e-mail and Web systems, and attacks on company data and applications.

Some of the most malicious mass-mailing worms roaming the Net include the Bagle and Sasser worms.

Security experts recently unearthed a pernicious pop-up program that reads keystrokes and steals passwords.

Most businesses are worried that their operations are exposed to Internet-based threats.

For instance, 80 percent of survey respondents indicated that they’re worried about network outages, 86 percent are worried about Internet security threats, 84 percent are worried about compromised IT systems; 85 percent are worried about compromises to data integrity; and 71 percent are worried about human errors that may lead to Internet business disruptions.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,2000061744,39152626,00.htm

Read more

Cover Your Apps – 5 Security Myths

Posted on July 7, 2004December 30, 2021 by admini

With firewalls and patch management now being standard practices, the network perimeter has become increasingly secure. Determined to stay a step ahead, hackers have moved up the software stack, focusing on the Web site itself. According to a Gartner analyst, more than 70 percent of cyberattacks occur at the application layer.
1. “The Web site uses SSL, so it’s secure.”
SSL by itself does not secure a Web site. SSL does not protect the information stored on the site once it arrives.
2. “A firewall protects the Web site, so it’s safe.”
Firewalls allow traffic to pass through to a Web site but lack the ability to protect the site itself from malicious activity.
3. “The vulnerability scanner reported no security issues, so the web site is secure.”
Vulnerability scanners have been used since the early ’90s to point out well-known network security flaws. However, they neglect the security of custom Web applications running on the Web server, which usually remain full of holes. Up-to-date vulnerability scanners now achieve more than 90 percent vulnerability coverage on the average network–but they sparsely target the Web-application layer because there are no well-known security issues present in custom-written Web code.
4. “Web application security is a developer problem.”
Sure, developers are part of the problem, but many factors beyond their control contribute to software security. For example, source code can originate from a variety of locations besides in-house. A company might have code developed by an offshore firm to intermingle with existing code.
5. “Security assessments are performed on the Web site every year, so it’s secure.”
The high rate of change in normal Web-site code rapidly decays the accuracy of even the most recent of security reports. As each new revision of a Web application is developed and pushed, the potential for new security issues increases.

http://www.varbusiness.com/sections/news/breakingnews.jhtml%3Bjsessionid=N241AGHB04JH2QSNDBCSKHY?articleId=22104030

Read more

Posts navigation

  • Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Recent Posts

  • AI/ML News – 2024-04-14
  • Incident Response and Security Operations -2024-04-14
  • CSO News – 2024-04-15
  • IT Security News – 2023-09-25
  • IT Security News – 2023-09-20

Archives

  • April 2024
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • September 2020
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • December 2018
  • April 2018
  • December 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • August 2014
  • March 2014
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • February 2012
  • October 2011
  • August 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003

Categories

  • AI-ML
  • Augment / Virtual Reality
  • Blogging
  • Cloud
  • DR/Crisis Response/Crisis Management
  • Editorial
  • Financial
  • Make You Smile
  • Malware
  • Mobility
  • Motor Industry
  • News
  • OTT Video
  • Pending Review
  • Personal
  • Product
  • Regulations
  • Secure
  • Security Industry News
  • Security Operations
  • Statistics
  • Threat Intel
  • Trends
  • Uncategorized
  • Warnings
  • WebSite News
  • Zero Trust

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
© 2025 CyberSecurity Institute | Powered by Superbs Personal Blog theme