Skip to content

CyberSecurity Institute

Security News Curated from across the world

Menu
Menu

Author: admini

U.S. Secret Service Joins TSCP

Posted on September 22, 2009December 30, 2021 by admini

High-profile attacks, such as GhostNet and the U.S. electrical grid infiltration, create the imperative for government agencies and private industry to work together on viable and robust solutions that protect electronic information regardless of where it resides.

The U.S. Secret Service joins the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), U.K. Ministry of Defence, Netherlands Ministry of Defence, and France’s Network and Information Security Agency (ANSSI), to provide critical insight into the real-world applications of solutions and processes that can protect mission-critical information and intellectual property from theft by politically motivated cyber criminals.

TSCP is the only government-industry partnership dedicated to helping member organizations equip themselves with the necessary means to combat computer-related crimes.

As a member of TSCP, the U.S. Secret Service adds to its already formidable portfolio of cyber defense initiatives, including an Electronic Crimes Task Force and Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program.

“Membership, on both the Governance Board and the Executive Committee of TSCP, is an honor, and the Secret Service is looking forward to becoming a trusted partner with all TSCP members.”

Membership with TSCP offers an extension of resources, expertise, and capabilities, creating a global network of government agencies, aerospace and defense (A&D) companies, and software vendors who unite under the TSCP mantle to collaboratively address the most critical issues in cyber security today.

“Our mission is to foster secure collaboration through federation so that information can be protected while being shared in a global environment.

“The U.S. Secret Service is a welcome addition to this effort, bringing additional expertise and insight into best-practices for defending against the growth of sophisticated cyber attacks.”

http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/09-22-2009/0005098525&EDATE=

Read more

Five Ways To Meet Compliance In A Virtualized Environment

Posted on September 3, 2009December 30, 2021 by admini

“It’s a good idea to talk about the intersection between compliance and security…. A lot of compliance regulations are written assuming the systems are physical — and that only certain administrators have rights to physical systems,” says Jon Oltsik, senior analyst at Enterprise Strategy Group.

“What if financial information sits on a virtual system and on a system with other [applications running on it]? If a financial application runs as a VM on a physical system, where do the access controls need to be? How are the regulations going to change to accommodate that?”

And compliance doesn’t always equal security — just take a look at some of the biggest data breaches of late. Virtualization adds another dimension to that problem. “You can have compliance without security and security without compliance,” Oltsik says.

Configure the virtualization platform, both the hypervisor and administrative layer, with secure settings, eliminate unused components, and keep up-to-date on patches. Virtualization vendors have their own hardening guidelines, as does the Center for Internet Security and the Defense Information Systems Agency, according to RSA and VMware.

“Virtualization infrastructure also includes virtual networks with virtual switches connecting the virtual machines. All of these components, which, in previous systems, used to be physical devices are now implemented via software,” states the RSA and VMware best practices guidelines. Extend your current change and configuration management processes and tools to the virtual environment, as well.

Server administrators should have control over virtual servers and network administrators, over virtual networks, and these admins need to be trained in virtualization software in order to avoid misconfiguration of systems. “Careful separation of duties and management of privileges is an important part of mitigating the risk of administrators gaining unauthorized access either maliciously or inadvertently.”

Deploy virtual switches and virtual firewalls to segment virtual networks, and use your physical network controls in the virtual networks as well as change management systems.

Monitor virtual infrastructure logs and correlate those logs across the physical infrastructure, as well, to get a full picture of vulnerabilities and risks.

http://www.darkreading.com/security/management/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=HQVORXCLBU4A3QE1GHRSKHWATMY32JVN?articleID=219501096

Read more

LogLogic Simplifies Security Change Management

Posted on September 2, 2009December 30, 2021 by admini

LogLogic’s unique multi-vendor solution leads the industry’s move towards consolidating security event and change management giving customers better security through improved IT infrastructure visibility and control across collaborating teams.

LogLogic’s Security Change Manager is designed to benefit medium to large enterprises, MSSP, ISP and service providers who need to automate security policy management and change management across large or complex networks of routers, firewalls, switches, VPNs and IPSs in homogenous or heterogeneous vendor environments, including Checkpoint, Cisco, Fortinet and Juniper. A single console can automate the design and implementation of rules for large networks or small networks with complex policies and frequent changes.

“While it is good to identify security incidents using correlation of LogLogic Security Event Manager, it is even better to respond to security incidents and prevent future attacks by rolling out firewall policy changes through pre-defined response plans with LogLogic Security Change Manager,” said Dominique Levin, EVP of Marketing and Strategy, LogLogic.

Research shows that organizations experience more security breaches because of manual errors in routine daily networking management tasks than from any external threat. LogLogic Security Change Manager automates the often time-consuming and error-prone manual process of designing and generating network security rule changes.

According to Forrester Research’s July 2009 report titled “TechRadar For Security & Risk Professionals: Network Threat Mitigation, Q3 2009”: “PCI DSS Requirement 1.1.6 mandates that firewall and router configurations be reviewed at least every six months.

The latest release of LogLogic Security Change Manager simplifies and improves email notification integration with any third party CRM or ticketing solution, enabling visibility to multi-tiered approval, change request approval and deployment status.

According to Forrester Research’s July 2009 report titled “Market Overview: Firewall Auditing Tools”: “With its acquisition of Exaprotect, LogLogic is the first vendor to directly tie firewall auditing capability into its SIM technology.

LogLogic’s open log management platform enables customers to collect, search and store massive amounts of IT log data from a myriad list of devices and applications for a comprehensive fingerprint of past and current activity, through one convenient, easy-to-use web-based user console.

http://www.darkreading.com/security/management/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=HQVORXCLBU4A3QE1GHRSKHWATMY32JVN?articleID=219501102

Read more

1 In 5 Companies Cutting IT Security Spending, Our Survey Finds

Posted on June 20, 2009December 30, 2021 by admini

If you thought you had a handle on your organization’s appetite for risk, chances are the economy has changed the dinner portions. Because the potential for saving money through the use of cloud services is real, security pros are being pressured to figure out just how risky those services are.

Ironically, one of the hardest things to assess about cloud services is their effect on regulatory compliance.

Our survey shows that compliance is the main goal of risk management initiatives, and compliance tied with internal audits as the No. 1 measurement of success. “Compliance is making people do things to stay out of jail, changing security from a ‘should’ to a ‘must,'” says Ira Winkler, CEO of consulting firm ISAG. Winkler laments that highly secure organizations have to spend on compliance testing to prove they’re secure. But, he says, “organizations lacking in security are much better off today because of compliance since they have had to establish better practices and processes.”

Companies that do security well have the same staffing and funding obstacles as any company, but they focus on managing risk and protecting data. They know their appetite for risk and they manage to it, rather than think of security as a checklist of requirements. They can’t secure everything, so they identify their most important assets and the likelihood of loss, and put programs and controls around them for protection.

If you thought you had a handle on your organization’s appetite for risk, chances are the economy has changed the dinner portions.

No, because PCI requirement No. 5 calls for antivirus protection. Using antivirus software is considered an industry best practice, but “best practices were created by the legal community to defend litigation in court so the organization can say they were following best practices,” says John Pironti, president of management consulting firm IP Architects. Both sides bring in expert witnesses, and the most convincing expert wins. Best practices aren’t worthless, but they’re not one size fits all, and are too often applied without regard to context.

The types of attacks against Heartland Payment Systems, Hannaford Brothers, and TJX took planning and expertise. They weren’t conducted by kids downloading pre-compiled tools–the types of attacks that would be stopped by companies that implement the bare minimum “best practices.” And that is fundamentally the difference between check-box security and risk management.

If you think you have risk management in hand, chances are cloud computing will shake that confidence. Assurances about data segregation, privacy, and security, while nothing new, take on added dimensions in cloud services because you don’t know where your data is most of the time. Don’t think cloud computing will affect your organization?

Surveys conducted by Deloitte’s Security & Privacy Services show that many companies already have moved to some outsourced computing “because you can’t argue with the dollars,” says Deloitte partner Rena Mears.

“Stop asking if cloud computing is going to happen.” nowing data’s location is fundamental to securing it, and the location of data may have significant legal implications.

“The first step for Chiquita,” says CIO Manjit Singh, “is to understand the regulatory requirements for every country we operate in. We then know the requirements we need to meet to protect our sensitive data internally. Then we have to ask ourselves and local authorities what an external provider needs to show to demonstrate they can protect our data as well as Chiquita.”

To do that, cloud and software-as-a-service providers have to agree to periodic security assessments by external auditors chosen by Singh’s team, and Chiquita must thoroughly understand the policy and procedures of the service provider, including who has access to the company’s data and equipment. For example, Singh points out that many providers have one policy governing their contractors and another for their own employees. The economics of cloud computing are so compelling that SaaS vendors are starting to host their applications in a cloud service.

SAS-70 is a standard that dictates how audits of service providers should be done, but the assessments cover only the operations that the provider wants covered, and often the only document you get to see is the auditor’s statement of opinion, which provides an overview of the scope of the assessment and whether the organization does what it says it does. What you don’t see, and what consultant Pironti recommends that providers not reveal, is the detailed auditor’s report, which lays out what the assessor found, including the tests performed. The challenge for CSA is to create certification requirements that don’t suffer from PCI’s snapshot-in-time problem and that are directly applicable to cloud environments.

Breach notification laws didn’t tell companies how to protect data; they just require that companies tell their customers when they’ve lost their custom- ers’ data.

Developers and testers–particularly those outside a company holding sensitive data–shouldn’t be allowed to view private data, but they have to work with valid data to test their applications and patches. Data masking, for which there are many techniques and products available, generates valid but obfuscated functional data.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/storage/security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218100139

Read more

Startup Takes New Spin On Online Fraud Detection

Posted on May 7, 2009December 30, 2021 by admini

We deploy different collection mechanism strategies on different pages to evade detection, as well as evolve our system with new strategies,” says Sanjay Sehgal, CEO of Pramana, who is keeping the details of the inner workings of HumanPresent close to the vest so as not to tip off the bad guys. “We are in the abuse and fraud detection and prevention part of the security space, not network security,” he says.

In addition, Pramana’s technology doesn’t use device fingerprinting to identify a bot or rogue activity like other online fraud firms, such as Iovation and 41st Parameter.

Pramana offers both a Linux-based virtual appliance that handles the fraud detection on-site or a software-as-a-service model.

Among Pramana’s customers so far are financial services firms, social networking sites, online gaming sites, and Webmail sites.

Pricing for the HumanPresent SaaS ranges from 50 cents to $2 per user or per transaction; the company has not yet determined pricing for its appliance, which is based on a hardened version of Linux.

http://www.darkreading.com/securityservices/security/attacks/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=DREA5TXWFFJSYQSNDLRSKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=217300733

Read more

Heartland breach cost $12.6 million, CEO says

Posted on May 7, 2009December 30, 2021 by admini

“Much of the legal work remains to be done and it is difficult to anticipate when these matters will come to a conclusion.”

Carr also admitted for the first time that since the Princeton, N.J.-based processing giant announced a breach of its systems, some of the payment processor’s clients have switched to competitors as a result of the breach.

“We have had some competitors telling merchants falsely that they would be fined $10,000 a day if they stay with Heartland.

More than $500,000 relates to a fine assessed by MasterCard against the sponsored banks in which the card company said Heartland failed to take appropriate action upon learning that a breach was suspected.

“Heartland believes that it responded appropriately to all the information that it learned regarding the possibility of a system breach and upon discovering the intrusion it took immediate and extraordinary action to address the intrusion,” Carr said. In addition, the company said it would implement end-to-end encryption when payment transaction data is sent from the merchant to the processor. Heartland is in discussions with some of the card brands to improve encryption, he said.

http://searchfinancialsecurity.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid185_gci1355922,00.html

Read more

Posts navigation

  • Previous
  • 1
  • …
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • …
  • 421
  • Next

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