Gunnar Peterson is a Managing Principal at Arctec Group. He is focused on distributed systems security for large mission critical financial, financial exchanges, healthcare, manufacturer, and insurance systems, as well as emerging start ups. Mr. Peterson is an internationally recognized software security expert, frequently published, an Associate Editor for IEEE Security & Privacy Journal on Building Security In, a contributor to the SEI and DHS Build Security In portal on software security, a Visiting Scientist at Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, and an in-demand speaker at security conferences. He maintains a popular informationsecurity blog at http://1raindrop.typepad.com.
Gunnar resides in Minnesota; even in winter.
Gunnar is a technical advisor and has financial interest in Ping Identity, and will not be participating in any activities that could present a potential conflicts of interest due to this relationship.
There is a ticker symbol HACK that tracks a group of publicly traded “Cyber Security” firms. Given how hot everything ‘Cyber’ is, HACK may do just fine – who knows? But perhaps one for breached companies (BRCH?) would be better. For you security geeks out there who love to talk about the cost of breaches, let’s take a look at the stock prices of several big-named firms which have been breached: Sony 11/24/14 28.3% S&P 500 11/24/14 2.2% Home Depot 9/9/14 31.3% S&P 500 9/9/14 6.4% Target 12/19/13 23.8% S&P 500 12/19/13 16.9% Heartland 1/20/09 250.1% S&P 500 1/20/09 162.7% Apple 9/2/14 28% S&P 500 9/2/14 6% This is a small
I think the financial equivalent of jumping shark is Wall Street creating an ETF based on your theme. If so, cybersecurity has arrived. The ISE Cyber Security Index provides a benchmark for investors interested in tracking companies actively involved in providing technology and services that are designed to protect data, networks, hardware, software, and other cyber-dependent devices from unauthorized access and attacks. The index includes twenty-nine constituent companies, including VASCO Data Security International Inc. (ticker: VDSI), Palo Alto Networks Inc. (ticker: PANW), Symantc Corp. (ticker: SYMC), Juniper Networks Inc. (ticker: JNPR), FireEye Inc. (ticker: FEYE), and Splunk Inc. (ticker: SPLK).
I do not think Mike’s and Rich’s points are at odds at all. Mike’s post lays out what in my view is infosec’s Achilles heel: lack of strategic alignment with the business. There are very few things that basically everyone in infosec agrees on; but a near universal one is that you can, should, and will never show a Return on Security Investment. “The business” is just supposed to accept this, apparently, and keep increasing the budget year after year; the People’s Republic of Information Security shall remain unsullied by such things as profit and
Adrian makes a number of excellent points. Enterprises need better usability and management for mobile devices, but co-mingling these goals complicates solutions. Adrian contrasted two approaches: AZA and KNOX, which I also want to discuss. Let me start by saying I think we are in the first or second inning for mobile. I do not expect today’s architectural choices to stick for 10+ years. I think we will see substantial evolution, root and branch, for a while. Here is a good example of a mobile project: The Wall St. Journal just published their 1,000th edition on iPad. It is a
It’s a new year, so let’s get physical and personal. I wondered what people do about physical security specifically – how do you protect your laptop while on business travel? Hotels, airports, cars, etc. We have all seen that “road rules” can be pretty different, so what precautions do you take to ensure your laptop and devices return home safely? Do you always carry your laptop? Carry a lock? Have ways to hide it? It seems like there are no real 100% answers or ‘best’ practices – just least-bad practices, and answers I hear are an interesting mix of personal and
The previous Monitoring up the Stack post examined Identity Monitoring, which is a set of processes to monitor events around provisioning and managing accounts. The Identity Monitor is typically blind to one very important aspect of accounts: how they are used at runtime. So you know who the user is, but not what they are doing. User Activity Monitoring addresses this gap through reporting not on how the accounts were created and updated in the directory, but by examining user actions on systems and applications, and linking them to assigned roles. Implementing User Activity Monitoring User Activity Monitors can be
As we continue up the Monitoring stack, we get to Identity Monitoring, which is a distinct set of concerns from User Activity Monitoring (the subject of the next post). In Monitoring Identity, the SIEM/Log Management systems gain visibility into the provisioning and Identity Management processes that enterprise use to identify, store and process user accounts to prepare the user to use the system. Contrast that with User Activity Monitoring, where SIEM/Log Management systems focus on monitoring how the user interacts with the system at runtime and looks for examples of bad behavior. As an example, do you remember
In the last post on application monitoring, we looked at why applications are an essential “context provider” and interesting data source for SIEM/Log Management analysis. In this post, we’ll examine how to get started with the application monitoring process, and how to integrate that data into your existing SIEM/Log Management environment. Getting Started with Application Monitoring As with any new IT effort, its important to remember that it’s People, Process and Technology – in that order. If your organization has a Build Security in software security regime in place, then you can leverage those resources and tools
As we continue to investigate additional data sources to make our monitoring more effective, let’s now turn our attention to applications. At first glance, many security practitioners may think applications have little to offer SIEM and Log Management systems. After all, applications are built on mountains of custom code and security and development teams often lack a shared collaborative approach for software security. However, application monitoring for security should not be dismissed out of hand. Closed-minded security folks miss the fact that applications offer an opportunity to resolve some of the key challenges to monitoring. How? It comes back
Identity and access management are generally 1) staffed out of the same IT department, 2) sold in vendor suites, and 3) covered by the same analysts. So this naturally lumps them together in people’s minds. However, their capabilities are quite different. Even though identity and access management capabilities are frequently bought as a package, what identity management and access management offer an enterprise are quite distinct. More importantly, successfully implementing and operating these tools requires different organizational models. Yesterday, Adrian discussed commoditization vs. innovation, where commoditization means more features, lower prices, and wider availability. Today I would like to explore where we