On the cyber-security FUD topic
Here's my contribution to the current cyber-security FUD thread. I've been mulling this piece over for a while now, and it can certainly apply to a few different companies in this particluar market. Seeing the current debate, I feel justified in posting this essay to NANOG. -rf Security Through Soundbyte: The 'Cybersecurity Intelligence' Game Richard Forno Essay #2002-12 (c) 2002 Richard Forno. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute in entirety with credit to author. Full article with in-line URLS is available at: http://www.infowarrior.org/articles/2002-12.html Some say that cyberspace is the new battlefield, with its own unique rules, challenges, and concerns for those charged with defending it. If one does consider cyberspace a modern battlefield, intelligence must naturally play a key role in developing appropriate, proactive defenses. Regarding battlefield intelligence, military strategist Sun Tzu wrote that "what is called foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits, nor from gods, nor by analog with past events, nor from calculations. It must be obtained from men who know the enemy situation." That's sound advice. During recent months, hardly a week goes by without some reference to some firm's findings or statistics on hackers, crackers, cyberterrorists, and the general state of internet security as they see it. Many times these reports are marketed as cybersecurity "intelligence." As a security professional - and someone 'on the front lines' of the cyberspace battlefield - I'm both curious and dubious about the whole 'cybersecurity intelligence' business concept, and wonder what it takes to both become a 'cybersecurity intelligence' expert and make money at it, too. < - snip - > Full article with in-line URLS is available at: http://www.infowarrior.org/articles/2002-12.html
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Richard Forno wrote: :Here's my contribution to the current cyber-security FUD thread. I've been :mulling this piece over for a while now, and it can certainly apply to a few :different companies in this particluar market. Seeing the current debate, I :feel justified in posting this essay to NANOG. After reading the rest of the essay I thought, what a luxury it must be to afford so much integrity. ;) Most of the people quoted in the news media on IT security issues earned their credentials in the military or policing worlds. Many of them have a very specific worldview as a result of their professional background. If you have encountered many of them, you might agree that their perspective on technology is often a little more mullet-and-moustache than cloak-and-dagger. I have not seen the intelligence business model done very well, with the exception of a couple that I think are truely excellent. It is pretty evident that most of the people in that business think that CIO's want to spend money catching hackers instead of selling more widgets. I can see why, seeing as that's what they did for a living before retiring into the private sector. They are highly experienced professionals, it's just that some of the expertise sometimes doesn't translate as well as one would hope. However, what the mullet-and-moustache crowd knows and alot of the IT security industry doesn't, is that when CNN says cyberattacks are imminent, businesses will want to get what they pay for, and free geeky editorial isn't going to cut it. It's a question of authority, and when it comes down to an ex-spook vs. "an area consultant" when they're writing a story, the one with the most cachet and authority wins. So, to all the crusading FUD-busters out there: You've been had. While you've exasperatedly been trying to convince your boss that there are more serious technical problems and that this FUD is a red herring, she's been watching CNN trying to figure out what her customers are going to do. Cheers, -- batz
RF> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:04:50 -0500 RF> From: Richard Forno RF> Here's my contribution to the current cyber-security FUD RF> thread. I've been mulling this piece over for a while now, RF> and it can certainly apply to a few different companies in RF> this particluar market. Seeing the current debate, I feel RF> justified in posting this essay to NANOG. Sadly, more people will read the "Terrorists Plan to Blow Up the Internet on 1/11!" article I saw on the cover of a tabloid while in the checkout line tonight. Have we finished recovering from all the doomsday damage that occured when 1/1/2000 came? Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
participants (3)
-
batz -
E.B. Dreger -
Richard Forno