This is a topic that no one talks about. The ethics of cryptocurrency. To even begin to think about the ethics of cryptocurrency, we will need to know a little more about cryptocurrency and money in general.
Cybersecurity professionals, by the nature of their job, are bearers of bad news. They routinely bring ‘possible risk scenarios’ to the table. They ask for resources to mitigate the possibility(sometimes remote) of something bad happening.
This is not a very pleasant thing to hear. Boards treat such individuals with disdain. They treat such people just like anyone would treat a doctor who, on a routine checkup, says – “Nothing is wrong with you yet, but if you don’t start exercising, something will go wrong”.
The messenger, therefore, is routinely killed. If you are a board member who is bored of the antics of these cybersecurity professionals, or just want some entertainment at the expense of your cybersecurity guy, here are 5 tips to help to kill the messenger.
2017 – The year in Infosec
Should I continue to call it Infosec? Or should I change with the times to call it ‘Cybersecurity’? Whatever the name, 2017 was an interesting year for information security or cybersecurity or whatever you choose to call it. Here are a few things of note that happened:
This is rather long post, so read it when you have the time. A quick set of links to the topics covered:
Note: This is a long post about infosec in 2016 and 2017. Read when you have the time.
2016 has been an interesting year. Donald Trump became president elect. The Syrian crisis worsened. Brexit happened. India demonetised 87% of its currency in one stroke. Cybersecurity and infosec was uttered more frequently in corporate boardrooms – and for good reason too.
How was the year for infosec? Here are a few areas where things happened and will probably continue to happen in 2017.
- Data Privacy and our apathy toward it
- The rise and rise of ransomware
- IoT security
- Net Neutrality
- Infosec – attacks and defence
- General news and happenings
Everything is moving to the cloud – a cliche we have heard so often that we have started to believe it to be true. To some extent, it is. The infosec professional has been caught on her heels about cloud security. Just when she got round to analysing the risks of virtualisation, the monster of cloud based services crept up behind her. The simplicity and attractive pricing offered by cloud service providers makes the shadow IT sign up for the service before you could say ‘cloud security’. There are myriad arguments flying around…
“Everyone’s using Evernote! What’s infosec got to do with it?”
“…but it is free for up to 5 users and we are not more than 5 users!”
“This is way cheaper than what my accounts package costs…and I can access it from home.”
These are words that strike terror in the heart of infosec professionals.
Apple’s CEO Tim Cook, in a very public letter, has opposed the US government’s demand to incorporate a ‘backdoor’ in an iPhone 5C. The cyber world has been abuzz with activity ever since.
I have been following this with interest, and also trying to make sense of, arguably, one of the biggest question since Edward Snowden. A few questions come to mind and I try to muse through them here:
Passwords are easily the most talked about infosec control. Perhaps the simplest concept the explain and surprisingly hard to implement well. Allow a user to keep any password, without restriction, and she will keep her username as the password. Add complexity requirements and she will write it down.
Infosec professionals take every possible measure to get users to keep their passwords confidential. They provide guidelines on creating good complex passwords. They use analogies – ‘ A password is just like a key! Would you share the key to your house?’. They enforce password rules by building them into the systems. Try as you might, it seems that people and passwords seem to have a healthy dislike for each other.
Classifying information is a basic requirement of any information security framework. This, of course, is sound logic. If you don’t know what the value of the information is, you will not be able to handle it appropriately. The problem is not in the requirement but in the way it is implemented…
The Websense security labs is out with its predictions for 2015. You can download them here:
Websense has made 8 predictions for this year. Please read the report for details. Here, I try to analyse them in the Indian context.
This post is in continuation to my previous post about the differences between ISO 27001:2005 and ISO 27001:2013. You check it out here. My quick and dirty analysis of the differences can be found here.
’Tis all a matter of context. One of the most prominent differences between the old standard (ISO 27001:2005) and the new standard (ISO 27001:2013) is the presence of ‘context’ in the new one. This context forces the implementor to focus on the question ‘Why are we doing this?’. In the old standard, one could not question the reason for doing an ISMS. We had to take it as a matter of faith and go straight to the task of defining the scope and the boundaries of the ISMS.