STE WILLIAMS

Feds snooping on your email without a warrant? US lawmakers are on a war path to stop that

On Monday, the US House of Representatives – normally a body that can’t agree on anything – voted unanimously to pass the Email Privacy Act (HR 387).

The new legislation amends the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which states that emails that are unread or stored for more than 180 days can be requested and read by US law enforcement without a warrant. The new legislation insists the Feds go to a judge and get one before having a snoop around email inboxes.

When the ECPA was enacted 31 years ago, emails were almost exclusively stored locally and not for very long, since hard drive sizes were in megabytes, not gigabytes, and commercial cloud service provision of email was a distant prospect for most. So legislators have been trying to update this antiquated legislation – against the wishes of law enforcement.

The trouble is, the House’s amendments are meaningless until the US Senate and President Trump give the legislation the green light.

“As technology has far outpaced the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, the Email Privacy Act modernizes this decades-old law to establish a uniform warrant requirement to acquire stored electronic communications in criminal investigations,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).

“These updates to the law will better safeguard Americans’ constitutional rights while also protecting law enforcement’s ability to fight crime. As the House again has overwhelmingly approved this bill, it’s time for the Senate to take up this bipartisan legislation and send it to the President’s desk to become law.”

That’s a long and uncertain road, as we saw last year when the House also voted unanimously on similar legislation. It then moved to the Senate and seemed likely to pass easily, until Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) attached a rider to the bill a few days before the vote. The rider allowed the FBI to get anyone’s internet history and metadata without a warrant using a National Security Letter.

It was a classic spoiler tactic, and one that was called out by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) as a blatant attempt to derail the legislation. The spoiler worked, and the bill was voted down by the Senate. Now all eyes are on this latest act to see if the same thing happens again.

“Senators need to be vigilant about fending off these kinds of amendments when the Email Privacy Act is considered in the Senate this time around,” said the EFF.

“The House’s unanimous vote on the Email Privacy Act last year and yesterday’s voice vote demonstrate bipartisan agreement that the emails in your inbox should have the same privacy protections as the papers in your desk drawer. We urge the Senate to swiftly pass the HR 387 to protect online content with a probable cause warrant.”

Tech companies such as Google have also thrown their weight behind the bill, although they have other tussles to fight as well. All eyes are now on Senator Cornyn to see if he’s readying another poison pill to shoot down an amendment to a bill enacted five years before the World Wide Web even existed. ®

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/07/us_email_privacy_act_passed_by_reps/

Point-of-Sale Malware Declined 93% Since 2014

SonicWall study highlights alarming growth in ransomware incidents.

Science dictates that for every action there’s a reaction.

That’s one of the main points of a new SonicWall study, which reports a 93% decline in point-of-sale (PoS) malware creation since 2014, but counters that news with a reality-check that ransomware grew by a rate of 167 times year-over-year.

The study, conducted by the SonicWall Global Response Intelligent Defense (GRID) Threat Network, found that ransomware was the payload of choice for malicious email campaigns and exploit kits. Ransomware attack attempts went from 4 million in 2015 to a staggering 638 million last year.

“It’s pretty clear that the move to chip-and-PIN credit cards decreased PoS malware over the past couple of years,” says Dmitriy Ayrapetov, executive director of product development at SonicWall. “This is a dramatic drop compared to 2014, which was the high point of PoS malware, the time that top retailers like Target, Home Depot, and Staples were hit with massive data breaches.”

Ayrapetov adds that cybercriminals go where the money is, and during the last year, ransomware has become a very profitable business.

“With ransomware, attackers can hit both small and large businesses,” Ayrapetov says. “And it’s a lot less risky, since the attackers get paid in bitcoins and don’t have to use a credit card. Also, the emergence of ransomware-as-a-service has reduced the barrier to entry, [so] anybody can purchase ransomware-as-a-service now.”

The SonicWall study also found that SSL/TLS traffic grew by 38% last year, partly due to the growth in cloud application adoption. But yet again, the increase in SSL/TLS traffic has created another flaw: an uninspected backdoor into the network that cybercriminals can potentially exploit.

“Companies now need to look inside the network and inspect and protect encrypted traffic,” says Mike Spanbauer, vice president of security, test advisory at NSS Networks, which had an early briefing on the SonicWall report. “It’s really not terribly difficult to make money spreading ransomware. You can now get service agreements. It’s really scary how accomplished a business model they have.”

Other findings of the SonicWall study:

On the plus side: Dominant exploit kits, Angler, Nuclear, and Nutrino disappeared in mid-2016; unique malware samples fell to 60 million in 2016 compared with 64 million in 2015, a 6.25% decrease, while total attack attempts dropped to 7.87 billion in 2016, down from 8.19 billion in 2015.

On the minus side: IoT devices were compromised on a massive scale, leading to numerous DDoS attacks, most notably, the attack on DNS provider Dyn last fall; Android devices saw increased security protections, but remained vulnerable to overlay attacks.

The SonicWare GRID Threat Network is based on more than 1 million sensors placed in more than 200 countries and territories. The GRID Threat Network monitors traffic 24x7x365, developing its analysis on more than 100,000 malware samples collected daily. 

Related Content:

Steve Zurier has more than 30 years of journalism and publishing experience, most of the last 24 of which were spent covering networking and security technology. Steve is based in Columbia, Md. View Full Bio

Article source: http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/point-of-sale-malware-declined-93--since-2014/d/d-id/1328069?_mc=RSS_DR_EDT

Brooklyn Man Pleads Guilty In Banking Scam Involving Money Mules

Investigation unearths alleged scheme spread over several countries costing victims more than $1 million in losses.

Vyacheslav Khaimov of Brooklyn has pleaded guilty to charges for his role in a massive banking scam that has been operating in several countries since 2015 and cost victims over $1 million in losses, reports On The Wire. Khaimov allegedly made more than $230,000 via the scheme.

According to the FBI, several criminals based in different locations carried out the fraud using malware to illegally access bank accounts and transfer the stolen cash into their accounts via “money mules.”

A police complaint described money mules as “…unsuspecting individuals who believe they are working for a legitimate ‘work from home’ business. As part of their ’employment,’ the mules are instructed, typically via email, to open a bank account and receive the funds that have been removed from victims’ bank accounts.” This money is then allegedly moved into the criminals’ account.

FBI says many of the unsuspecting money mules used by the gang as a front were recruited via email or phone by someone called Samuel Gold who no one had ever seen.

Investigation is continuing.

Read here for details.

Dark Reading’s Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Article source: http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/brooklyn-man-pleads-guilty-in-banking-scam-involving-money-mules/d/d-id/1328074?_mc=RSS_DR_EDT

Taiwan Brokerage Firms Receive DDoS Threats Demanding Ransom

Five brokerages in the country ignore demands to pay up $9,731 in Bitcoin or risk getting DDoS’ed.

Five Taiwan brokerages have received email threats from a group calling itself the Armada Collective asking for around $9,731 in Bitcoin to avoid a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack on their websites, Reuters reports. Cybersecurity firm FireEye believes this is part of a string of such DDoS attacks first seen in Europe in January.

Rick Wang of Taiwan’s security regulator Financial Supervisory Commission said the country’s securities firms have been told to step up safety measures adding, “We have never seen this on such a scale – five companies hit at one time with the same threat.” 

None of the targeted firms have paid the ransom. One of the five came under DDoS attack, and while another firm was also hit, but there was no confirmation that the attacks were related to the threats.

Authorities are probing source of the emails.

Read full story on Reuters

Dark Reading’s Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Article source: http://www.darkreading.com/taiwan-brokerage-firms-receive-ddos-threats-demanding-ransom/d/d-id/1328073?_mc=RSS_DR_EDT

The Promise & Peril Of The App Era

Sure, apps are convenient. But when not properly assessed, they can cause security holes.

As the app frenzy that captivated consumers now blazes through the business world, it’s creating an unfortunate by-product: disconcerting security blunders and disasters.

After realizing apps boost businesses by simplifying life for employees, partners, and customers, organizations are feverishly “appifying” their operations: order management, payments, inventory control — you name it. But in their rush, many companies aren’t rigorously assessing the security of these Web and mobile apps, despite their multiple links to critical back-end systems and data.

The Road to Hell Is Paved with Insecure Apps
With the app era’s benefits also comes a tremendous potential for danger, if vulnerabilities exist in those interconnection points. Bad actors are looking to exploit these security gaps and sneak in through the app door.

 More on Security Live at Interop ITX

Compared with other attack patterns, Web app attacks have become the most likely to trigger a data breach, according to Verizon’s 2016 Data Breach Investigation Report. This means Web apps aren’t just exposed, but “disproportionately vulnerable” compared to other attack vectors, according to Verizon. Furthermore, Ponemon Institutefound that data breach costs to organizations jumped almost 30% since 2013 to $4 million on average per incident in 2016.

Let’s shift now from the big picture and zoom in on two app security failures of which I have firsthand knowledge.

A Bank Winds Up with Egg on Its Face
When I was at a previous job, a large bank called me in to help after a faulty app turned a seemingly simple project into a nightmare. Seeking more shareholder participation in proxy voting, the bank decided to make the process more convenient with a mobile app. The bank accepted a low bid from a fledgling contractor and didn’t specify security requirements, except to give the app a sign-in gate. Incorrectly assuming the app had been built with native authentication, the bank distributed it to investors, without reviewing its code or development process.

What the bank didn’t know was that the contractor had used a flawed authentication library available online, which stealthily transferred contacts on users’ phones to a third-party server in China. The bank found out only after scammers flooded its shareholders with phishing attacks.

What’s Inside My Sushi Roll? Phish?
App fiascos aren’t limited to large organizations. When small companies ignore security, consequences can be disproportionately large.

I recently received an email resembling a FedEx notification, but the tracking number format looked strange. Upon further inspection, I found that the “track package” and “unsubscribe” links pointed to a Singapore sushi roll shop’s WordPress website with an open “file upload” function. A hacker, likely armed with a simple script, found the Web app’s vulnerability — the site builder’s mistake — uploaded malicious code, and crafted the phishing attack. I didn’t fall for this one, but others likely did. Study after study reveals disturbingly high success rates for phishing scams.

The RSA Q2 2016 Threat Report, released in September, found the following:

  • 1 million+ unique phishing attacks were identified in the prior 12 months — one every 30 seconds.
  • In the second quarter of 2016, phishing attacks jumped 308% year-on-year.
  • The total cost to global organizations from phishing was $9.1 billion.

See, Assess, and Remediate
Before the cloud and mobility revolutions, applications had simpler, linear architectures, which made securing them easier. Today, apps are intertwined with other apps, Web services, and legacy back-end systems via APIs and custom integrations. They also expose many more functions to many more people via the Internet. This makes them a conveniently accessible target for hackers. The result: it’s much more complicated to find security gaps and weak links.

Consider these three areas where you can take concrete steps to build a safer enterprise and a culture of clean code.

Focus Area #1: See
You need full, uninterrupted visibility into all your applications, whether they were purchased or developed internally. A comprehensive, continuously updated app inventory puts you in control to manage apps’ security. This means understanding development methods and frameworks employed, and knowing all the modular components within the apps. That way, when vulnerabilities affecting these components are disclosed, you’ll know instantly which among your apps are affected.

Visibility also means understanding the threats posed by the Web of third-party service and resource interconnections tapped by your apps. For example, the bank would have avoided embarrassment if it had bothered finding out the components the contractor had used in the app and understood their risks.

Focus Area #2: Assess
Assessment involves probing your apps with a broad, deep scope and getting many parties involved, including app dev, quality assurance (QA), and information security. To reduce coding errors and catch most other ones before code makes it to production, you should do the following:

  • Train QA staffers in Web application assessment
  • Teach developers secure coding techniques
  • Invest in continuous integration environments to automate and accelerate code development and testing

Assessment is an area where the Singapore shop failed badly, as it couldn’t detect a glaring flaw in its website that hackers exploited for a phishing campaign.

Focus Area #3: Remediate
Organizations need to prioritize remediation granularly. They can’t just focus on “crown jewel” apps. Simple code reused in many apps poses threats if it contains vulnerabilities. Remediation also presents an opportunity to promote using secure components and make everyone on the team feel empowered to protect the organization. Finally, the remediation process highlights successes and failures, so you can take steps to continually improve.

The bank and shop can learn valuable lessons from their app blunders and remediation, and lead them to adopt new app security best practices, processes, and tools.

Promise, Not Peril
In the end, don’t lose sight that the goal is to create a safe, efficient environment where the promise of the app era is realized and the peril is diminished.

Related Content:

 

Jason Kent is Vice President, Web Application Security Product Management at Qualys. Prior to that, he held technical security positions at Veracode, BlueCoat, Aruba, and Verizon. Through more than a decade of dedicated AppSec experience, he has established expertise in … View Full Bio

Article source: http://www.darkreading.com/application-security/the-promise-and-peril-of-the-app-era/a/d-id/1328061?_mc=RSS_DR_EDT

Enterprise Android Vs iOS: Which is More Secure?

The answer is not as simple as you think. A mobile security expert parses the pros and cons.

Both iOS and Android come with features that are designed to further secure enterprise applications over and above the security level of standard consumer apps. Both operating systems offer some way of segmenting enterprise data from user profile data, in effect, creating a secure container to install enterprise apps and store enterprise data. Furthermore, network transports can be secured on both platforms using technologies such as data encryption, app-specific VPN tunnels, and even some form of direct boot mode, where the device stops being a general purpose mobile device and instead becomes a dedicated device for accessing specific enterprise apps. These features are described in detail on the Android and iOS Web pages.

Both operating systems have also been found to contain pretty serious security vulnerabilities in the past. Both are vulnerable to malware attacks, although iOS less so than Android. And both are prone to exposure from potentially dangerous security vulnerabilities due to the installation of third-party apps.

Each OS also has its own share of documented security issues. For example, Android has/had problems with the Stagefright vulnerability, and Apple has struggled multiple times with loopholes that allowed apps to execute standard library code directly, bypassing security restrictions. Currently, these vulnerabilities have been patched with up-to-date versions of both operating systems, but this does not mean that similar vulnerabilities will not be found in the future. Here are lists of Android vulnerabilities and iOS vulnerabilities from CVE Details. As of January 2017, iOS has had a total of 984 vulnerabilities whereas Android has had a total of 746. 

Open Source Vs. Closed Source: Not A Big Deal
In theory, the open-source nature of the Google Android project does make it more vulnerable to security issues. In reality, this is not the case. The same open-source mindset that has led to rapid development and improvement of Android, also means that when new vulnerabilities are uncovered, they are fixed very rapidly. On the other hand, the closed-source development of iOS should make it more secure and, in many ways, it does. But it also means that security vulnerabilities are fixed in a hierarchical manner, often taking longer to push a fix to market than Android.

The widest security difference between iOS and Google Android is the way these operating systems are deployed and updated. Android suffers from the significantly adverse effects of fragmentation, which means that there are potentially dozens of versions of the operating system in use at any time, even within a single enterprise. Android-equipped devices ship with a specific version of Android. Whether these devices receive future updates to Android is not a foregone conclusion. Some do, many don’t. Those that don’t are left running an older version. This means that security vulnerabilities need to be patched across a wide range of OS versions and devices. In the chart below, you can see that, as of January 2017, the latest Android version 7.1 has only 0.62% coverage in the business category.

As far as iOS goes, the closed-source approach to development and the aggressive way that Apple tends to protect its proprietary technology can hinder data forensics experts in their efforts to diagnose security breaches. Apple is notoriously unhelpful when it comes to opening up parts of their OS to outsiders. And the locked nature of Apple devices adds to this problem. Apple controls the underlying device infrastructure and will not relinquish this control. For example, iOS blocks apps from reading phone number, device UDID etc. from the device. In Android, app developers can pragmatically query all the device information, including the phone number.

The same philosophy is channeled through to the app vetting process for the Apple App store. In comparison with Android apps, iOS apps go through a stringent and thorough process before the app is approved and available for the general userbase to download. Google doesn’t thoroughly test Android apps before they go live onto the Google Play Store. Consider this recent example: a simple Android photo app named Meitu requires authorization to access location, phone status and identity, and a host of sensitive cellular functionality that has absolutely nothing to do with photo editing.

So Which Is More Secure?
Quite frankly, the answer to this question can change day by day. If a major security vulnerability is discovered, such as the aforementioned Stagefright, then that OS becomes incredibly insecure until the vulnerability is fixed. But in a perfect world where no current vulnerabilities exist, then both are equally secure.

The choice boils down to this: If you are comfortable allowing a monolithic company drive the security of your enterprise mobile apps, then iOS might be the most secure for you. (Not to mention Apple’s thorough app vetting process that blocks most of the malicious apps before they even show up on the Apple App Store.) But if you would rather put your trust in a more rapid, open-source development lifecycle in the belief that this is the best way to ensure that vulnerabilities are fixed quickly, Google Android might be the better option. 

Related Content:

 

Satish Shetty is CEO and founder of Codeproof Technologies, an enterprise mobile security company. Shetty has more than 20 years of security and enterprise software development experience. A recognized leader in the mobile device management space, Shetty also has several … View Full Bio

Article source: http://www.darkreading.com/mobile/enterprise-android-vs-ios-which-is-more-secure/a/d-id/1328068?_mc=RSS_DR_EDT

New Method Can Catch Smartphone Thieves In 14 Seconds

New research from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev shows promise in quickly identifying smartphone hackers.

Researchers at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev claim they have developed a technique based on sequences of gestures that identifies a smartphone thief in under 14 seconds.

“It can even be faster, a matter of seconds, depending on how many gestures there are,” says BGU researcher Liron Ben Kimon.

According to Ben Kimon, the researchers culled information from 20 users over a two-week period last fall to develop a model that shows unauthorized users can be identified in under 14 seconds with less than 35 screen actions. She says on average, a user touches a smartphone screen 35 times in 13.8 seconds.

The verification model extracts information from a smartphone’s sensors to identify frequency, pressure and speed of touch combined with the application used. The program also computes 30 seconds of recent history, such as which screens a user touched, the buttons he or she pressed, and how much electricity was used.

“A thief will almost certainly touch the screen more than 35 times to steal information because he is not familiar with an owner’s phone settings and apps,” Ben Kimon said in an announcement of the research today. “The phone can learn the typical touch and sequence pattern and lock out an unauthorized user to prevent data theft or someone you don’t want looking at your messages.”

Ben Kimon underscores that this is still in the research stages and no commercial applications have been formally discussed. Kimon says it would be possible for the system to send an alert to an organization’s incident response system.

Steve Zurier has more than 30 years of journalism and publishing experience, most of the last 24 of which were spent covering networking and security technology. Steve is based in Columbia, Md. View Full Bio

Article source: http://www.darkreading.com/mobile/new-method-can-catch-smartphone-thieves-in-14-seconds-/d/d-id/1328075?_mc=RSS_DR_EDT

David Beckham calls in police over hacked emails

What does David Beckham have in common with Sony and the Democratic National Committee?

Hacked emails that are apparently reputation-shredding – plus enough media attention paid to the details of the leaked content to overshadow the actual crime.

The Daily Mail reports that police in Portugal have launched an investigation into an attack on the servers at Beckham’s PR firm, Doyen Global, which is run by his friend Simon Oliveira.

The police have reportedly been investigating the attack for the past 12 months. According to the Telegraph, the hackers had allegedly demanded €1m ($1.07m)  in exchange for destroying a dossier of some 18.6m emails and documents, which the ever-colorful British press have dubbed “Beckileaks”.

A source told the Telegraph that the blackmailer(s) first made the pitch by email, using the fake name of Artem Lovuzov. “Lovuzov” allegedly told Doyen Sports chief executive Neilo Lucas that paying the money would ensure that no embarrassing messages were given to the press:

A generous donation, and you can be sure that all the information I possess will be destroyed.

The Beckham team didn’t respond, so the blackmailer set a deadline:

I’m giving you until 16.00 on Tuesday to contact my lawyer with a view to a proper resolution to this impasse.

Beckham and his team didn’t want to play the game. Instead, they took the matter to the police. The hacker(s) didn’t stop at Team Beckham, though: they’ve reportedly targeted a number of businesses connected to the football world.

The Sun reported that the hackers subsequently shared the stolen cache with the Football Leaks website. It was then published by sites including Der Spiegel, L’Equipe and El Mundo.

Former UK football star Beckham – a mega-celebrity who’s gone on to use his considerable clout to raise big sums of money for Unicef – has been faced with the publication of expletive-laced emails that make it look like he’s used the charity as a front to buff up his chances of knighthood.

A spokesman for Beckham told the BBC that the alleged emails were “hacked”, “doctored” and “private” from a third-party server.

This story is based on outdated material taken out of context.

Unicef said that while it couldn’t comment on the specific emails, it pointed out that

As well as generously giving his time, energy and support to help raise awareness and funds for Unicef’s work for children, David has given significant funds personally

Unicef added that Beckham’s financial backing has helped children and their families around the world, be it through improved water and sanitation in Burkina Faso, help for HIV-positive mothers and children in Swaziland, and other projects.

It’s a safe bet to assume that Beckham’s experience is stirring deja vu among members of the DNC and the celebrities and management of Sony whose personal, sometimes catty, sometimes politically volatile emails came to light after the organizations’ respective breaches.

In July, during a red-hot election season, WikiLeaks leaked DNC emails that set off a political firestorm.

Sony Pictures, of course, was immortalized a few years ago by WikiLeaks, with its roster of unforgettable correspondence about the movie business that was hacked out of the company in a series of attacks that just couldn’t seem to stop giving.

At least one hacker was arrested for the Sony attacks.

Hope that’s some consolation to Team Beckham: crooks don’t always get away with this in the long term.


Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nakedsecurity/~3/vXCRm4mDckc/

Darkode VXer handed three years’ probation

A malware writer and one time FireEye intern hauled in during massive global raids of cybercrime forum Darkode has been handed three years’ probation, ducking a possible 16-month sentence.

US District Judge Arthur Schwab ordered Morgan Culbertson, 22, to perform 300 hours of community service. The sentence took into account Culbertson’s previously clean record and move into the ranks of white hat hackers.

Culbertson was arrested during the 2015 global raid on cybercrime forum Darkode, which netted some of its administrators, as well as vendors of malware and criminal services.

The Associated Press reports Judge Schwab says the one time hacker developed language translation software for a “major search engine firm”, and built mobile malware security for another.

At the time of his arrest Culbertson was an intern working in security vendor FireEye’s advanced persistent threat team.

The newswire’s report says Culbertson told judge Schwab: “I’m very sorry for what I did and I will be haunted by this for the rest of my life.”

He pled guilty to cybercrime charges for co-developing and selling the Dendroid remote access trojan, malware designed to infect Android phones.

Another hacker known as “Mike from the Netherlands” helped develop Dendroid, while another worked to integrate the malware with Google Apps.

Dendroid cost US$300 and buyers could use it to wield a capable botnet that was capable of stealing a host of data from Android handsets.

It was capable yet still vulnerable; PhishMe researcher Paul Burbage demonstrated two months after Culbertson’s arrest how to gain remote code execution on the PHP malware.

The Darkode raid is regarded as one of the most significant actions against online criminals.

“Of the roughly 800 criminal internet forums worldwide, Darkode represented one of the gravest threats to the integrity of data on computers in the United States and around the world and was the most sophisticated English-speaking forum for criminal computer hackers in the world,” Pennsylvania attorney David J. Hickton said in an statement at the time of the sting. ®

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/07/darkode_vxer_handed_three_years_probation/

Trump’s cybersecurity strategy kinda makes sense, so why delay?

Analysis President Trump reportedly can’t read, can’t accept reality, and can’t take a joke.

Worrying and puzzling, indeed. But here’s what’s got computer security experts scratching their heads: why did Donald postpone signing a new cybersecurity executive order.

For one thing, according to a leaked draft, the order will hold US government department chiefs more accountable than ever for computer security failings. As previously reported, the executive order will require senior government leaders to implement the cybersecurity defense framework developed by NIST – America’s National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Trump’s executive orders in other spheres – an immigration lock-down, popping his “white supremacist” advisor Steve Bannon onto the US National Security Council, and so on – have sparked controversy. By contrast, the cybersecurity order-that-never-was drew a sympathetic response – or, rather, a collective sigh that there was nothing too terrible in it, relatively speaking.

Richard Stiennon, chief strategy officer of Blancco Technology Group and author of There Will be Cyberwar, reckons the draft executive order made sense.

“Obviously more has to be done to not only protect federal agencies from cyber attack but also the nation’s critical infrastructure,” Stiennon said. “The concept of holding cabinet secretaries and agency heads accountable for the cybersecurity of their organizations is a good one. Each head of agency should take that a step further and push down accountability to those who are actually responsible.

“Each network administrator, system admin, and program manager should be held accountable for the security of their own systems. This will immediately surface major vulnerabilities as those responsible identify the obstacles to cyber defence they face.”

Kirsten Bay, chief exec and president of Cyber Adapt, is an expert who has advised the White House and the European Union for many years. She said the “accountability element makes a lot of sense.” She added the caveat that those responsible for defending America’s computer systems have to be given the necessary resources.

Send in the auditors

The first draft of the executive order called for a 60-day review of vulnerabilities in US government networks. “This will not be too burdensome since this has been done by the previous administration,” said Stiennon. “So, all that is needed is fresh look at priorities in the new reality of nation state influence and attacks.”

Along with hunting for flaws, the review should look at storage: critical data stores should be identified and their protection prioritized, said Stiennon.

Rules and roles

“There are probably too many different groups claiming to be responsible for cybersecurity,” Stiennon concluded. “Centralization could clear the confusion, although Department of Defense leadership may not be the right direction. It would be better to have a separate cabinet-level cyber leader, one with the technical and policy background to offer a real contribution.”

Cybersecurity discussions in the aftermath of Trump’s unexpected success in the 2016 presidential election have centered on accusations of Kremlin interference. US intel agencies concluded that units of Russian military intelligence and the FSB sough to influence the election’s outcome by hacking the Democrat campaign and leaking sensitive emails.

Trump was skeptical of these conclusions, suggesting that anyone – Russia, China, or someone in a New Jersey basement – could have infiltrated the Democrat political machine. This set the president against his intel agencies although, after a face-to-face meeting, he grudgingly accepted Russian hackers played some kind of small role. Ultimately, Trump is obsessed with image, particularly the image of him alone in triumphing in the election with no one else helping him; he did it all by himself because he’s Donald Trump, the greatest man alive. Any suggestion that, actually, the Russians gave him a significant leg up is an outrage, in his mind.

US Congress is set to hold hearings about Russia’s involvement, which is likely to guide future cybersecurity policy. “We haven’t heard the last of the intel side even though it’s a conversation President Trump doesn’t want to have,” Bay noted.

Rude boy

The draft policy leaves the scope of Trump’s cybersecurity advisor Rudy Giuliani undefined. “It’s an open question what he’ll do,” Bay told El Reg. Giuliani could occupy a similar role as Howard Schmidt, the cybersecurity coordinator of the Obama Administration.

Having a clear cybersecurity policy helps shape strategies with vendors as well as the legal framework in which American online businesses operate and share people’s private information. The delay in the executive order is unwelcome although hardly unprecedented: the Obama administration delayed the announcement of several policy positions. Admittedly, that was to consult with experts and politicians, revise and redraft, rather than blast out poorly written orders, Bannon-style.

Inaction reaction

Security experts speculate that the Trump administration’s delay in releasing its cybersecurity policy may be connected to a dispute with tech companies over H-1B visas, a program the Trump administration is looking to curtail against the objections of Silicon Valley. There may also be some behind-the-scenes lobbying, or Trump – furious that Bannon apparently edited the national security council order without the president’s knowledge before it was signed off – wanted a freeze on all further orders.

Perhaps Donald lost interest in the idea of making his agency chiefs accountable for security shortcomings: leaders within his government admitting failure could make him look weak, and he hates to look weak. Perhaps the order didn’t go far enough.

“Politicians can be paralyzed by the complexity of cybersecurity and this can lead to bad policy or no policy, which amounts to the same thing,” suggested Bay. While a shakeup in government cybersecurity is needed so Uncle Sam can adapt to new threats and types of attack, Bay said much more needed to done in applying and enforcing existing cybersecurity policies.

“We should be looking at how to implement rules that we’ve already created, as well as how we fund educational programs,” Bay said.

It’s unclear how well the Trump administration will work with experts in the information security world, especially when many specialists advocate greater international cooperation – which is at odds with Trump’s seemingly protectionist philosophy. Still, there is one plus point: Trump has insisted that two regulations are torn up for every new rule introduced by government agencies. “We need less regulations and more action,” Bay said. ®

Article source: http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/07/trump_cybersecurity_strategy_analysis/