STE WILLIAMS

BLACK HAT ASIA 2019 – Singapore –The nature of war has moved across land, sea, air, and space. Now we find ourselves in the cyber domain, where a new arms race will challenge defenders as adversaries adopt new tools, technologies, and techniques.

Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at F-Secure, today took the stage at Black Hat Asia to discuss the implications of cyber warfare and how it will present challenges not seen before. The nuclear arms race, which he noted lasted about 60 years, is behind us. Today’s conflicts unfold differently; as a result, we have different domains for different types of fighting.

“Technology has changed where wars are fought,” Hypponen explained in an interview with Dark Reading. When the Internet was first built, he continued, geographical lines didn’t seem to exist. It seemed a kind of borderless utopia where cross-country collaboration may be possible. Now, as we know, times have changed, andwars are now fought online.

Just as the domain of war has changed, so, too, have tools used in battle. We’re no longer as worried about nuclear weapons as we were 20 years ago, Hypponen said. Nuclear weapons, only used twice in human history, are built on the power of deterrence. You know who has nuclear weapons and avoid conflict with them because of this power. The number of traditional weapons fighter jets, bombers, and aircraft carriers in each country can be learned via Google.

“We know exactly how many tanks the Russians have. We know exactly how many aircraft carriers the US has,” Hypponen explained, pointing to a screenshot of this information found online.

Digital weapons are poor in creating deterrence because nobody knows who has which tools. They are effective, affordable, and deniable – a dangerous combination of traits. “There are very few weapons that have deniability,” Hypponen emphasized. “Cyber weapons have that.”

It’s one of many qualities that make digital weapons particularly nefarious. Like guns and cannons of the past, cyber weapons also rot over time. The problem is, there’s no way of knowing when their expiration dates will arrive. Offensive toolkits used in the military include exploits targeting vulnerabilities that security researchers are constantly hunting and patching.

Because they don’t know how long their tools will be viable, militaries have no guarantee their investment in digital weapons will yield an ROI. This creates a scenario in which it’s likely those attacks will end up being used so they can justify the cost of building them, Hypponen added.

Nation-States vs. Cybercriminals: Defensive Tactics
Today’s government cyberattacks are predominantly for spying and espionage, and Hypponen noted the importance of distinguishing between spying and warfare. Most cybercriminals are after money. If a cybercriminal targets your organization, chances are they’re not particularly interested in the business itself. They’re looking for quick, easy cash.

Businesses don’t need advanced defenses to keep cybercrime at bay, Hypponen explained. If someone is seeking money and their target makes it difficult or expensive, they’ll move on to a victim with weaker defenses. “The Internet is a garden of low-handed fruit,” Hypponen added.

Nation-states are different. They won’t change their mindset or swap targets. They’re following orders to break into a specific organization and steal data. They’ll keep at it until they succeed.

There are ways of fighting back, he continued. When an attacker creates unique Trojans or backdoors, for example, you can use those to detect them by reputation. Hypponen also advises companies to avoid building defenses like a fortress. High walls won’t prevent attackers from getting in – and the larger a network is, the more likely it will be breached.

Knowing your outside defenses will fail should change security experts’ mindset. Instead of focusing on the perimeter, focus on what’s inside the network. You’re more likely to spot intruders early, which will help your ability to detect attacks and respond faster.

What Comes After Cyber?
“I believe we are in the very beginning of the cyber arms race,” Hypponen said. Still, he added, “it’s important to remember this isn’t where it ends; there will be new domains.” While it’s hard to imagine what comes after cyber, mankind will never stop fighting. New conflicts will emerge.

Robotics and drones come to mind, he continued. Both already exist; however, ethics pose a challenge in development. We don’t like the idea of machines deciding who is killed, Hypponen explained, but different forces are driving us to war in a world where machines will kill on their own. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, both modern buzzwords in cyberspace, have potential to drive this.

We still have to define what we mean by AI and machine learning, he continued. We also have to be very, very careful about where technology companies draw the line as they race to build genuine AI. This concerns Hypponen in the rush to AI development.

“When you’re in a race, what you don’t do is stop and look around and make sure you’re doing everything carefully,” he pointed out.

Hypponen said he anticipates we’ll see machine learning in real-world cyberattacks as the barrier to entry lowers. Today, you have to be a computer science gradute to deploy a machine learning system. But in 10 years, or five years, these systems will be so easy to deploy that anyone could do it – and they will. The lack of skill protects us now; it won’t protect us much longer.

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop 2019. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop agenda here.

Kelly Sheridan is the Staff Editor at Dark Reading, where she focuses on cybersecurity news and analysis. She is a business technology journalist who previously reported for InformationWeek, where she covered Microsoft, and Insurance Technology, where she covered financial … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabilities---threats/inside-cyber-battlefields-the-newest-domain-of-war/d/d-id/1334272?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Marie Kondo is a cultural phenomenon. Her philosophy of “joy through tidying up,” which she shares on the popular Netflix series “Tidying Up With Marie Kondo,” has spawned countless houses minimally occupied by carefully rolled sweaters and perfectly folded linens. She’s the decluttering guru for millions.

Could she also be the cybersecurity guru you’ve been looking for?

“The more time I spend in the cybersecurity world, the more I see people just keep data — not insights — but just keep data for a rainy day,” says Grant Wernick, co-founder and CEO of Insight Engine. “Most of the time, nothing ever comes of any of this stuff.”

From a security perspective, that “stuff” can be a significant vulnerability. “If you don’t have the data to lose in the first place, you can’t lose it,” Wernick says. But what about all of the value that can come from big-data techniques applied to bottomless lakes of retained data?

“It’s always been the recommendation that if you don’t need the data, you shouldn’t have the data. And that removes the entire risk of losing the data,” says Chris Morales, head of security analytics at Vectra. And yet the availability of inexpensive storage has led to a “what if” mentality in many organizations, hoping that someday the techniques will exist to transmute mountains of currently meaningless data into security, marketing, or operational gold.

That sounds very much like the attitude Kondo has built an empire disrupting. Just as she advises individuals to look at each item and ask whether it brings joy (the “KonMari” method), organizations should look at data and ask whether it brings value in excess of its cost. Many organizations lack the formal process to look at data in a rational way.

“Holding on to data too long can be a liability, and getting rid of it too quickly can be a liability,” says Terence Jackson, CISO at Thycotic. The problem is that holding on to unneeded data can be very expensive — and dealing with it in order to make decisions can be expensive, too.

“Security teams are understaffed and overtasked,” Jackson says. “Adding another mandate to look at all the data a company has and building more committees sounds good, but in practice it can be difficult.”

Starting a process to figure out which data to keep can be be hard, too — even without the voices that say, in spite of everything, keeping it all is the right answer.

On Twitter, Kris Lahiri, co-founder and CISO of Egnyte, took the expansive view of data retention while arguing in favor of classifying and categorizing information:

I believe it’s important to keep it all but to identify and classify what you have. You never want to dispose of something that could potentially be useful – but you can prioritize more important/sensitive data and optimize how you manage and store it

— The Governance Guru (@GovernanceGuru) March 26, 2019

He was joined by Twitter user @dak3, who counseled keeping it all because you never know what might be useful in the future.

Vectra’s Morales says that even the prospect of someday being able to analyze data shouldn’t keep an organization from digitally tidying up on a regular basis. The most important question around keeping data, he says, is, “Why?”

“Just because you can doesn’t mean you should,” he explains. “We’re looking for threats now in security. I think that there is a time limit on the data because it’s retrospective at some point,” he says. “If I was running a department right now, I would want to keep at least 90 days of data. I think that’s reasonable.”

The enterprise analogy of joy is simple, Insight Engine’s Wernick says. “So many people look at things from, ‘Well, what data sources do I have? I’ll start there,'” he explains. “Instead, they should be starting from, ‘What use cases [do] I have [and] what [do] I want to achieve?'”

These tidying up conversations are beginning to happen, but enterprise security professionals should pursue them with the zeal of Konmari converts. “I have conversations in business and my personal life about cleaning up the data trail because you just never know with some of the companies what their data hygiene is,” Thycotic Jackson says. “We should be keepers of our own data. We should understand who’s collecting, what they’re collecting, and why.”

Related Content:

• Under Attack: Over Half of SMBs Breached Last Year
• IT Security Administrators Aren’t Invincible
• Security Analysts Are Only Human
• 5 Expert Tips for Complying with the New PCI Software Security Framework
• Cisco Study Finds Fewer Data Breaches at GDPR-Ready Firms

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop 2019. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop agenda here.

Curtis Franklin Jr. is Senior Editor at Dark Reading. In this role he focuses on product and technology coverage for the publication. In addition he works on audio and video programming for Dark Reading and contributes to activities at Interop ITX, Black Hat, INsecurity, and … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/analytics/tidying-expert-marie-kondo-cybersecurity-guru/d/d-id/1334271?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Companies are increasingly dependent upon third parties to support key factors of their operations — from accounting or HR functions to building maintenance and landscaping. However, these relationships can also expose companies to cybersecurity risks based on the cybersecurity posture of the third parties. According to the Ponemon Institute, 56% of organizations have experienced a data breach caused by a third-party vendor, and 42% have suffered a data breach caused by an attack on one of their third parties.

In thinking about the third-party risk management, I realized that one popular movie series — the Meet the Parents series, starring Robert De Niro and Ben Stiller — teaches us some valuable lessons.

Establish Your “Circle of Trust”
While in Meet the Parents the Circle of Trust referred to specific people, a company’s Circle of Trust should actually be constructed of multiple factors — and potentially multiple circles. This goes far beyond simply signing contracts with cybersecurity language; it involves continuous steps to ensure your partner is actually doing what they say they are (more about that below).

Specific focus areas for establishing your Third-Party Circle of Trust include: identifying the data/systems to which specific third parties will need access, establishing acceptable levels of cyber-risk that your company is willing to accept, determining the partners’ cybersecurity practices/enforcement, and setting a baseline for continuous partner monitoring.

Trust in Processes, but Verify Continuously
In the first movie, De Niro’s character, Jack Byrnes, subjects his daughter’s fiancée, Greg Focker (played by Stiller) to an over-the-top polygraph test. The funny scene ultimately shows the counterproductive reliance on one-time audits or assessments of third-party partners: Summoning partners to periodic questionnaires, interviews, audits, or other scrutiny might look intimidating, but the movie shows us that for all its good intentions, you can’t rely on these traditional methods for fully mitigating cyber-risks (even if your interview questions are much less awkward!). 

We’re seeing an encouraging shift within contract negotiations that is bringing cybersecurity into the discussion earlier and bringing lengthy, security-focused addendums to these contracts. While adding cybersecurity to the contract is a good step, it is critical for vendors to follow through on these contracts to verify that the partner is complying with the agreed-upon cybersecurity requirements.

I’m Watching You
After determining that a third-party vendor has acceptable-or-better cybersecurity policies and practices and establishing a relationship, it is incumbent upon you to reinforce protection through continuous monitoring. While you do not need to be quite as invasive as De Niro’s Byrnes, you should have eyes on your partners 24/7/365 with technologies sending real-time alerts if something is amiss.

Even (Over)protective Security Pros Seldom Make the Final Decision
The humor of the Meet the Parents franchise is that when two people meet and fall in love, it’s the integrity, compassion, and relationship between them that matters most — yet parents, friends, and other “advisers” tend to exert a lot of advice. This is well intended (we all love to have people we can trust to look out on our behalf or confide in), but again, it can be counterproductive when advice is subjective and poorly reasoned and, frankly, is ultimately a decision outside their purview.

The nature of business partnerships is different from personal relationships, but both hinge on trust, transparency and an embracing an opportunity for both parties, together. No one can ever seriously promise that bad things will not happen, but if the integrity and shared stakes truly matter, all sides do their part to realize the benefits. This is where security pros need to play the role of the “grounded friend” or “loving parents” we all trust.

Lessons Learned
As cyber-risk managers, we should anticipate the factors framing a prospective business relationship, respectfully speak up about the risks that exist, be available for in-depth conversations, and do our duty to make sure the right questions and variables are being asked and weighed, respectively — and then accept that a decision is going to be made whether we agree, or not.

No one needs a “Jack Byrnes” flying around the world to polygraph suppliers. A better strategy is to embed cyber-risk conversations deeper in every part of the third-party partner life cycle, so that security pros feel empowered enough not to overreach — and executive “suitors” can be armed with the facts and leeway necessary to manage their relationships.

Related Content:

• 7 Steps to Start Your Risk Assessment
• Data Privacy Manifestos: Competitive Advantage or the Start of Something Bigger?
• 4 Reasons to Take an ‘Inside Out’ View of Security
• Debunking 5 Myths About Zero Trust Security

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop 2019. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop agenda here.

Brandon Dobrec has dedicated his career to cybersecurity, particularly to delivering the comprehensive threat data, intelligence, and tools required for organizations to minimize their business risk. Since joining LookingGlass in September 2016, Brandon has served as an … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/risk/everything-i-needed-to-know-about-third-party-risk-management-i-learned-from-meet-the-parents/a/d-id/1334269?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Famed Internet search engine Shodan this week rolled out a service that helps solve the underlying problem its tool exposes: The new Shodan Monitor alerts organizations about their devices left exposed on the public Internet.

Security researchers long have employed the Shodan search tool to identify computers, databases, industrial control systems and devices, and consumer Internet of Things (IoT) products sitting wide open to attackers via open Internet ports or other misconfigurations. Most recently, a researcher discovered a MongoDB data instance with 150 gigabytes of data, including some 763 million email addresses, sitting on the public Net and in plain text. 

“Every other week there’s an exposed database leaking information or a consumer device that was misconfigured and is now exposing private data. The number of industrial control systems directly connected to the Internet without any authentication has been increasing at a rate of about 10% every year,” says John Matherly, creator and founder of Shodan. The wave of consumer IoT devices also is increasing, he says.

“Knowing what you have exposed to the Internet is required before any further security work can be done,” he explains. “It shouldn’t be rocket science to know what you have exposed to the Internet.”

Shodan Monitor represents a new brand of tool for Shodan, an online continuous monitoring service. Renowned security expert HD Moore – a pioneer in rooting out exposed and vulnerable devices and systems on the Internet, such as embedded devices, home routers, servers, corporate videoconferencing systems, and Web servers – says many “outside-in” scanning firms such as Shodan are expanding into continuous monitoring. They include Assetnote, BinaryEdge, Bit Discovery, Expanse.co, Hardenize, RiskRecon, and SecurityScorecard.

“I think monitoring is the way to make this technology most effective; bulk data and searching is nice, but it is much more useful when someone else does the difficult attribution work for you and tells you what changed,” says Moore, vice president of research and development for consultancy Atredis Partners. “It has been a fun few years watching the ‘scan the Internet’ firms turn their platforms into actual businesses.”

Shodan’s Matherly says Monitor was built to be simple and inexpensive, and a tool for organizations with less technical know-how and resources. “From a strategic perspective, this is our first foray into creating services that don’t require advanced technical knowledge. In the past, much of our focus was on the Shodan platform, which has been capable of doing this for a long time, but it required usage of our API, which means there was a technical barrier to entry,” he says. “After a decade of building out the platform, it’s time to make it more accessible to nontechnical users.”

Matherly says setting up Shodan Monitor – which is free to all paying Shodan members – takes less than a minute, and Shodan sends an email when it finds an exposed device. It monitors up to 16 IPs for Shodan members (who pay $49 to join) and 300,000 IPs for Shodan Corporate API members. He says many of the existing services and products that offer this type of monitoring are pricey and overly complex, with an overload of dashboard data and confusing alerts.

“We’re hoping that this will put a dent in the number of exposed devices and prevent recurring issues like we see with MongoDB and industrial control systems,” he says.

Stephen Cobb, senior security researcher at ESET, notes that it’s become more difficult for organizations to get a handle on their networks. “Today’s rapidly expanding universe of sensors, cloud storage, remote access, and IoT devices has created levels of complexity that are impossible to secure without constant monitoring, both within and without,” he says. He sees Shodan Monitor as a tool for organizations that don’t have the technical expertise or resources.

“Since its inception, Shodan has played a valuable role in monitoring efforts while at the same time revealing the need for such monitoring,” Cobb says.

Related Content:

• 7 Low-Cost Security Tools
• Epic Security #FAILS Of The Past 10 Years
• Gas Stations Urged To Secure Internet-Exposed Fuel Tank Devices
• Internet Of Things Security Reaches Tipping Point

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop 2019. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop agenda here.

Kelly Jackson Higgins is Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/cloud/new-shodan-tool-warns-organizations-of-their-internet-exposed-devices/d/d-id/1334268?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

LockerGoga – the malware that recently disrupted operations at Norwegian aluminum company Norsk Hydro – is the latest example of the rapidly changing nature of ransomware attacks.

The March 19 attack impacted critical operations in several of Hydro’s business areas across Europe and North America. The attack forced the aluminum maker to resort to manual operations at multiple plants. It crippled production systems belonging to Hydro’s Extruded Solution group in particular, resulting in temporary plant closures and operational slowdowns that are still getting only in the process of getting restored.

In two updates this week, Norsk Hydro described the attack as so far costing it about $40 million.

The attack comes amid an overall decline in ransomware campaigns and highlights what security experts say is a shift to more narrowly focused, targeted ransomware intrusions. “Ransomware as a generic threat family is absolutely on the decline,” says Rik Ferguson, vice president security research at Trend Micro.

Ransomware-related events have declined 91% year over year and the number of new ransomware families in the marketplace has declines 32%, he says.”[But] those players still in the game are the more talented ones still seeking to innovate on this technique, to find new victim populations, to gain greater leverage, and to sow greater disruption and reap consequentially larger rewards.”

Some examples of groups using ransomware in this manner include Pinchy Spider, the group behind the GandCrab ransomware family; Boss Spider, the authors of SamSam; Indrik Spider the threat actor using BitPaymer; and Grim Spider, the operators of Ryuk. In most cases the newer attacks are notable not necessarily because of how sophisticated the ransomware tools are, but because of how they are being used.

Here’s a look at the most notable features and capabilities of LockerGoga:

1. LockerGoga changes passwords.

Security researchers are still not sure how the attackers are initially infecting systems with LockerGoga, though several believe that spear-phishing is the most likely scenario.

Once LockerGoga infects a system, it changes all the local user account passwords to ‘[email protected]’ before attempting to boot local and remote users out of the system, Ferguson says. The password change complicates local intervention processes. It also “affects any system services using local accounts running on servers, sending availability ripples throughout the targeted organization,” Ferguson says.

F-Secure, however, described LockerGoga as only changing administrator account passwords to ‘[email protected]’.

2. It forcibly logs victims out of infected systems.

Early versions of LockerGoga merely encrypted files and other data on infected systems and presented victims with a note demanding a ransom in exchange for the decryption keys. Newer versions of the malware have included a capability to forcibly log the victim out of an infected system and remove their ability to log back in as well.

“The consequence is that in many cases, the victim may not even be able to view the ransom note, let alone attempt to comply with any ransom demands,” Cisco Talos noted in a blog. This capability makes newer versions of LockerGoga destructive in nature, the vendor said.

3. It has no use for the network.

Unlike some other ransomware families, LockerGoga does not rely on the network for command and communications, nor to generate encryption keys. “In fact, LockerGoga disdains the network to such an extent that it also attempts to locally disable all network interfaces,” Ferguson says. The goal is “to further isolate the affected computer and to complicate recovery, necessitating direct local intervention.”

4. It doesn’t self-propagate (yet).

LockerGoga has no obvious worm-like capabilities for self-propagation since it does not rely on the network. Security researchers from Palo Alto Networks’ Unit 42 group said they have observed LockerGoga moving around a compromised network via the server message protocol (SMB). That “indicates the actors simply manually copy files from computer to computer,” the vendor said in a blog Tuesday.

However, recent additions and updates to the malware since it first surfaced in January suggest that the authors may be enabling a network capability. As an example, the security vendor pointed to the addition of WS2_32.dll processes for handling network connections and the use of undocumented Windows API calls.

The additions suggest “the developers are building in [a] network capability for the ransomware which could be used for Command and Control, or network self-propagation capabilities,” says Ryan Olson, vice president of threat intelligence at Unit 42 at Palo Alto Networks.

The use of the undocumented Windows APIs demonstrates a relatively high degree of technical sophistication and familiarity with Windows internals, he says. “The capabilities that we see for possible C2 or network self-propagation could make this a more dangerous kind of ransomware in the future,” Olson notes.

5. It appears designed for targeted attacks.

With no self-propagation or use of the network, LockerGoga appears to built for targeted attacks.

The code—at least initially—was digitally signed with valid certificates from at least three organizations. Those certificates have since been revoked, says Trend Micro’s Ferguson.

The ransomware also incorporates techniques that have been designed to evade sandboxing and machine learning based detection mechanisms, he says.

“The main process thread for some of LockerGoga’s variants, for example, sleeps over 100 times before it executes,” Trend Micro said in a blog analyzing the malware.

One scenario for which the ransomware appears designed is for when attackers have already gained some level of access within an organization, Ferguson says. An example is where an attacker might have access to the Active Directory infrastructure “and are able to deploy the ransomware in advance, across the affected estate, before triggering the encryption routine,” he says.

6. The authors have been trying to pass off LockerGoga as CryptoLocker.

Christopher Elisan, director of intelligence at Flashpoint, says the authors of LockerGoga appear to have gone to some lengths to pass off the malware as a version of the notorious CryptoLocker ransomware. LockerGoga uses Crypto++, an open source crypto library and newer versions even use “crypto-locker” as the project folder name.

There is also some research showing LockerGoga containing bugs in its code, Elisan adds. “If this is the case, it makes [LockerGoga] more dangerous for victimized organizations because any attempt to decrypt the files even after payment of ransom might not be successful due to buggy encryption.”

Related Content:

• Norsk Hydro Shuts Plants Amid Ransomware Attack
• Ransomware’s New Normal
• Ransomware Attack Via MSP Locks Customers Out of Systems
• 6 Reasons to Be Wary of Encryption in Your Enterprise

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop 2019. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop agenda here.

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year … View Full Bio

Article source: https://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/6-things-to-know-about-the-ransomware-that-hit-norsk-hydro/d/d-id/1334270?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple

Most (84%) businesses increased their cloud-based workloads in 2018, but lack of visibility into those workloads could compromise security and business value, cloud experts report. Only 13% of companies surveyed reported the same level of public cloud usage as the previous year.

These findings come from “The State of Cloud Monitoring,” a new report released today by Keysight, which polled 300-plus IT professionals who handle public and private cloud deployments in global organizations across 15 countries. Nearly seven out of 10 respondents said public cloud monitoring is more difficult than monitoring data centers and private cloud environments, and less than 20% said their organizations can properly monitor public cloud environments.

The lack of visibility is masking security threats, according to 87% of respondents. It also leads to a variety of application and network performance issues, including the inability to deliver against service agreements. Most (95%) pros said visibility problems led to an application or network performance issue, and 99% reported they notice a direct link between network visibility and business value.

What problems does this lack of visibility cause? Delays with troubleshooting application performance issues (48%) were most common, followed by delays in troubleshooting network performance issues (40%), an application outage (38%), and the inability to monitor performance of workloads in the cloud (31%), which tied with network outage (31%).

Read more details here.

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop 2019. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop agenda here.

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: https://www.darkreading.com/analytics/87--of-cloud-pros-say-lack-of-visibility-masks-security/d/d-id/1334236?_mc=rss_x_drr_edt_aud_dr_x_x-rss-simple