Login
In Part 1 of our Through Your Mind’s Eye series, we explored how our brains don’t give each decision we make equal attention, and we take mental shortcuts known as biases. These biases allow us to react quickly, but they can also lead to mistakes and oversights. Because we all have biases that shape who we are, our decisions in and out of cybersecurity can be impacted in both good and bad ways.
Safety bias is focusing on shortcomings so as not to take a risk. Many studies have shown that we as humans would prefer not to lose money even more than we’d prefer to gain money. You may have heard about studies where people are offered a lower amount of money now or higher amount in two years. Most participants took the sure thing of money now rather than wait for more. However, this changes when people are faced with a loss decision. For instance, when asked if they would rather definitely lose $100 or take a 50% chance of losing $1000, most say they would take the option to risk losing $1000. Because of safety biases, progress in decision making is slowed and healthy forms of risk taking are held back.
Safety bias is seen in security development operations, risk assessment, policies and procedures, decision making, and identity and access management. For the area of security development operations, is your dev ops team applying traditional network controls to the cloud or are they looking at how they can refactor to help take their organization to the next level? Are they stuck in the past or moving to the future?
When was the last time you reviewed your security products and their capabilities for risk assessment? Are you keeping what you have because you already purchased those solutions, or are you reviewing them to ensure they’re the best at keeping your organization safe? For example, does your current solution have a vulnerability scanner that can identify advanced vulnerabilities? Would you upgrade if it didn’t? If you aren’t evaluating your security products against emerging threats on a regular basis, your risks can be impacted without realizing it.
There are also parallels with our example above where participants took the immediate sure thing. The same thinking causes companies to invest in solutions that may be overkill to address overly specific and high impact/low probability risk factors. They are solving for something with a low probability of happening and, as a result, may be spending much more on policies and procedures than necessary.
When there is an ambiguity in decision making, system owners may be reluctant to upgrade or apply the latest patches. There may also be an unwillingness of end-users to configure security features, and a lack of interest from developers to add new security features to an existing application. As a result, these system owners err on the side of caution so as to not break or change something since they see this as more of a risk than installing the latest patches. Likewise, developers may opt for cost savings rather than add in security features.
As you move from on-prem to cloud solutions, have you considered what software applications need to be retooled for optimization in the cloud for your identity and access management requirements? What new identity analytics solutions need to be put in place to be prepared for the future? Or are you keeping things “as is” because that is the safe thing to do?
Some social scientists lump the ostrich effect with safety bias. The ostrich effect is based on a myth that ostriches bury their head in the sand when they sense danger. Is your team “burying their heads in the sand” when they need to make a risky decision?
To overcome safety bias, get some distance between you and the decision being made. Imagine a past self already having made the choice successfully in order to weaken the perception that there will be loss. Another idea, if you feel this is something happening in your environment, is to balance out your team with both risk-taking and risk adverse team members.
Framing Effect – The framing effect also influences safety bias and relates to how something is “framed” or described. For instance, if something is worded in a negative way to emphasize the potential for loss, the receiver may be afraid to take a risk. You may have seen commercials for cyber services that say, “1 in 5 companies lost their data while using another service”. Instead of focusing on the 4 that did not lose their data, they focused on the 1 that did lose so you’ll think about them protecting you instead of their competition. Another example that drives home the point is related to health. Let’s say you needed an operation. How would you feel if the doctor told you that you had an 80% chance of recovery? Now what if the doctor said you had a 20% chance of death by having this same operation? Would you think differently how you approached the operation? Pay attention to how statements are phrased to overcome gut reactions when deciding.
Affinity Bias – Affinity bias is gravitating to what we know or are comfortable with as opposed to the unknown. For example, when you see a stranger wearing your college alma mater sweatshirt in another city you instantly feel a connection to them even though you have never met. This creates an “in-group” bias. This can manifest in cyber as an aversion to new product offerings. Are you still using the same solutions you’ve been using for the last 20 years because they are familiar and comfortable to you or are you using an XDR solution now? You may also feel your direct team alone has all the right answers and no one else knows how to secure the environment or application better than your team. Is that because it’s true or because you are most comfortable with them?
Similarity Bias – Similarity bias occurs because we as humans are highly motivated to see ourselves and those who are similar to us in a favorable light. We unconsciously create “ingroups” and “outgroups”. These could be related to the city or country where we grew up or live today, where we went to school, areas of interest, etc. Are you hiring people who are similar to who you currently have on the team or are you looking for skills and individuals that bring diverse perspectives or meet your needs in the next 1-2 years?
Loss Aversion – An example of loss aversion can be observed when companies have already invested in their traditional IT infrastructure so why move to the cloud? Moving to the cloud takes time and resources. Instead of modernizing, they keep buying new servers and storage to keep the environment running as it had been for decades.
Distance Bias – Distance bias is prioritizing what is nearby whether it is in physical space, time, or other domains. Prior to the pandemic when we were in conference rooms having conversations, how many times did you observe people in the meeting room failing to gather inputs from their remote colleagues on the phone? Or have you decided based on what you needed to do sooner in time instead of considering the long-term effects of what was best for the company?
As you saw in each of the biases featured in both of our articles, they are not mutually exclusive. There are many overlaps between the different types of cognitive biases. How do we address these?
Awareness of the cognitive biases at play for you and your teams is one of the first steps to ensuring your company is not at risk. After you have acknowledged the possibility of biases and flaws in your environment, examine where you may have biases influencing your cybersecurity posture. This requires personal insight and empathy by all involved.
Begin to educate others on where and how biases could be impacting your cybersecurity posture. Once that is done, have a thorough review of your current cybersecurity posture and adjust as necessary. Over the next few months, work on building habits across the team to ensure you are consciously removing biases that could be influencing your cybersecurity posture.
Our adversaries understand human biases and actively try to exploit them. Removing these biases as much as possible can help you and your team improve your security posture and defend your organization across all levels.
The post Through Your Mind’s Eye: How to Address Biases in Cybersecurity – Part 2 appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
Imagine this scenario: a CEO, CIO, CTO, CISO walk into a bar…
The CTO has heard about cocktails that go beyond the “pour and shake,” and asks the bartender what they know about molecular gastronomy to take their drink to the next level. The CIO considers the CTO’s choice, weighing the risk versus reward of trying something new. The CEO orders a Long Island iced tea – a bold, ambitious, and challenging choice that incorporates a bit of everything, but they know in their gut it is the right decision and direction. The CISO orders a water.
Why? Because somebody always must be the designated driver, taking the responsibility to protect the integrity of the entire team and organization. They are the eyes and ears, proactively anticipating what may happen, knowing the onus is also on them to respond reactively to anything that may occur.
While in a bar this may mean things getting a bit rowdy, in the security operations center (SOC) it means an entire business can be compromised, creating a catastrophic spiral of events that can have massive impact and implications for customers, not to mention severe cost to the business.
Needless to say, the consequences are more extreme than a hangover. They remain always-on in the mind of the CISO – and this isn’t the only challenge the role faces. It is no secret in the security industry that elevating the role of the CISO to carry equal weight and footing as the rest of the executive or c-suite has been an uphill battle. While progress has certainly been made, there is always more work to be done to thwart and combat the seemingly never-ending barrage of threats that continue to emerge.
Nearly every industry has been impacted in some manner by the events of 2020 and so far, across 2021. Attacks have increased and promise to become even more plentiful, more sophisticated. Enterprises and organizations have struggled against unforeseen challenges, yet at the same time have faced increased pressure and demand to modernize, digitize, and transform.
We’ve seen that with today’s distributed workforce, cloud usage has increased, and enterprises are tasked with maintaining efficiency across even more endpoints – and keeping those endpoints safe. This has presented a tremendous opportunity for CISOs to maximize their full power and impact by proving to be the clear connection and catalyst merging technology and business.
This means today’s CISOs may need to do more with less, convincing fellow c-suite members that integration is more important than introducing new toolsets, applications, or solutions at a time when enterprises may be more vulnerable or susceptible to risk due to staffing constraints or conflicting priorities across the business. With the amount of change rapidly occurring across enterprises, CISOs have an increased impetus, responsibility, and opportunity to show enhanced value to the organization. They must continue to shift the perception that security can be a barrier to business efficiency and success and instead show that security is more than a compliance function, but a true business enabler.
In order for CISOs to be successful, they must stay steadfast in aligning with the CIO, CTO, CEO, and all the way up to the board. They can do this by showing up with data to demonstrate the impact (both past and potential) made to business, including proof points related to vendor sprawl and legacy technologies (and any associated cost or complexity) as well as insight into threats that were prevented and the damage they could have caused.
CISOs will also need to continue the shift on their end, adapting their role and approach from waiting for a compromise to happen to understanding threat actors, their common techniques, and how to get ahead. In short, they need to become what they fight against – proactive threat management means you need to think like a threat actor. Ideally, the CISO should not only be able to articulate business risks and impacts – they also need to show foresight and maturity to suggest controls or process improvements that can improve business efficiencies because security is built in to protect and enable this agility.
Once CISOs truly understand the business side of an organization and can not only relate but prove this value to the rest of the c-suite, they can be viewed as more of a strategic partner. With this line of thinking, the SOC can move from being viewed as a cost center to being a more deliberate and proactive part of the enterprise facilitating business success.
The post Give CISOs a Shot – They Deserve It appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
Summer is here, which means more sun and more fun for everyone. It also means more streaming, gaming, and downloading. This seasonal reality reminds us that to enjoy the best of summer, it’s important to stay aware of the digital risks that could sink the fun faster than you can say, “it’s hammock time!”
Emerging from the pandemic, we’re familiar with the increase in online time that came with remote learning. However, shift into summer means the remote learning hours will quickly turn into hours spent gaming, TikTok scrolling, and social networking. If you add summer travel plans to those activities, your family also becomes vulnerable to Wi-Fi breaches, viruses, sketchy apps, and device theft.
Suppose your family’s screen time rules became laxer this year. In that case, summer is the perfect time to start re-establishing healthy digital habits for gamer security, app security, and Wi-Fi security, be it at home or while traveling. Here are just a few tips to get you rolling.
According to a recent McAfee study 2021 Consumer Security Mindset: Travel Edition, 2 out of 3 Americans plan to travel this summer. However, the study also highlighted a troubling discrepancy: while 68% of Americans confirm they are more digitally connected since the onset of COVID-19, only about half of them have implemented additional levels of internet security.
Chances are someone in your immediate family — perhaps an elderly relative or a younger child — is among those who are more connected since COVID-19 but less secure as they head into the summer months. One way to close that gap is to educate and share family internet security tips. Here are just a few.
This summer can unfold seamlessly and be packed with unforgettable family memories. Or, it could be a season you’d rather forget if you wander into a digital danger zone. Remember: Your family’s privacy is as strong as your weakest family member’s security IQ. One vulnerable person exposes the data and security of everyone under your roof. So, taking the time to build up your family’s internet security is a big step in bummer-proofing your summer. Here’s to fun, sunny, safe days ahead!
The post At Home or On-the-Go: Boost Your Internet Safety this Summer appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
When we think of tipping, many don’t see it as anything beyond a display of gratitude. However, Twitter’s latest feature is prompting its users to rethink this sentiment. It hasn’t been long since Twitter released their new Tip Jar feature, which allows users on the platform to send tips to designated accounts. However, online users and security experts are already exposing the vulnerabilities in its architecture.
Twitter’s Tip Jar has sparked concerns over user privacy due to the exposure of user’s shipping address, not to mention concerns over fraudulent payment disputes. Here’s what you need to know about this feature and what it means for your financial and data privacy.
It was recently revealed that the new feature may not be as secure as it was believed to be. Users were quick to point out a critical flaw that reveals their shipping address to the recipient when sending money through PayPal. Shortly after, others also discovered that Twitter Tip Jar could reveal a user’s email address even if no transaction took place. Only a limited number of accounts can receive payments, including creators, journalists, experts, and nonprofits. However, anyone can send tips, making the new feature’s vulnerabilities more concerning.
The reason why PayPal displays the sender’s shipping address is because Twitter categorizes tipping as a payment transaction. Therefore, recipients would receive the sender’s payment and shipping details by default, just like any other vendor would in a typical online transaction.
While your information is not shared publicly, exposing it to recipients poses increased security risks.
Picture this: Hackers recognize notable recipients and hack their accounts to steal their information—including your personal address. They then use your information to carry out targeted phishing attacks and ransomware. You lose your data, your device becomes infected and therefore unusable, and you’re even more susceptible to identity fraud—all stemming from an attempt to leave a digital tip as a token of goodwill.
Twitter Tip Jar is a prime example of a good idea gone awry. Twitter released the feature to support notable members of their community, many of whom prefer to use Twitter due to the level of anonymity that is allowed by the platform — it does not require your real name, which potentially leads to more anonymous interactions than other social media sites. For this reason, Twitter users are more vulnerable to privacy concerns when using the Tip Jar.
In addition to privacy concerns, hackers could also misuse the Tip Jar feature through fraudulent payment disputes. If someone tips a Twitter user using the Tip Jar and later files a “dispute” regarding the payment, PayPal requires the recipient pay a $20 dispute charge. Now imagine if a malicious entity does this to a recipient multiple times. The user could quickly accumulate hundreds of dollars in dispute charges instead of tips, causing the direction of money flow to effectively be reversed and financial stress on the recipient.
It can be challenging to safely navigate social media from a cybersecurity perspective because sharing is now synonymous with social networking. If you actively participate on social platforms, here are the three tips you should follow to side-step any security gotchas along the way:
Fortunately, there’s a simple workaround to avoid publicly sharing your shipping address while using the Twitter Tip Jar. When sending a tip using Tip Jar, rather than inputting an address under the shipping address form field, simply defer to the “No address needed” option to keep your address private.
Double check your privacy settings in both your social apps and your connected third-party payment systems. As you navigate this new feature and any that are up–and–coming, take note of the privacy policies that impact how your personal data is being used. (e.g. Twitter has updated its tipping prompt and Help Center to make it clear that other apps, such as PayPal, may share information between people sending and receiving tips).
Security researchers and engineers are constantly working to fix software bugs and vulnerabilities in the background. By turning on automatic updates, you are guaranteed to have all the latest security patches and enhancements for your apps and tools as soon as they become available.
It can be tempting to jump on the bandwagon when a shiny, new feature makes its way to the social media platforms you use and love. But taking the time to learn about these features before choosing to participate can save you from a potential privacy headache, especially in the case of the Twitter Tip Jar. By educating yourself on both the benefits and the risks, you’ll be able to take actionable steps that protect your personal information.
To stay updated on all things McAfee and on top of the latest consumer and mobile security threats, follow @McAfee_Home on Twitter, subscribe to our newsletter, listen to our podcast Hackable?, and ‘Like’ us on Facebook.
The post Keep the Change: 3 Tips for Using the Twitter Tip Jar appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
In the wake of the Schrems II decision[1], and even more in the light of Friday’s Facebook ruling[2], the question on everyone’s mind is how to truly protect personal data from the prying eyes of national security agencies around the world. Despite detailed guidelines[3] issued in November 2020, in the absence of new definitive guidelines for transferring data across European borders[4], many are starting to wonder whether data localisation is the magic bullet to protect personal data.
The terms ‘data sovereignty’, ‘data residency’ and ‘data localization’ are a source of confusion for most people. They are effectively three degrees of a single concept: how data privacy impacts cross-border data flows. This subject has become increasingly important following the Schrems II decision and its requirement that organizations when processing personal data must ensure their privacy is not put at risk and subject to governmental surveillance when shared across borders.
Data residency refers to the country where an organisation specifies that its data is stored, usually for regulatory or policy reasons. A common data residency requirement example is for tax purposes: to prove an organisation conducts a greater portion of its business in a given country, it will put in place an infrastructure that requires a strict data management in order to protect its taxation rights.
Data sovereignty differs from data residency in that not only is the data stored in a designated location, but it is also subject to the laws of the country in which it is physically stored. This difference is crucial, as there will be different privacy and security requirements depending on where the data centres physically sit. From a legal perspective, the difference is important because a government’s data access rights vary from country to country.
Data localisation is the most stringent concept of the three, which is the reason why it is often referred to as “hard data localisation”. It requires that data created within certain borders stay within them and is almost always applied to the creation and storage of personal data, without exception. A good example is Russia’s On Personal Data Law (OPD-Law), which requires the storage, update and retrieval of data on its citizens to be limited to data center resources within the Russian Federation.
In the post-Schrems II world, some organisations have taken the view that the GDPR requires hard data localisation. The question is then whether such practices are realistic, and whether they offer similar privacy protection to that of the GDPR.
Data localisation runs counter to the principles of cloud computing (and the internet) – allowing the free flow of data for the greatest use. It is also potentially contrary to the principles of free movement of data under EU law[5]. The Internet is global and beyond the Internet, most companies operate in an integrated global environment, bearing in mind that “remote access by an entity from a third country to data located in the EEA is also considered a transfer.”[6].
The cost of operating a localised service must also be factored in, including support, engineering (e.g. development, debugging and maintenance), and backup (e.g. redundancy) costs. So, whilst the creation of local infrastructure may in the short-term imply jobs for local economies, the reality is that given there are often fully automated, the jobs and investment dividend may be short-lived.
Data localisation is also often touted as a mean to shield European citizen data from 3rd country government surveillance in particular US Government access under the CLOUD Act. While localisation does offer some protections (i.e. from transfer of data out of the territory), it does not automatically mean that data will be protected adequately in country. For example, data localisation does not mean that appropriate encryption standards are met, nor does it mean that there is no local surveillance – even in adequate countries[7].
You have probably heard of the Five EYES, Nine EYES, and Fourteen EYES Alliances. If not, these are all about intelligence sharing agreements. Initially, the Five Eyes Alliance arose out of the cold war era and was a pact between the United States and the UK aimed at decrypting Soviet Russian intelligence. By the late 1950s, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand also joined the Alliance. These five English-speaking countries are the Five Eyes Alliance. On top of this alliance, two other international intelligence-sharing agreements are publicly known: the Nine Eyes (Five Eyes + Denmark, France, Holland, Norway) and the Fourteen Eyes Alliances (Nine Eyes + Germany, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, Spain).
With this in mind, some companies argue, without evidence, that by doing business from a given jurisdiction, they are able to offer more adequate protection against surveillance. And without much surprise, not one country, even within the European Union, offers the same level of protection against surveillance, and the US’ surveillance activity isn’t much more extensive than other countries viewed as providing adequate protection.[8] Let’s take for instance the use of a VPN to protect privacy. Many providers argue that choosing a VPN outside the 5/9/14 Eyes countries may offer further protection.
The truth is once this very obvious statement is said, the question still remains wide open for many valid reasons. VPNs are international operations, meaning effectively, any organisation operating in a given country may be liable to that country’s law enforcement, whether by treaty, or by any other type of court orders. If a country does not have a general treaty and is not part of 5/9/14 eyes, there’s nothing stopping one country from putting political pressure on the other (sanctions, for example) to get what they want. Additionally, operating in a given country, for instance Panama, does not mean a country will refuse to cooperate with another country’s authorities, such as Canada.
There is little chance to find one country that is completely immune to data access laws in one way or the other, and nothing can stop one country from putting pressure on another one to obtain what it wants. That works for companies as well. For instance, Microsoft recently announced that it has “answered Europe’s call,”[9] but it cannot reject a request based on the CLOUD Act, and the compensation offered by Microsoft for a violation of the GDPR is not equivalent to the recourse to an available judicial remedy as requested under the Schrems II decision.
Now, once all of the above is said, it must be kept in mind that just because being anonymous is impossible, that you shouldn’t still try to protect your personal data as much as possible, or request companies to strictly comply with data minimization principles. All in all, governments would not have access to so much data if companies were not holding themselves so much data. Data minimization ends up being not only a good tool for increasing security, since attackers can’t steal what you don’t have, but also because it could potentially help people decrease the costs of data redundancy, storage, etc.
In 2020, the Internet Society penned a report on the implication of data localisation for cybersecurity that has much merit, and stated that “Cybersecurity may suffer as organizations are less able to store data outside borders with the aim of increasing reliability and mitigating a wide variety of risks including cyber-attacks and national disasters.”[10]
Data localization practices may harm cybersecurity services through the following facts:
This train of thought also applies to the selling of data to unsecure third parties within the same region or preventing unauthorised access to the data gained by third parties.
Some also argue that data localisation interferes with fraud prevention. For example, the inability to mirror data across several data centers can prevent the provider from seeing patterns and trends of fraud or other risks.
Data localisation may be presented by some as a magic bullet, but the complete implications are yet to be fully understood. Hence policies or commercial practices requiring forced data localisation must be thought through carefully as they can impact the free flow of data, can comprise the ability to scale platforms and services for global customers in addition to the many cybersecurity harms that may impact operational effectiveness.
Disclaimer: This blog reflects the authors’ personal opinions. Any statements, opinions, and any errors are the authors’ own and not those of McAfee. The statements in this blog do not constitute legal advice, and each company must determine for itself its obligations under all laws. Nothing herein establishes an attorney-client relationship.
[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2020/652073/EPRS_ATA(2020)652073_EN.pdf
[2] The EU-U.S. Data Transfer Problem Is Bigger Than Most People Realise (linkedin.com)
[3] Recommendations 2020/1 and 2020/2 of the EDPB – https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/consultation/edpb_recommendations_202001_supplementarymeasurestransferstools_en.pdf
[4] European Standard Contractual Clauses, available on https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-dimension-data-protection/standard-contractual-clauses-scc_en
[5] The European Parliament considers “the free movement of data as the Fifth Freedom in the single market after the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital” – Morrison Foerster Client Alert “New EU Regulation to Strengthen the Free Movement of Data 06 Nov 2018” https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/181106-eu-regulation-data-movement.html
[6] https://iapp.org/news/a/why-this-french-court-decision-has-far-reaching-consequences-for-many-businesses/
[7] For example, French surveillance laws authorises surveillance not only to combat terrorism and other criminal offences, but also to protect France’s major economic, industrial, and scientific interests.
[8] https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/surveillance-states/
Canada is part of the 5 Eyes but has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to free and unrestricted internet access and has strong protections for freedom of speech and press, and the government has expressed support for net neutrality. Iran is not part of any of the know alliances. However, VPN providers are required to request government approval before providing their services, and people accessing the international internet network using VPNs without such government approval risk up to 1 year of prison time.
[9] https://blogs.microsoft.com/eupolicy/2021/05/06/eu-data-boundary/
[10] https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/internet-impact-assessment-toolkit/use-case-data-localization/
The post Data Localisation – The Magic Bullet? appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
Cybersecurity and biases are not topics typically discussed together. However, we all have biases that shape who we are and, as a result, impact our decisions in and out of security. Adversaries understand humans have these weaknesses and try to exploit them. What can you do to remove biases as much as possible and improve your cybersecurity posture across all levels of your organization?
Cybersecurity personnel have many things to address and decisions to make every day — from what alerts to investigate, to what systems to patch for the latest vulnerabilities, to what to tell the board of directors. However, our brains don’t give each decision equal attention—we take mental shortcuts. These mental shortcuts are known as biases and they allow us to react quickly.
In this two-part blog series, we’ll explore the types of cognitive biases that could be affecting your company’s security posture and give you tips on how to address these biases.
Do you feel you are biased? We all are to some extent. What do you see when you look at this picture below? Faces or a vase? Some people may see one or the other and some see both. This is representative of what happens in real life. Many of us are at the same meeting together but leave with different perspectives about the discussion. This is our cognitive biases influencing us.
A cognitive bias is a result of our brain’s attempt to simplify processing of information. The formal definition says it is “a systematic pattern of deviation from norms in judgment”. We as individuals create our own “subjective reality” from the perception of the inputs. Our construction of reality, not the input, may dictate how we behave.
Availability bias is a mental shortcut that our brains use based on past examples relating to information that is “available” to us around a specific topic, event, or decision. This information could come from things we saw on the news, heard from a friend, read, or experienced. When we hear information frequently, we can recall it quickly, and our brains feel it is important as a result. With all the urgent interrupts and overall volume of decisions needing to be made by CISOs and other cyber executives, it is very easy to get caught up in decision making based on past or recent information.
Availability bias impacts security in many ways. We often see the impact in the areas of risk assessment, preparedness, decision making and incident response. In the area of risk assessment, availability bias may arise when the company board of directors looks for an updated risk assessment. Rather than focusing on the entire company, data could be presented with respect to an area for which another company had a breach. For example, we have seen SolarWinds in the news a lot throughout the first quarter of this year, and our inclination might be to assess our risk in the context of that incident. However, the assessments should look at all aspects of the business in depth and not just focus on the supply chain risks. Are there issues that require more attention than what is trending in the news?
We also see availability bias in preparedness when organizations prepare for high impact, low probability events instead of preparing for high probability events. What we should worry about doesn’t always align with what we do worry about. Events that have a high impact but low probability of occurring, such as an airplane crash, a shark attack, or volcano eruption, often receive much attention but are less likely to occur. We remember these much more than we remember higher probability events like falling off a ladder or automobile accidents. For instance, can you name the last phishing campaign you heard about or the last time someone’s PII was stolen? Probably not, but these are examples of the high probability events your organization most likely needs to prepare for.
In the area of decision making, your CISO or the cybersecurity analysts may make decisions in favor of hot topics in the news. These topics may overshadow other information they know or is so mundane that it becomes background noise. As a result, decisions made are not well rounded. For example, if there was a recent IoT related issue like Dyn in 2016, your analysts may over focus on IoT related security decisions and neglect things like investing in new security controls for your mobile devices.
Availability bias also surfaces during critical incidents when emotions are typically running high and the focus is on quickly addressing the issue at hand. Focusing on securing the specific area where the incident occurred may leave us blind to another issue waiting in the wings. Let’s pretend someone broke into your home through a window, your first thought may be to secure all the windows quickly; however, if you didn’t look at all your security risks, you may forget that you can shake your garage door lock, and it’ll pop open.
Our analysts are typically exploring data thoroughly though executives may not always see the in-depth information. If you are at the executive level, I would recommend you review all the facts and consciously look beyond what is available quickly so you get the full picture of the incident, how prepared you are, risks, etc. If you are an analyst or in a position of influence, I would recommend summarizing the facts in way that accurately reflects the probability of those events occurring as well as considering all possible events.
Another bias that appears in cybersecurity is confirmation bias. This is when you look for things to “confirm” your own beliefs or you remember things that only conform to your beliefs (similar to availability bias). For example, your news feed may be full of things related to your political beliefs based on what articles you clicked on, shared, or liked. Chances are it’s not filled with things that oppose your beliefs. A few areas where confirmation bias is seen in cybersecurity is in decision making, security hygiene, risk assessment, preparedness, and penetration testing.
When you are making decisions, are you considering different points of view or just looking to your close group of trusted advisors who may think like you? Are you willing to push and challenge your own beliefs to ensure you are making the best decisions for the company?
When was the last time you reviewed your company’s security hygiene? Are you diligent about updating systems or do you believe it won’t happen to you because nothing has happened in the past? Are you using an XDR solution in your environment or do you feel you don’t need it because all your current systems are serving your needs just fine? Do you feel you are more secure when you are in the cloud vs on-prem despite human error affecting both?
How do you approach cybersecurity preparedness? Are you passive, reactive, or progressive? Similar to hygiene, do you feel an incident won’t happen to you so you look for data to confirm that? Or are you the opposite and feel you may repeat incidents if you don’t do everything possible to look for data to confirm those beliefs? If you are an executive, are you reviewing the facts and evidence for all your cyber processes or just those that you personally know well from early on in your career? I’ve seen some analysts ignore some of their alerts because they weren’t quite sure how to deal with them. As a result, they fall back on what they know or information that is readily available.
Sometimes organizations may hire third party companies or employ penetration testing performed on their environments. When you define the scope of work, are you looking for all the gaps or holes or just focusing on the weaknesses and strengths? When the results come in, do you address everything that is recommended or only focus on the items you believe will impact you?
It is hard to look beyond what we believe because in our eyes it is ground truth. It is important in making security decisions that we look beyond what we want to hear or see to ensure we are getting what we need to hear and see.
Unconscious or implicit biases are social stereotypes about certain groups of people that we form outside of our own conscious awareness. Just as you see in the picture, our mind is like an iceberg where the conscious mind is what we can recall quickly and are aware of. The subconscious mind stores our beliefs, previous experiences, memories, etc. When you have an idea, emotion, or memory from the past, it’s recalled from our subconscious by our conscious mind. The third layer – our unconscious mind – is deep inside our brain.
Everyone holds unconscious beliefs about various social groups, and these biases stem from our tendency to organize social worlds by categorizing them quickly. We often think about unconscious bias in the context of negative biases, but there are also positive unconscious biases, for example feeling a connection to someone from your hometown or college alma mater. Unconscious bias impacts security in the areas of decision making, risk assessment, incident response, cyber security policies and procedures, and identity and access management.
In the area of decision making, I’ve seen executives blindly trust the IT team because they are perceived as being the “experts”. While this may be true, they are wrestling with the same unconscious biases and skills shortages many of us are. Just as it’s important to seek out additional information and facts when making your own decisions, it’s equally important to review the data and provide feedback and alternate opinions to others. Often, it’s easy to go with the majority and not rock the boat. If you feel that something needs to change or be addressed differently, don’t be afraid to go against the flow. Mark Twain is quoted, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” When was the last time you went against the majority?
Another unconscious bias that sometimes arises is related to age. Some people feel older workers are a greater risk to a company than younger workers because they perceive older workers as not being “up to date” on newer technologies. Conversely, some feel younger people engage in risky behavior like visiting potentially suspect websites or sharing too much information on social media. As a result, security analysts may focus on the wrong areas as the source of a security risk or issue based on their biases.
If you had an incident, how would you respond? Would you blame an unsecure IT environment, incompetent end users or would you look at the facts and evidence in and outside of your beliefs to determine what happened? How would you and your team respond to the incident? If your security operations team felt that IT had not done their part prior to the incident, you may be looking in the wrong area for the source of the incident. You may have heard the acronym PEBKAC. For those that don’t know what it means, it stands for “problem exists between the keyboard and chair”. Are you sure the problem is PEBKAC or does it lie somewhere in your environment?
Implicit trust is another form of unconscious bias. When was the last time your cybersecurity policies and procedures were thoroughly reviewed? Let’s say you feel your SOC analyst is amazing, and you trust everything they say. Because of this implicit trust, you don’t think to dive into the details. As a result, you could have a firewall running without any defined rules but wouldn’t know because you’ve never checked. This doesn’t mean your SOC analyst isn’t trustworthy, just that you shouldn’t allow your unconscious bias to overrule the necessary checks and balances.
We can sometimes also be led to overconfidence by unconscious bias. For example, when writing a paper or an article, we can be certain that there are no mistakes or typos, but often it’s because we’ve read or reviewed it so many times that our unconscious mind reads it as it should be and not what it actually is. Similarly, in the area of identity and access management, security analysts and software developers may blame users for issues and fail to look at the internal infrastructure or their own code because they have a false confidence that leads them to believe they couldn’t possibly be the problem.
To overcome unconscious and implicit bias, ensure you are sticking to the facts and asking all stakeholders, including those you may disagree with for inputs. Also look in the mirror. Did you make a mistake or are you excusing your behavior instead of facing it? Also, don’t be afraid to follow the words of Mark Twain and pause and reflect to ensure you are making the correct decision, addressing the incident in the correct way, or hiring the right person.
Because we all have biases and take mental shortcuts, we need to make a conscious effort to address them. Look beyond what you want to hear or see and what shows up in your news feeds to address availability and confirmation bias. Ensure you are sticking to the facts and asking all stakeholders, including those you disagree with, for inputs to overcome unconscious and implicit bias. You don’t want to be the next company in the news because your biases got in the way.
The post Through Your Mind’s Eye: What Biases Are Impacting Your Security Posture? appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
In our last blog about defense capabilities, we outlined the five efficacy objectives of Security Operations, that are most important for a Sec Ops; this blog will focus on Visibility.
The MITRE Engenuity ATT&CK® Evaluation (Round3) focused on the emulation of Carbanak+FIN7 adversaries known for their prolific intrusions impacting financial targets which included the banking and hospitality business sectors. The evaluation’s testing scope lasted 4 days – 3 days were focused on detection efficacy with all products set to detect/monitor mode only, and the remaining day focused on protection mode set for blocking events. This blog showcases the breadth and depth of our fundamental visibility capabilities across the 3 days of detection efficacy.
It is important to note that while the goal of these evaluations by MITRE Engenuity is not to rank or score products, our analysis of the results found that McAfee’s blue team was able to use MVISION EDR, complemented by McAfee’s portfolio, to obtain significant visibility, achieving:
| Scenario | Evaluation Scope | Visibility Outcome |
| Scenario – Carbanak | Across all 10 Major Steps (Attack Phases) | 100% |
| Scenario – FIN7 | Across all 10 Major Steps (Attack Phases) | 100% |
The evaluation when tracked by Sub-steps shows McAfee having 174 sub-steps with a total 87% visibility.
When you seek to defend enterprises, you need to assess your portfolio and ensure it can go the distance by spanning across the endpoint and its diverse context, as well as network visibility stemming from hostile activity executed on the target system. More importantly, your portfolio must closely track the adversary across kill-chain phases (miles-wide) to keep up with their up-tempo. The more phases you track, the better you will be able to orient your defenses in real-time.
The Carbanak emulation consisted of an attack with 10 Major Steps (Kill Chain Phases) on day one, and our portfolio provided visibility across every phase. In these 10 phases, MITRE conducted 96 substeps to emulate the behaviors aligned to the known TTPs attributed to the Carbanak adversary.
McAfee MITRE Engenuity ATT&CK Evaluation 3 Results
The FIN7 emulation consisted of an attack with 10 Major Steps (Kill Chain Phases) on day two, and our portfolio provided visibility across every phase. In these 10 phases, MITRE conducted 78 substeps to emulate the behaviors aligned to the known TTPs attributed to the FIN7 adversary.
McAfee MITRE Engenuity ATT&CK Evaluation 3 Results
Tracking the adversary across all phases of the attack (miles-wide) is significantly strong, but to be really effective at enterprise defense, you also need to stay deep within their operating mode, and keep up with their movement within and across your systems through different approaches (feet-deep). At McAfee, we design our visibility sensors across defensible components to anticipate where adversaries will interact with the system, consequently tracing their activities with diverse data sources (context) that enrich our portfolio. This not only let us track their intentions, but also discover impactful outcomes as they execute hostile actions (sub-steps).
Defensible Components and Telemetry acquired during the evaluation.
If a product is configured differently you can obtain information from each Defensible Component, but this represents telemetry acquired based on the config during the evaluation (not necessarily evidence that was accepted).
Of the 96 Sub-Steps emulating Carbanak, our visibility coverage extends from more than 10 unique data sources including the automated interception of scripted source code used in the attack by our ATD sandbox integration with the DXL fabric.
McAfee MITRE Engenuity ATT&CK Evaluation 3 Results
Of the 78 Sub-Steps emulating FIN7, our visibility coverage extends from more than 10 unique data sources providing higher context in critical phases with Systems/Api Calls Monitoring to preserve the user’s security awareness as advanced behaviors aim for in-memory approaches conducted by the adversary.
McAfee MITRE Engenuity ATT&CK Evaluation 3 Results
Acquiring data from sensors is fundamental, however, to be effective at security outcomes, your portfolio needs to essentially spread its deep coverage of data sources to balance the security visibility blue-teamers need as the progression of the attack is tracked through each phase.
This essential capability provides the blue-teamer a balance of contextual awareness from detection technologies (EDR and SIEM), and decisive disruption of impactful behaviors from protection products (ENS, DLP, ATD, NSP) oriented to neutralize the adversary’s actions on objectives.
In every phase of the attack, McAfee protection fused with detection products would successfully neutralize the adversary and afford blue teamers rich contextual visibility for investigations needing context before and after the block would have occurred.
McAfee MITRE Engenuity ATT&CK Evaluation 3 Results
This chart clearly shows how ENS (in observe mode) would have prevented a successful attack, blocking the Initial Breach, protecting the customers from further damage. For the scope of the evaluation, it’s also important to remark how the products interacted by providing telemetry on each step.
McAfee MITRE Engenuity ATT&CK Evaluation 3 Results
In the impactful kill-chain phase of “steal payment data”, the DLP product kicks into prevention, while being complemented by the ATD sandbox intercepting the payload that attempts to steal the information, as well as EDR having contextual information within the kill-chain for offline investigations the blue teamer needs.
Here, we covered the essentials of visibility and how to determine the power of having a strong telemetry foundation, not only as individual sensors or defensible components that provide information, but when analyzed and contextualized, we enable the next level of actionability required to prioritize cases with enriched detections.
Stay tuned for the next blog series explaining how detections were supported by this telemetry where we produced 274 detections that have more than 2 data sources.
The post Miles Wide & Feet Deep Visibility of Carbanak+FIN7 appeared first on McAfee Blogs.
At Verisign we have a commitment to making a positive and lasting impact on the global internet community, and on the communities in which we live and work.
This commitment guided our initial efforts to help these communities respond to and recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, over a year ago. And at the end of 2020, our sense of partnership with our local communities helped shape our efforts to alleviate COVID-related food insecurity in the areas where we have our most substantial footprint. This same sense of community is reflected in our partnership with Virginia Ready, which aims to help individuals in our home State of Virginia access training and certification to pivot to new careers in the technology sector.
We also believe that our team is one of our most important assets. We particularly value the diverse origins of our people; we have colleagues from all over the world who, in turn, are closely connected to their own communities both in the United States and elsewhere. A significant proportion of our staff are of either Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) or South Asian origin, and today we are pleased to announce two charitable contributions, via our Verisign Cares program, directly related to these two communities.
First, Verisign is pleased to associate ourselves with the Stand with Asian Americans initiative, launched by AAPI business leaders in response to recent and upsetting episodes of aggression toward their community. Verisign supports this initiative and the pledge for which it stands, and has made a substantial contribution to the initiative’s partner, the Asian Pacific Fund, to help uplift the AAPI community.
Second, and after consultation with our staff, we have directed significant charitable contributions to organizations helping to fight the worsening wave of COVID-19 in India. Through Direct Relief we will be helping to provide oxygen and other medical equipment to hospitals, while through GiveIndia we will be supporting families in India impacted by COVID-19.
The ‘extended Verisign family’ of our employees, and their families and their communities, means a tremendous amount to us – it is only thanks to our talented and dedicated people that we are able to continue to fulfill our mission of enabling the world to connect online with reliability and confidence, anytime, anywhere.
The post Verisign Support for AAPI Communities and COVID Relief in India appeared first on Verisign Blog.
Personal devices and the information they carry are incredibly valuable to their owners. It is only natural to want to protect your device like a royal family fortifying a medieval castle. Unlike medieval castles that depended upon layers and layers of protection (moats, drawbridges, spiky gates, etc.), personal devices thrive on just one defense: a devoted guard called antivirus software.
Increasing your personal device’s security detail with more than one guard, or antivirus software is actually less effective than using a single, comprehensive option. Microsoft operating systems recognize the detriment of running two antivirus software programs simultaneously for real-time protection. Microsoft Windows automatically unregisters additional programs so they do not compete against each other. In theory, if you have a Microsoft device, you could run on-demand or scheduled scans from two different antivirus products without the operating system disabling one of them. But why invest in multiple software where one will do?
If you do not have a Microsoft device, here is what could happen to your device if you run more than one antivirus program at a time, and why you should consider investing in only one top-notch product.
Antivirus programs want to impress you. Each wants to be the one to catch a virus and present you with the culprit, like a cat with a mouse. When antivirus software captures a virus, it locks it in a secure place to neutralize it. If you have two programs running simultaneously, they could engage in a tussle over who gets to scan, report, and remove the virus. This added activity could cause your computer to crash or use up your device’s memory.
Antivirus software quietly monitors and collects information about how your system runs, which is similar to how viruses operate. One software could mark the other as suspicious because real-time protection software is lurking in the background. So, while one antivirus program is busy blowing the whistle on the other, malicious code could quietly slip by.
Additionally, users could be buried under a barrage of red flag notifications about each software reporting the other as suspicious. Some users become so distracted by the onslaught of notifications that they deactivate both programs or ignore notifications altogether, leaving the device vulnerable to real threats.
Running one antivirus software does not drain your battery, and it can actually make your device faster. However, two antivirus programs will not double your operating speed. In fact, it will make it run much slower and drain your battery in the process. With two programs running real-time protection constantly in the background, device performance is extremely compromised.
There is no reason to invest in two antivirus programs when one solid software will more than do the trick to protect your device. Here are some best practices to get the most out of your antivirus software:
One habit you should adopt is backing up your files regularly. You never know when malware could hit and corrupt your data. Add it to your weekly routine to sync with the cloud and back up your most important files to an external hard drive.
Whenever your software prompts you to install an update, do it! New cyber threats are evolving every day, and the best way to protect against them is to allow your software to stay as up-to-date as possible.
Always read your antivirus results reports. These reports let you know the suspicious suspects your software was busy rounding up. It will give you a good idea of the threats your devices face and perhaps the schemes that you unknowingly fell into, such as clicking on a link in a phishing email. This information can also help you improve your online safety habits.
Everyone needs strong antivirus. Yet antivirus alone isn’t enough to beat back today’s threats. Hackers, scammers, and thieves rely on far more tricks than viruses and malware to wage their attacks, and data breaches slip billions of personal and financial records into the hands of bad actors. You’ll want to pair antivirus with further protection that covers your privacy and identity as well.
For example the antivirus included with McAfee+ Ultimate can secure an unlimited number of household devices. Yet it offers far more than antivirus alone with our most comprehensive protection for your privacy, identity, and devices. The full list of features is long, yet you’ll get credit monitoring, dark web monitoring, removal of personal information from risky data broker sites, along with identity theft protection and restoration from a licensed expert if the unexpected happens. In all, it offers a single solution for antivirus, and far more that can protect you from the broad range of threats out there today.
The post Less Is More: Why One Antivirus Software Is All You Need appeared first on McAfee Blog.
FreshRSS 