Login
The word is out! Cisco Secure Endpoint’s effectiveness is off the charts in protecting your enterprise environment.
This is not just a baseless opinion; however, the facts are rooted in actual test results from the annual AV-Comparative EPR Test Report published in October 2022. Not only did Secure Endpoint knock it out of the park in enterprise protection; but Cisco Secure Endpoint obtained the lowest total cost of ownership (TCO) per agent at $587 over 5 years. No one else was remotely close in this area. More to come on that later.
If you are not familiar with the “AV-Comparatives Endpoint Prevention and Response Test is the most comprehensive test of EPR products ever performed. The 10 products in the test were subjected to 50 separate targeted attack scenarios, which used a variety of different techniques.”
These results are from an industry-respected third-party organization that assesses antivirus software and has just confirmed what we know and believe here at Cisco, which is our Secure Endpoint product is the industry’s best of the best.
Look for yourself at where we landed. That’s right, Cisco Secure Endpoint smashed this test, we are almost off the quadrant as one of the “Strategic Leaders”.
We ended up here for a combination of reasons, with the top being our efficacy in protecting our customers’ environments in this real-world test that emulates multi-stage attacks similar to MITRE’s ATT&CK evaluations which are conducted as part of this process (click here for an overview of MITRE ATT&CK techniques). Out of all the 50 scenarios tested, Secure Endpoint was the only product that STOPPED 100% of targeted threats toward enterprise users, which prevented further infiltration into the organization.
In addition, this test not only assesses the efficacy of endpoint security products but also analyzes their cost-effectiveness. Following up on my earlier remarks about achieving the lowest cost of ownership, the graph below displays how we stacked up against other industry players in this space including several well-known vendors that chose not to display their names due to poor results.
These results provide a meaningful proof point that Cisco Secure Endpoint is perfectly positioned to secure the enterprise as well as secure the future of hybrid workers.
Enriched with built-in Extended Detection and Response (XDR) capabilities, Cisco Secure Endpoint has allowed our customers to maintain resiliency when faced with outside threats.
As we embark on securing “what’s next” by staying ahead of unforeseen cyber threats of tomorrow, Cisco Secure Endpoint integration with the complete Cisco Secure Solutions portfolio allows you to move forward with the peace of mind that if it’s connected, we can and will protect it.
Now that you have seen how effective Secure Endpoint is with live real-world testing, try it for yourself with one of our live instant demos. Click here to access instructions on how to download and install your demo account for a test drive.
Click here to see what analysts, customers, and third-party testing organizations have to say about Cisco Secure Endpoint Security efficacy, easy implementation and overall low total cost of ownership for their organization —and stay ahead of threats.
We’d love to hear what you think. Ask a Question, Comment Below, and Stay Connected with Cisco Secure on social!
Cisco Secure Social Channels
A couple of weeks ago I wrote about some big changes afoot for Have I Been Pwned (HIBP), namely the introduction of annual billing and new rate limits. Today, it's finally here! These are two of the most eagerly awaited, most requested features on HIBP's UserVoice so it's great to see them finally knocked off after years of waiting. In implementing all this, there are changes to the existing "one size fits all" model so if you're using the HIBP API, please make sure you read this carefully and understand the impact (if any) on you. Here goes:
The launch blog post for the authenticated API explained the original rationale behind the $3.50 per month price and most importantly, how I wanted to ensure it didn't pose a barrier:
In choosing the $3.50 figure, I wanted to ensure it was a number that was inconsequential to a legitimate user of the service
As I said in the previous blog post, what I didn't understand at the time was that paradoxically, the low amount was a barrier to many organisations! But equally, it's made the API super accessible to the masses so that price stays. The rate limit, however, needed revisiting and to understand why, let's go back to the beginning:
The "1 request per 1,500ms" rate dated all the way back to 2016 where I'd initially attempted to combat abuse by applying the limit per IP. This was an entirely non-empirical, gut feel, "let's just try and fix the problem right now" decision and it was only very recently I actually started trawling through the data and looking at how the API was being consumed. 1 request every 1,500ms is a maximum of 57,600 requests in a day; here's the number of requests by the top 20 consumers of the service in a recent 24 hour mid-week period:
Keeping in mind that you're never going to achieve the full 57,600 requests in a day as you'd have to time every single one of them perfectly so as not to hit the rate limit, only 1 subscriber even achieved half that potential. In fact, only 9 subscribers achieved even a quarter of the potential with everyone else very quickly falling back to a small fraction of even that. To be fair, I'm conscious that I'm taking a full day of data and talking about requests as if they were evenly distributed across the entire period when there are inevitably use cases where it's more a short burst rather than a prolonged, even distribution. Regardless, what the data is saying is that the default "one size fits all" rate limit is way above and beyond what almost every single subscriber is actually consuming, and by a significant order of magnitude too. In a way, what we ended up with is the little guys subsidising the big guys.
The bottom line is that we're simultaneously adding a bunch of higher rate limits whilst reducing the entry level rate limit. It's easier if you see it all in context so let's just jump straight into the pricing (all in USD):
This is from Stripe's embeddable pricing table I mentioned in the previous post and it's what you see when you first sign up for a key. With new limits, it's easier to talk about "requests per minute" or RPM so that's the nomenclature we're sticking with now. That entry level 10RPM model will work for well in excess of 90% of current subscribers and it's only a very small percentage of the existing subscriber base exceeding it. (And yes, again, I know these requests are sometimes made in bursts but even still, 10RPM is far in excess of the vast majority of use cases.)
There are economies of scale that have been factored in here. Going from 10RPM to 100RPM isn't a 10x increase, it's about a 7x increase. Going to 5 times more requests is only 4 times the price, and so on and so forth. The hope is that this makes it easier for the folks who were previously buying multiple keys to justify scratching all the kludge previously used to do that and replacing it with a single key at a higher RPM.
To get to this outcome, we trawled back through heaps of data ranging from the high-level aggregated stats in the earlier chart to the nature of the organisations buying multiple keys (which we can obviously determine based on the email address used). I also chatted with a bunch of API users both during this process and over the preceding years and have a pretty good sense of the use cases. A few trends became immediately clear:
Firstly, use cases that are genuinely personal have a very low rate limit requirement. Checking your own address(es) or those of your family by a custom app, for example. Or one of my favourite uses (and one I definitely use), the Home Assistant integration:
On an ongoing basis, HA makes 1 request every 15 minutes. That's all. Each time we looked at genuine personal use cases, 10RPM was plenty.
Next, we found a bunch of use cases used within internal corporate environments, for example to monitor staff exposure in breaches. Now we're talking larger numbers of requests, but it's also something that's way more efficiently done via the existing domain search feature on the website. It's an on-demand, self-service and totally free feature that's been there for years. I know it's not API-based and there are good reasons for that (see the comment from me on that idea), but there's also the Enterprise route if API access is really that important (more on that later). Other examples included things like scanning customer emails to assess exposure at points where, for example, account takeover was a risk. In each of these cases, we're primarily talking about business entities using the service and I'm comfortable with commercial ventures wearing a greater cost.
And finally, there were the "heavy hitters", the ones with large volumes of keys. One such example using the API en masse provides security services to the big end of town and was funded to the tune of a figure that looks like a phone number. And again, I'm perfectly comfortable with them wearing a cost that's more commensurate to the value as opposed to a figure that was originally arrived at just to keep the bad guys out.
Before I talk about the annual pricing, I want to make sure this headline is clear. Nothing changes for existing subscribers until the 6th of Jan next year, which is 60 days from today. On that date, the legacy rate limit of 1 request every 1,500ms will roll to the new 10RPM limit at exactly the same price. For that handful of big users for whom the 10RPM limit will be insufficient, you've got a couple of months to work out the best path forward. I'll be emailing every single active subscriber today to ensure everyone is notified well in advance (there's also an updated Terms of Use which requires a notification email to be sent).
What does this mean in practical terms? If you want annual billing or a higher rate limit, you can go and implement that whenever you're ready (more on that soon). Alternatively, if you just want to stick with 10 RPM then you don't have to do anything, nothing will change. What I do strongly suggest though (and this hasn't changed, it's always been the guidance), is to make sure you're handling HTTP 429 responses gracefully. Regardless of what your rate limit is, if you're consuming the API in a fashion where you're not directly controlling the rate yourself, make sure you handle those responses appropriately.
This is the easy one to explain: annual payments are now a thing 😊 As I explained in the previous blog post, frequent payments of small amounts can play havoc with reimbursements in the corporate environment. It sucks, I've been there, but it is what it is. Annual billing alleviates that through a combination of a 12x reduction in the frequency of an expense claim and a larger single sum that's easier to explain to your procurement people than $3.50.
So, what do you charge for annual rather than monthly billing? My initial temptation was just to make it literally 12 times more because I don't have a lot of patience for spivvy marketing guff. However, there's a valid case to be made that a 12x reduction on individual payments warrants a discount as it removes overhead from our end (there's a constant percentage of all payments that are disputed or fail or cause other demands on our time), plus there's an argument to be made along the lines of customer loyalty warranting a discount. There's also just the very simple mathematics of the whole thing, best illustrated by a recent payment in Stripe:
That's 8.5% that disappears on every transaction, largely due to the 30c AUD charge no matter what the price of the transaction is:
The point is that there's merit for all in incentivising annual rather than monthly payments. We decided to look at what a typical annual discount was and time and time again, found the same thing:
Or in other words, a couple of months for free when you sign up for a year. In fact, coincidentally, that's exactly what I just signed up for with Nabu Casa (Home Assistant cloud) after receiving an email saying annual billing was now available 😊
It's never exactly 17%, rather it's like each example took 17% off 12 month's worth of a normal monthly fee then moved the number to something that looked pretty 🙂 Some examples were less (Pluralsight is 14%) and others were more (the higher tiers of Zendesk are 20%), but ultimately we decided to work to that 17% number and came up with the following:
In keeping with the "pay for 10, get 12" theme, these prices are exactly 10 times the monthly ones. Easy peasy.
As I mentioned in the "big changes ahead" blog post, I've been deleting code like crazy in favour of deferring more processing back to Stripe themselves. By using their Customer Portal paradigm, it's now easy to change an existing plan:
The change can be to a different rate limit or to a different renewal cadence:
Stripe automatically proratas everything too so whilst you can upgrade immediately to a higher RPM or from monthly to annually, you'll only pay for the difference between the previous plan and the new one. Or, you can downgrade and on next renewal the lower plan will be automatically applied. It's super simple and it's all self-service.
For more than 7 years now, a small handful of organisations have used HIBP in a larger scale commercial fashion. Some of them you're familiar with, for example both 1Password and Mozilla do email address searches using k-Anonymity and that's not something that's a self-service "put your card into Stripe" sort of model (in part because k-Anonymity returns a huge number of results for each search). Infosec firms use Enterprise to support customers via domain level API searches. Identity theft companies use it to advise customers when they're exposed in a breach. One firm even uses it to help detect bot signups; it turns out that so many of us are so pwned, if someone signs up for their service and they're not pwned, that's a little bit suspicious (that's just one of many indicators they use).
This is a fundamentally different model, one that involves a close working relationship, lots of legal documents, procurement people, invoicing instead of credit cards and all sorts of other "Enterprisey" things. That still exists and nothing in today's blog post changes that. I mention this now in today's post simply because some of the folks from those organisations with Enterprise subscriptions will read this post and wonder where they sit. Likewise, I suspect those "100+ key" subscribers of the public API really should be on Enterprise and I'll be reaching out to them separately given the rate limit change will have a bigger impact on them than most.
For that vast majority of users who are only at a fraction of the old rate limit, nothing changes other than there now being a key available for 17% less than before on an annual subscription. Meanwhile, for the folks battling corporate bureaucracy around small, frequent payments, this will sort you out and give you choices around rate limits you didn't have before.
There will be some people that fall between the cracks of the use cases outlined above and won't be happy with the changes. I expect that - I know it will happen - but I hope the rationale outlined here demonstrates the volume of thought and consideration that has gone into trying the find the sweet spot for pricing and rate limits. I also expect people will ask about adding other rate limits, for example to fill the gaps between say, 100RPM and 500RPM. We started out with more options, but a combination of that creating the whole paradox of choice problem and deeper analysis of how the API was actually being used led us to simplifying things. But who knows over the longer term, feedback is certainly welcome.
Lastly, if you're watching closely, you'll notice a lot more structure going in around the way HIBP is run. Last week I wrote about rolling out Zendesk for support so there's now a formal ticketing system in place. I also explained how Charlotte is playing a very active role in the management of HIBP and in the coming months, you'll see more around other initiatives to make the project more sustainable. I'm thinking of it like this: what must HIBP do to be sustainable in a post-Troy world? Or in other words, how can we get what has increasingly become an essential service for so many to be more robust and more self-sustaining beyond what one person can do as a sole operator devoting spare time to a passion project.
Stay tuned, there's much more to come 🙂
Robin Banks, the phishing-as-a-service (PHaaS) platform that was kicked off Cloudflare for malicious activity, is back in action with a Russian service provider and new tools to make it easier to bypass security measures.…
Experian and T-Mobile US have reached separate settlements with 40 states in America following a pair of data security breaches in 2012 and 2015. The settlement will net authorities $16 million, along with assurances it won't happen again.…
Pro-Russia hacktivists' recent spate of network-flooding bot traffic aimed at US critical infrastructure targets, while annoying, have had "limited success," according to the FBI.…
A crook who stole more than 50,000 Bitcoins from the dark web souk Silk Road in 2012 has pleaded guilty and lost the lot, with a stretch behind bars likely ahead of him. …
Misinformation related to tomorrow's US midterm elections hasn't slowed, according to security researchers. …
Microsoft is rolling out another way for smartphone and tablet users to protect themselves from phishing attacks as post-pandemic hybrid work pulls more and more workers under bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policies.…
in brief A quartet of malware-laden Android apps from a single developer have been caught with malicious code more than once, yet the infected apps remain on Google Play and have collectively been downloaded more than one million times. …
Amid the theft of billions of dollars in cryptocurrency over recent months, confidential computing may have a role in protecting people's money in future.…
Japan’s Ministry of Defence (JMOD) announced on Friday that it has formally joined NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE).…
There’s no doubt that cyber bullying ranks towards the top of most parents ‘worry list’. As a mum of 4, I can tell you it always came in my top five, usually alongside driving, drugs, cigarettes and alcohol! But when McAfee research in May revealed that Aussie kids experience the 2nd highest rate of cyberbullying out of the 10 countries interviewed, my heart skipped a beat. Clearly cyberbullying is a big problem for Aussie kids. Bigger than I had previously thought. But many of us parents had so many more questions: what can it look like? where does it happen? and could my child be a perpetrator?
So, as an ally of connected families, McAfee set out to answer these questions so undertook more research through a detailed 10-country online questionnaire to 11,687 parents and their children in June. And the answers were quite revealing…
Before we get into the results, let’s clarify what cyberbullying means. There is often a lot of confusion because let’s be honest, different kids have different tolerances, standards and cultural lenses for what is and isn’t acceptable behaviour. The definition of cyberbullying used in McAfee’s report was based on the definition by StopBullying.Gov:
Cyberbullying is bullying that takes place over digital devices like cell phones, computers, and tablets. Cyberbullying can occur through SMS, Text, and apps, or online in social media, forums, or gaming where people can view, participate in, or share content. Cyberbullying includes sending, posting, or sharing negative, harmful, false, or mean content about someone else. It can include sharing personal or private information about someone else causing embarrassment or humiliation. Some cyberbullying crosses the line into unlawful or criminal behaviour.
McAfee’s definition was then expanded to include specific acts of cyberbullying, such as:
Along with other acts, including:
What Is The Most Common Form of Cyberbullying for Aussie Kids?
Even though racially motivated cyberbullying is on the rise, name-calling is the most common form of cyberbullying with 40% of kids globally reporting that they have been on the receiving end of it. Interestingly, in Australia, our kids receive this style of bullying more frequently, with 49% of Aussie kids affected.
Exclusion from group chats and conversations is the 2nd most commonly reported form of cyberbullying with 36% of kids globally experiencing it. In Australia, this is higher at 42%.
The spreading of false rumours rounds out the top three forms and was reported by 28% of children globally. Curiously, Aussie kids don’t seem to use this form just as commonly with just 24% affected. Japan stands out as the leader in this reported form of cyberbullying at 44% followed by Germany at 35% and India at 39%.
1 in 8 Aussie kids reports receiving extreme cyberbullying threats eg stalking, harassment and physical threats online. This is in line with the global average however in India and the US, more young people are affected with 1 in 5 reporting this behaviour.
It’s no surprise that the bulk of cyberbullying is happening on social media with 32% of kids affected globally. Group chats come in as the 2nd most commonplace with 24% of kids involved followed by online gaming being an issue for 22% of kids surveyed. 21% of kids experienced cyberbullying on websites and forums and 19% identified that they experienced cyberbullying via text messages.
Globally, Facebook is the social media site where cyberbullying is most likely to occur. 53% of children report witnessing it and 50% report experiencing it. This is followed by Instagram (40% witnessing and 30% experiencing), YouTube, TikTok and then Twitter.
Overall, Aussie kids appear to experience less cyberbullying on social media with just 47% witnessing it on Facebook and 37% experiencing it. Our kids also report lower levels on Instagram as well with 34% witnessing and 30% experiencing.
It appears that Snapchat is unfortunately where a lot of undesirable behaviour happens for our Aussie kids with 34% reporting that they have been affected on this platform – a huge 10% above the international average and the highest of any country included in the survey.
I’m sure it’s not a surprise to many parents that most cyberbullying comes from someone known to the victim. In fact, 57% of kids worldwide confirmed this with just 45% nominating that the cyberbullying they received had been initiated by a stranger. And Aussie kids’ experiences reflect the global norm with 56% expressing that they also knew the perpetrator but only 36% experienced cyberbullying from a stranger. Interestingly, only India, reported more cyberbullying at the hands of strangers (70%) than by someone the child knows (66%).
Globally, 81% of all children surveyed stated that they had never cyberbullied anyone while just 19% admitted that they had. But when questioned further, it became apparent that there may be some disconnect. In fact, when asked about specific cyberbullying behaviours, more than half of children worldwide (53%) admitted to committing one or more types of cyberbullying —perhaps indicating that their definition of cyberbullying differs from the clinically accepted definition. The most common acts that they admitted to included making a joke at someone else’s expense (22%), name-calling (18%) and excluding someone from a chat or conversation (15%).
It appears that our kids are calmer about the state of cyberbullying that their peers worldwide. Only 46% of our kids reported they were more concerned about being cyberbullied now than last year, compared to a 59% average worldwide. Aussie children said they are among the least concerned children in the world, alongside Canada at 44%, the U.K. at 43%, and Germany at 38%.
And Aussie parents also appear calmer than parents from other countries with only 61% nominating they were more concerned about their child being cyberbullied today versus last year, compared to the 72% international average. Australian parents also showed the least level of worry that their child may be a cyberbully. Only 41% said that they worried this was more likely this year than last, compared to 56% of parents elsewhere.
Now, this could be because the online learning and tech-heavy phase of the pandemic is, thankfully, over and we are not as focussed on technology-related issues. Or perhaps it’s because we really are a nation of ‘laid-back’ types! The jury is still out…
We all know that it’s impossible to fix a problem if you don’t truly understand it. So, while these statistics might be a little overwhelming, please soak them in. Appreciating the complexities of this problem and digesting how cyberbullying can look and impact our kids is essential. Now, as first-generation digital parents, it may take us a little longer to wrap our heads around it and that’s ok. The most important thing is that we commit to understanding the problem so that we are in the best position possible to support and guide our kids.
In my next blog post, I will be sharing more detailed strategies that will help you minimise the risk of your child becoming a victim of cyberbullying. I will also include advice on what to do if your child is affected by cyberbullying plus what to do if your child is in fact a cyberbully.
‘Till next time.
Stay Safe Online
Alex
The post How Cyberbullying Looks In Australia in 2022 appeared first on McAfee Blog.
Make sure that the device that’s supposed to help you keep tabs on your little one isn’t itself a privacy and security risk
The post Hacking baby monitors can be child’s play: Here’s how to stay safe appeared first on WeLiveSecurity
Microsoft has asserted that China's offensive cyber capabilities have improved, thanks to a law that has allowed Beijing to create an arsenal of unreported software vulnerabilities.…
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) wants to devise a digital equivalent of its emblems (the red cross and red crescent), to signify that certain digital resources are protected and must not be targeted during cyberwarfare.…
Australian health insurer Medibank – which spent October discovering a security incident was worse than it first thought – has announced it will not pay a ransom to attackers that made off with personal info describing nearly ten million customers.…
SolarWinds has agreed to pay $26 million to settle a shareholder lawsuit, and it's also expecting to be slapped with an enforcement action by Uncle Sam – both related to its infamous 2020 supply chain security fiasco, according to the software maker's most recent US regulatory filing.…
A new threat group called Crimson Kingsnake is impersonating real law companies and debt recovery services to intimidate businessess into paying bogus overdue invoices.…
This week's news offered fresh reminders of the threat that ransomware poses for businesses and critical infrastructure worldwide
The post Ransomware rages on – Week in security with Tony Anscombe appeared first on WeLiveSecurity
FreshRSS 