How Enterprise VM Keeps Up with Modern Threats

 

Vulnerability management is known for being a foundational cybersecurity practice. While open-source VM solutions have perhaps provided an introduction to the benefits of VM, the modern threat landscape makes it so organizations need more advanced and reliable tools to stay secure. Here’s why enterprise grade VM solutions are more essential now than ever. 

Beating complexity with technology 

Enterprise vulnerability management tools feature a variety of technologies that enable them to keep pace with the complexities of modern organizations.  

Because these tools need to be immediately available for enterprise-level consumption, they are more frequently updated by developers focused on the tool. Open-source platforms may or may not receive the same amount of scrutiny or consistent attention.  

Additionally, enterprise VM offers more sophisticated scanning options, reaching across on-premises, cloud, and hybrid architectures. Coupled with better data manipulation and API availability, this results in better, more robust capabilities that can match today’s complicated threat onslaught. Enterprise VM can

  • Scan local systems 
  • Scan the entire global network 
  • Correlate data on dynamic assets 
  • Integrate with other enterprise-level tools 
  • Cut resource costs by being user-friendly and easy to deploy 
  • Infuse risk context for accurate, personalized remediation prioritization 

Additional technical considerations of an enterprise VM solution include: 

  1. Automated and On-Demand Scanning | Automated scanning relieves the everyday security burden for busy teams and allows companies to respond immediately to developing issues.
  2. Data Management | After scans are run, the best enterprise VM will make sense of the data, not leave teams to distill it themselves. From customized reports to being able to query against all scanned assets, data management capabilities increase the value of scanned data. 
  3. Asset Correlation | Enterprise VM solutions ensure scan results are accurate and actionable by reducing false positives. In the best systems, built-in technology automatically tracks a device through the network and any changes, reducing confusion and inefficiencies as part of asset data correlation.  
  4. Intuitive Platform Interface | A pre-built, intuitive interface takes the load off new employees and creates reliability in scan creation, even with turnover, staff shortages, and internal changes. 
  5. API Availability | Solutions that are available via API can spread their benefit throughout the broader ecosystem. Through APIs, VM data can enrich SOAR, SIEM, NAC and more.  

Superior documentation 

Advanced documentation enables organizations to sidestep inefficiencies, pass compliance audits, and avoid wasted time. 

As companies continue to grapple with the cybersecurity skills gap, it becomes essential to have thorough documentation to bring users up to speed quickly. As vulnerabilities are patched and controls are put in place, enterprise-level documentation can save companies months of effort and re-work.  

Better reporting also means better audits. Vulnerability management solutions are essential to compliance audits and enterprise grade scanners typically come with detailed reporting capabilities built in. The best VM solutions offer segmented and customized reporting so companies can tailor them to their specific vulnerability, configuration, and compliance needs. 

Additionally, interactive and visual reporting platforms enable organizations to get the most out of their data. With the help of a central dashboard, users can search, visualize, and analyze their data via interactive, non-static reports.  

Ultimately, the C-suite needs to be made aware of the results of vulnerability management scans. Superior documentation leads to cleaner communication. If an executive has a specific question, practitioners who utilize enterprise VM have the ability to draw specific answers out of a customized, malleable report.  

Continuous support 

Organizations today are too busy for constant questions and troubleshooting. Enterprise VM solutions come with continuous support for teams that want to spend more time on critical security issues.  

Expert support keeps things moving. Teams can offload the burden of the learning curve, platform problems, and administrative tasks to enterprise VM experts who can provide simple ways forward. Leverage the expertise of practitioners who know the product, understand your vulnerability management needs, and can help you meet them with minimal downtime. 

Enterprise VM solutions like Frontline Vulnerability Manager can provide 24/7 live US-based customer support. A Personal Security Analyst is available to provide personalized on-demand support, and a team of platform experts can offer unparalleled expertise to help companies get the most out of their enterprise VM. 

Conclusion 

Enterprise vulnerability management enables organizations to overcome the security challenges native to shifting and expanding environments.  

Frequently updated technologies make possible the advanced scanning, data management, and analysis capabilities needed to combat modern threat complexity. Better documentation saves time and resources while delivering streamlined reporting to executives and practitioners who need it most. And the constant level of support guaranteed with the best enterprise VM platforms pays for itself in time saved, overhead, and the cost of training. 

While all vulnerability management programs are a step in the right direction, not all can keep up. Digital ecosystems are expanding and as data explodes, open-source tools managed by in-house teams struggle to maintain the peoplepower or updated technologies needed to fight threats at scale. Frontline VM optimizes small teams and reduces inefficiencies, saving resources, and enabling organizations to keep up – not catch up – with vulnerability management demands. 

See how Beyond Security can help with future threats.

We can help with any security vulnerability questions.

BeSTORM Release 13.1.0

 

Enhancements

At Beyond Security, we continually strive to improve our products with updates and enhancements that are often customer driven. Below are the enhancements from our latest beSTORM release:

  • Support for Windows 11 has been added.
  • The following modules were updated to be compatible with Windows 10 or later:
    • IEEE802.11 (AP)
    • IEEE802.11 (AP – Simple)
    • IEEE802.11 (Subscriber)
    • IEEE802.11 (Subscriber – Simple)
  • Support for use of Kali Linux for WIFI testing in place of hardware
  • Simplified error messaging for invalid hostname or IP address on the Basic Configuration window.
  • Confirmation dialog prompt added when deleting a module’s default buffer types.
  • Removed the following modules*:
    • IEEE802.11 (Subscriber – Simple – UDP)
    • CG4579 (Over PCAN) – Custom
    • Running Speed and Cadence (Custom)

*NOTE: If your projects use these modules, substitute them with the IEEE802.11 (Subscriber – Simple), CG4579 (Over PCAN), and Running Speed and Cadence modules.

Contact Us

We can help with any cybersecurity questions.

Frontline VM Release 6.5.4

 

As part of the Infrastructure Protection Fortra family, Frontline VM and BeSECURE are a tandem solution. Each release helps update and pave the way for additional vulnerability management features and improvements.  Based off of user feedback, here are the recent updates for Frontline VM.

Linux Agent

Scan Linux assets that are not always connected to the network during normal network-based scan.  Install and configure a schedule for Agents to check-in after the initial baseline scan is completed.  Agents will report at designated intervals to indicate changes to an asset and insert results at the scheduled interval. If there are no changes, the Agent will not report in for inclusion.

Initial release of Linux Agent supports the following distros:

  • Amazon Linux (2) – x86_64Ubuntu Server (20, 22) – x86_64
  • Debian (11) – x86_64
  • Red Hat Enterprise Linux (7, 8, and 9) – x86_64
  • Oracle Enterprise Linux (7, 8, and 9) – x86_64

SUSE coming soon.  Agent scanning does not include ATS or CIS.

Security Seal

Add a badge to your website to show your current site security status. Set up recurring web application scans on your target and configure Security Seal to display pass or fail status of target with custom images based on compliance with security criteria. This seal shows when the last scan was run, who ran the last scan, the results found, and the current status of that website’s security.

Scan Groups

Users can now create Scan Groups to schedule assessments against VM and WAS targets at the same time. Automated reporting from scan groups is supported to generate the following reports: executive, detailed, vulnerability executive summary, asset CSV, and vulnerability CSV. Scan Groups is supported for PCI and non-PCI scanning.

Language Localization

Frontline now supports account-wide system emails and report generation in multiple languages.  This setting will enable reports and system generated emails to be created in English, Japanese, Spanish, Dutch, French, German, Italian, and Portuguese. Chinese and Korean will be supported in a future release.

Contact Us

We can help with any security vulnerability questions.

Vintage Vulnerabilities: New Attacks Can Exploit Old Weaknesses

 

Popular entertainment would have us believe that hackers are all sophisticated attackers ready to strike the latest vulnerabilities. That is sometimes true, but it’s become increasingly apparent that whether it’s the latest zero-day bug or something that was discovered the same year Apple released the iPad, hackers are equal-opportunity offenders.    

“Classic” Vulnerabilities

Cybersecurity professionals know the list of common vulnerabilities and exposures (CVE) seems never ending. While conscientious organizations may work to stay on top of the latest vulnerabilities, it’s easy to forget that some of the biggest threats have been around for a long time, and cyber attackers are not above going back to the classics.  Companies that haven’t always addressed CVEs in a timely manner may be surprised to learn that they’ve left some older issues unaddressed even though solutions are known and readily available. In fact, of the top most exploited CVEs, according to the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), seven are from 2019 or earlier.  Here are a few examples:

CVE-2019-11510

Pulse Connect Secure and Pulse Policy Secure VPNs (now owned by Ivanti) contain vulnerabilities that allow an attacker to bypass authentication and access files and directories on an exposed system. It has been used in high-profile ransomware attacks, including those using Sodinokibi (aka Sodin or REvil) malware.   

Learn more about CVE-2019-11510.

Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) rating – 10, critical  

CVE-2018-13379

Fortinet FortiOS and FortiProxy can be exploited to allow a remote, unauthenticated user to execute a directory transversal attack by accessing plaintext user credentials stored in the system. Hackers used the credentials of domain administrators where multi-factor authentication wasn’t in use and gained complete access to the SSL VPN. Because the fix for this vulnerability required a password reset, which many end users neglected, organizations remain unprotected even though IT teams undertook remediation. It also highlights the importance of asset inventory and forced reboots.

Learn more about CVE-2018-13379.

CVSS rating – 9.8, critical 

CVE-2019-19781

A vulnerability in Citrix Application Delivery Controller (ADC), formerly known as NetScaler ADC, and Citrix Gateway, formerly known as NetScaler Gateway, can allow an attacker to scan the system for vulnerable servers and perform arbitrary code execution. Hackers can access configuration and other crucial files. 

Learn more about CVE-2019-19781.

CVSS rating – 9.8, critical

CVE-2019-18935

Telerik UI for ASP.NET AJAX, a set of tools for creating web apps, contains an insecure deserialization vulnerability within RadAsyncUpload. By exploiting prior vulnerabilities CVE-2017-11317 and CVE-2017-11357, attackers obtain encryption keys to exploit this bug for remote code execution. 

Learn more about CVE-2019-18935.

CVSS rating – 9.8, critical

CVE-2018-0171

A bug in Cisco IOS software’s Smart Install could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code or cause a reload and, consequently, a DoS. System reboots of affected systems leads to network outages.   

Learn more about CVE-2018-0171.

CVSS rating – 9.8, critical

CVE-2017-11882

Known as the Microsoft Office Memory Corruption Vulnerability, this CVE affects Microsoft Office 2007 Service Pack 3, 2010 Service Pack 2, 2013 Service Pack 1, and Microsoft Office 2016. It’s a memory corruption problem in a part of Office that handles object linking embedding (OLE). Once the user opens a malicious document, the attacker can execute remote code. Homeland Security and the FBI say this vulnerability, which has been around since 2000, is still one of the most frequently used by hackers in China, Russia, and North Korea. 

Learn more about CVE-2017-11882.

CVSS rating – 7.8, high

CVE-2017-0199

Another Microsoft bug, affecting Office SP3, 2010 SP2, 2013 SP1, 2016, Vista SP2, Server 2008 SP2, Windows 7 SP1,  and Windows 8.1, allows attackers to take over an infected system. The vulnerability relates to the way Microsoft Office and WordPad parse specially crafted files. 

Learn more about CVE-2017-0199.

CVSS rating – 7.8, high

Not on the list of most exploited CVEs, but still worth a mention because it illustrates just how long some problems can remain unaddressed is CVE-2014-0160, aka Heartbleed. This flaw was first discovered and documented in 2014 and is still being exploited today. It has a CVSS rating of 7.5, or high.   

Potential Risks

All of these CVEs are at least three years old yet they are still among the currently exploited vulnerabilities cataloged by CISA and private cybersecurity firms. That illustrates the fact that, old or not, these CVEs are still threats to the security of systems large and small. Many of the vulnerabilities listed here can result in compromised accounts that are offered by criminals in access-as-a-service schemes. 

In its 2023 Threat Report, cybersecurity firm Sophos noted that ransomware no longer focuses almost exclusively on Windows. Mac, Linux, and mobile platforms are increasingly in the crosshairs. Attackers are also using new methods of exploitation, including leveraging data from leak sites.  

The number of CVEs cataloged each year has grown steadily since 2010. That trend is likely to continue along with increasing financial ramifications. One of the primary motivations of maliciously targeting a system is financial gain, usually achieved by ransomware attacks for ransom payment or confidential data exfiltration and sale. Many of the CVEs listed above can be used for this type of exploit. Ransomware costs American businesses $1.4 million on average per occurrence with 90% of organizations saying the attack impacted their ability to operate, according to Sophos. And Forbes reports that even after paying the ransom, businesses were only able to restore 65% of their data. Furthermore, it’s illegal to pay a ransom so even with 100% data recovery, companies can still face legal problems and lawsuits from customers and other affected parties. 

Why Old Vulnerabilities Persist

The reason these CVEs, old and new, are still exploitable is simply because systems haven’t been patched. But the why behind that can vary. In some organizations, IT staff is overwhelmed with an ever increasing workload and not enough people. Sometimes the vulnerability is so old, the staff isn’t even aware of it or may think it’s already been addressed. And as newer issues come along, grabbing headlines and attention, they may be prioritized over older CVEs that don’t seem to pose as much of a threat. Unfortunately, attackers are aware of all this. With all the attention on newer vulnerabilities, it’s often easier for hackers to slip through by exploiting older CVEs that cybersecurity teams have forgotten about or assigned a low priority. 

The bottom line is that IT teams need to be given the resources to conduct thorough assessment, testing, and remediation for the most critical threats. Additionally, cooperation of other parts of the business will make or break successful patching efforts. Employees need to follow reboot, password reset, and other instructions from security teams. Even C-level personnel, who may feel too busy to reboot, must be persuaded to take steps necessary to secure the company’s systems. In fact, IT teams may want to prioritize those machines, with their extremely sensitive data, for security audits. 

What to Do About It

While it can seem overwhelming to contend with new threats as well as old ones, it doesn’t have to be. It’s not the age, but more the risk that matters. Teams that prioritize as such can speed up time-to-remediation for vulnerabilities that are the most likely to be exploited.

Risk-based vulnerability management (VM) allows each company to examine which CVEs are most likely to impact the business and handle those issues first. Penetration testing not only identifies weaknesses, but also verifies the exploitability of vulnerabilities discovered during scans. Combining proactive security measures like VM and penetration testing help security teams pinpoint high-risk weaknesses before attacker exploits can them.

Contact Us

We can help with any security vulnerability questions.

A Guide to the ISO/SAE 21434 Cybersecurity Standard for Road Vehicles

 

According to Juniper Research, 206 million vehicles will have embedded connectivity by 2025 — with 30 million vehicles utilizing 5G connectivity. The connected car now contains units for communication, in-voice assistant, geolocation sensors and cloud-platforms that connect vehicles to mobility services. 

To ensure that these hyper-connected vehicles remain secure, a standard known as ISO SAE 21434 was developed. This standard is designed to guide automotive product developers and OEMs in following effective cybersecurity strategies and measures for connected vehicles. The status of ISO/SAE 21434 is currently ‘under development’, but it’s trending towards acceptance, which means it will be a part of compliance requirements in the near future.

An ISO/SAE 21434 Summary

ISO/SAE 21434 is a standard co-developed by the International Standard of Organization (ISO) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). ISO SAE 21434 “Road vehicles — Cybersecurity engineering” focuses on cybersecurity risks in the design and development of car electronics. The standard covers cybersecurity governance and structure, secure engineering throughout the life cycle of the vehicle and post-production security processes. 

This process is designed to cover automotive security of any connected vehicle from design until deployment.  The standard is to ensure that from the very first stage of vehicle development, any connective aspect included or all software implemented within that vehicle is secure from cyberattacks.  Vehicle suppliers must maintain regular security testing during this development to keep potential attack targets minimized. The earlier testing is implemented during design, the more time risks can be uncovered and remediated before vehicles are out on the road. 

Why is ISO/SAE 21434 necessary for the automotive industry?

The automotive industry saw a 605% increase in cybersecurity incidents in connected cars between 2016 to 2019. In 2022, the biggest attack targets were telematic application controls, keyless entry denial, and electronic vehicle charging systems. The increases in these attacks are surprisingly high, but threat actors targeting automotive computers is relatively new. Not only have more exploits been introduced in recent years, but the consequences in some successful attacks threaten the lives of drivers. Now that the industry has a framework to base its cybersecurity, testing for vulnerabilities during the vehicle’s lifecycle will be normalized. Standards also work together with other frameworks: in the case of ISO/SAE 21434, NIST SP-800-30 and standard ISO/IEC 31010 can be used to establish a foundation of risk assessment using tried and tested methodologies.

Improving your cybersecurity with testing

Good cybersecurity practices involve being proactive, and automotive developers and manufacturers can be proactive by integrating testing into their development lifecycle. Fuzzing an automotive computer is somewhat similar to a standard computer. The fuzzers launch tests against the automotive computer’s functionality attempting to trigger a vulnerability and exploit it. It’s done in a similar way an attacker launches an exploit, only testing performed as the product is developed can be used to improve cybersecurity rather than reactively patching a system using recalls.

Imagine a driver with a connected car experiences an attacker fuzzing the system for a buffer overflow. Specially crafted data is sent to the engine that runs on feedback from various components on the car. A buffer overflow has potential to shut down the engine. It would be a frightening experience for a driver to experience an engine shutdown while on the freeway, and this type of scenario is exactly what ISO/SAE 21434 tries to stop. By fuzzing an automotive computer during the development lifecycle, the manufacturer can avoid putting drivers in dangerous situations from lack of cybersecurity testing.

The Ramifications of Not Implementing ISO SAE 21434 Standards 

Since ISO/SAE 21434 has a primary focus on electronic automotive device connectivity security, the biggest penalty for a company would be an actual security breach.  Any company that has their vehicles cyberattacked could potentially harm the customers and the general public.  That company would instantly lose credibility with the public and face potential compliance fines depending on the country, the successful type of cyberattack, and jurisdiction since ISO/SAE 21434 is a global regulation. 

Is ISO 21434 Released? 

As of August 31, 2021, ISO/SAE 21434 has been released.  This release is being referred to as ISO/SAE 21434:2021 Road Vehicles – Cybersecurity Engineering and replaces the previous drafts from February 2020.  There are no serious changes from the previous version, namely creates mandates for: 

  • Scanning and creating risk assessments 
  • Recognizing cybersecurity vulnerabilities 
  • Ensuring safeguards are added to development to find and correct any vulnerabilities 
  • Continuously test applications, software, and hardware to ensure risks have been mitigated 

The Future of ISO/SAE

The automotive industry is at an important juncture in its history. The connected car is offering drivers an exciting new era in car ownership. But this expanded capability introduces cybersecurity risks that could threaten the safety of drivers. The ISO/SAE 21434 standard was introduced by automotive stakeholders to address the security issues that connectivity brings. The standard provides a framework for hardened security to build safer vehicles using better fuzzing and testing methodologies.

Need to get ISO/SAE 21434 compliant? Learn more about Black Box Fuzzing with beSTORM and how it can be used as an automotive security testing tool.

What Role Does ISO Play in Cybersecurity? 

ISO is a technical committee that is part of a worldwide regulatory body of national standards in cybersecurity engineering. Members are part of international regulatory committees, governmental, and non-governmental organizations. ISO works closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on everything that includes electrotechnical standardization. 

How Did Automotive Cybersecurity Standards Started?

The precursor to ISO/SAE 21434 is ISO 26262 “Road vehicles – Functional safety”. This does not cover software development or car sub-systems, nor does it cover how to deal with cybersecurity incidents.

ISO/SAE 21434 covers every aspect of cybersecurity — from initial design to end-of-life decommissioning of a vehicle. The supply chain is also included to cover each step in automotive production. 

All phases of a connected vehicle’s lifecycle covering electrical and electronic systems, including their components and interfaces, are covered in ISO/SAE 21434 including:

  • Design and engineering
  • Production
  • Operation by customer
  • Maintenance and service
  • Decommissioning

This lifecycle approach to cybersecurity management makes ISO/SAE 21434 one of the most comprehensive approaches to connected vehicle cybersecurity.

The Impact of Automotive Cybersecurity ISO Standards for OEMs and Developers

Although the standard is still in development, any manufacturer, developer, or OEM should consider proactively integrating ISO/SAE 21434 into their current production process. The primary concern with the new standard revolves around cybersecurity. The standards focus on providing better safety to automotive consumers by regulating the way manufacturers test their products.

ISO/SAE 21434 requires that manufacturers and developers perform a risk assessment. Before you can identify risk, you need to know what causes it. An assessment will identify any component, API, or software function that could be vulnerable to attack. With the assessment done, you then identify vulnerabilities. Blackbox fuzzing scans the system to find potential vulnerabilities in the same way an attacker would scan your system. Using the right fuzzing tools, you can ensure that development is done with security as a priority.

The impact to automotive developers and manufacturers is that they have the benefit of producing applications and components that are tested before being launched, which benefits drivers and their safety. Fuzzing applications and finding vulnerabilities before they cause harm to drivers safeguards them and your organization’s reputation. 

Black Box Fuzzers Can Protect Against Unknown Vulnerabilities

See how black box fuzzers like beSTORM can protect against known and unknown vulnerabilities prior to product launch. Read the guide, How Black Box Fuzzers Protect Against The Unknown to learn more.

Better Enterprise Security Through Forced Quarantine

 

This article was originally published on TechAeris on May 08, 2020.

What do you do if a small infected minority is threatening to infect the rest? By now, there probably isn’t a human being on the planet that doesn’t know the answer to this question: you place the infected in quarantine, separating them from the healthy. Collectively, throughout the world, we are distancing ourselves from the threat of the infected and hoping for the best possible outcome to survive the great pandemic. This concept of quarantine is not unique just to mankind but is also a vital security practice within our technological world as well.

In the enterprise security world, we face a similar problem. Most of the machines in the enterprise network are healthy and safe, but some are weak and if as little as a single machine gets infected, this may affect the entire network. We used to put guards – in the form of firewalls – to separate the network between secure enterprise machines and insecure devices. But as people work from home or bring their own devices to work, the chances of a single machine compromising the entire enterprise network rise significantly. Most of the security concepts we grapple with today date back to the 70s: passwords and access control; malicious code; software bugs leading to privilege escalation attacks – those seemingly remain the chessboard that is used to play the permanent arms-race game between the “white hats” and the “black hats”.

The solution, as mentioned, is isolation – or to use today’s terminology: forced-quarantine. Fortunately, we do not need to re-invent the wheel. The technology to do all of this already exists, although it may need minor re-purposing. Also, most enterprises will not need to buy any new products to get this done, they just need to ask their current vendors to work together and integrate. Testing tools already exist in the form of Vulnerability Assessment and Management. Isolation tools also exist and are widely popular – Network Access Control devices.

To explain how the process needs to work as soon as a problematic device is identified the Network Access Control product can easily cut that device off the network and place it in quarantine. The key, as we know from the physical world, is testing, and as mentioned we already have that – Vulnerability Scanning products can instantly detect a weak or infected device on the network. The missing piece is the integration between those two technologies, which often exists but is overlooked: many Vulnerability Assessment tools and Network Access Control products are happy to work together. This gives the outcome we were looking for: identify weak or infected devices using Vulnerability Assessment, and via integration with the Network Access Control product you get instant detection and quarantine.

The IT security world has borrowed concepts and ideas from the physical world since the days of the first computer Virus through the recent days of ransomware. Let us learn some defense from common-sense defense mechanisms in the real world; we cannot teach computers to socially-distance, but we can teach them to test, detect, and automatically quarantine. Having Vulnerability Assessment vendors collaborating with Network Access Control products is a must, to provide testing and force-quarantining in the enterprise environment, all this can be done automatically, instantly, and with zero additional spending – using already prevalent technologies in the Enterprise.

See How Vulnerability Management, SAST, and DAST
Can Protect Your Company

Schedule a demo to see which cybersecurity solution is essential for your company’s security portfolio.

Information Security Goes Non-Binary

 

This article was originally published on HelpNetSecurity on April 16, 2020.

Finding security holes in information systems is as old as the first commercially available computer. Back when a “computer” was something that sat in a computer room, users would try to bypass restrictions, sometimes simply by trying to guess the administrator’s password.

Later when Bulletin Board Systems (the primitive version of the Internet) became popular, BBS users searched for ways to gain further access in order to view private files and invented the first phishing attack – familiar to many 21st century computer users as the method that was successfully used to hack into the DNC’s computers just before the 2016 elections.

The origin of the network virus

Back in 1988, when the entire “Internet” was merely 60,000 computers, the first network virus was unleashed. Of course, computer viruses themselves date back to the early days of the personal computer, first invented by an IT shop in Pakistan who wanted to earn money fixing computers – which possibly makes the Farooq Alvi brothers the very first black-hat IT security vendor.

Most of the security concepts we grapple with today date back to the 70s: passwords and access control; malicious code; software bugs leading to privilege escalation attacks.

That would make you think that “nothing is new under the sun” when it comes to Internet security. But just the contrary: while the game stayed the same, the rules have changed.

Information security in the 2010s

From the first security bugs until the recent past, security was a game with a clear winner and loser. If the attacker gets in, the bad guy wins, and the good guy loses.

Our job as information security experts and presumed good guys was to find those security vulnerabilities and help fix them. The premise being that security could be achieved – i.e., that there was a process you could follow to be reasonably secure and be safe from most attackers. This also meant that a security attack was a failure – a catastrophic one.

But the 2010s changed all that: security breaches are still a failure, but no longer catastrophic. A security breach is now one of those bad things that happen in corporate life that you try to prevent but also accept as a possibility. In other words: information security is a part of a mature corporate life.

Hacking contests and The Matrix

It wasn’t always so. Back in the 1980s, I had a notebook where I wrote the details of all the viruses in existence with instructions on how to remove them. It wasn’t a thick notebook.

Around that same time, John McAfee, who later founded the company that still bears his name, would drive around in a van and manually scan computers for viruses (I guess he must have had a notebook similar to mine).

In those days, a computer was either infected by a virus or it wasn’t; if it was, there were a series of steps you could take to make the computer clean again. Like every other aspect of computing, security was a binary state.

We had a similar view with access control (some passwords were safe, some weren’t), encryption, network services, network protocols and more. Some things were “safe” and some were not. Either one or zero.

When viruses gave way to security vulnerabilities as the main worry for IT staff, we started along a similar route – a set of predefined tests that would indicate if a computer was vulnerable.

When vulnerability scanners were first introduced, there were hundreds of security vulnerabilities you needed to check for. It was too many to write in a notebook, but it stood to reason that if you ran a vulnerability scanner and did not find any security vulnerabilities, you were safe.

As recent as the early 2000s, my company ran public “hacking contests” that were a sucker’s bet: we challenged attackers to try and attack a public system on the Internet that was checked for security vulnerabilities and found clean.

We knew that unless they had access to NSA-level tools, a potential attacker wouldn’t be able to break in. Life was still pretty binary and we didn’t expect it to change. The Matrix sequel movie showed Trinity, the brilliant hacker from the future, attacking the villains back in 2003 using a security hole that was known and easily fixable; we all chuckled at how hapless the futuristic Matrix villains were for falling in this easily avoidable trap.

A game we can win

The 2010s came and changed the way we security professionals see the world. First the speed at which security holes were discovered rapidly increased: while some 1,000 security holes were discovered and made public in the year 2000; in 2018 that number was over 16,000 (more than 40 new security holes discovered per day).

Our definition of “computer” also changed: phones, smart TVs, thermostats, light bulbs and cars are all computers with potential security vulnerabilities. The explosion happened on both axes: the number of vulnerabilities multiplied by the number of computer assets means that an average organization no longer hopes to fix all security holes but merely to manage them. In other words: the best we can do is limit our exposure.

This may sound like we’ve hit the tipping point: did we lose the arms race to the black hats? If every organization has a security hole, we are all vulnerable, all the time. Why even play the game if you’re destined to lose? Some self-proclaimed high priests of information security, usually remnants of the 20th century or echoing its old wisdom, will tell you “no system is secure”. But that’s only true if your world is binary, and ours isn’t.

In fact, for the exact reason a security breach is now a real possibility, it is also no longer the apocalyptic scenario it was back in the early 2000s. Also, the development of information security testing and protection systems helps us cope with security breaches: multiple layers of security, the ability to alert, log and block attacks means that the attacking and defending sides both have costs associated to with both attacking and defending: instead of a chess game with a winning and losing side, this is more like a perpetual tug-of-war where as long as a constant effort is applied by both sides it’s quite possible no one will score a definite win.

And that’s a good thing.

The high priests of security

Good and bad as definite concepts belong in the religious realm. Back in the old days security advocates were, in many ways, priests of an evangelistic religion.

We spent our days trying to convince agnostic managers to believe in something they couldn’t always see: the need for security in computing systems. There were many apocalyptic prophecies on what the non-believers will suffer if the proper rituals aren’t followed; many of us believed that computer breaches happened to those who “deserved” to be punished. Those non-believers were not committed enough, or they didn’t follow the recipe for salvation.

But that was then. In this day and age no half-competent manager really believes information security is not important – our evangelism is no longer necessary. Information security is now in the corporate mainstream.

In the corporate mainstream, risk is ever-present. It was famously said that “The Limited Liability Company is the most important invention since the wheel” – and this is because companies take risks all the time.

Apple is worth over a trillion dollars but can go bankrupt tomorrow at a non-zero probability; all Apple can do is limit their corporate risk and keep doing business.

Finally, decades after the first computer virus, information security reached a similar maturity: we can no longer guarantee a zero-risk, but we don’t have to.

Information security is no longer an external component that is measured by its budget or headcount. It is finally a component in the entire corporate governance structure like finance, legal and HR.

In the age of technology and data, information security is certainly a critical component, but still just a component. Managers should pay attention and mindshare to securing their infrastructure and data, but knowing that not every mistake warrants capital punishment, we moved away from the binary “safe or unsafe” to a more nuanced model of risk management and reduction. In that, we are less the religious priests and more corporate professionals, and just in time for the new roaring 20s.

The Best Practices to Protect Systems, Data, and Stop Malware

This guide, Top 10 Secure Coding Practices to Protect Your Web Applications, will lay out the top secure coding tips and best practices.

Data Privacy in the Age of Regulations

 

This past year was a big year for data breaches, new privacy laws and cracking down on existing regulationsBritish Airways faces a £183m fine after hackers stole credit card details from nearly 400,000 customers. Many other big names were hit too. Facebook. Equifax. Twitter. Marriott. Google. They’ve all been hacked. 

The reason? Sometimes it was due to outdated security systems and other times it was the funny idea that big corporations can only fall victim to attacks from Mission Impossible-type massive spy operations.

Let me tell you something: ALL companies are susceptible to attacks – and the attacks don’t have to be very sophisticated in order to work. With the latest technology on the market, hackers with just a basic skill level can use commonly available tools to overcome the most expensive security measures. So now it’s no longer a question of “if I’m attacked” but “when”. 

The world is changing, your network is changing and hackers are on a winning streak. But enterprises can limit the effects of these attacks through awareness and preparation.

To provide guidance on what businesses should be doing to protect themselves and their customers from data theft, several compliance mandates have sprung up in recent years. Compliance with these standards include strict cybersecurity measures, software and sometimes hardware requirements, together with regular vulnerability testing, storage policies, access management, data breach notification, installation of security patches and more.

It would be impossible to cover all privacy regulations here, but I’d like to point out some of the important ones below. These include the PCI-DSS, GDPR, CCPA HIPAA, ECPA, CDSA and NERC CIP. This may sound a bit like alphabet soup, but if you manage an enterprise or you are responsible for its IT security, at least one of these regulations probably applies to you.

PCI DSS

Since Beyond Security was one of the first to achieve an Approved Scanning Vendor (ASV) status for the PCI DSS, let’s start with that.

The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) is a set of 12 requirements created by the major credit card companies to protect both consumers and businesses from credit card fraud. 

The PCI DSS doesn’t have any legal authority, but if your business would like to process  credit card transactions, then you must abide by their standards. Moreover, if you don’t, you could be fined or lose your right to accept credit cards.  

These standards can be boiled down to 6 main points including:

  • Building and maintaining a secure network
  • Protecting cardholder data
  • Maintaining a vulnerability management program
  • Implementing strong access control measures
  • Regularly monitoring and testing networks
  • Maintaining an information security policy

GDPR

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is an especially hot topic these days, was created about 3 years ago but implemented just last year in an attempt to reform data protection for European consumers. 

GDPR compliance includes:

  • Choosing a Data Protection Officer (DPO)
  • Training staff on GDPR compliance
  • Informing your customers how you intend to store, process and share data
  • Conducting a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
  • Notifying authorities within 72 hours of a breach

Much like the PCI, if you do not comply with the GDPR, your company could take a large financial hit. Infringements can result in a €20m fine or 4% of the firm’s worldwide annual revenue. 

CCPA

Signed into law two years ago, and going into effect New Year’s Day, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is California’s answer to the GDPR. But the bill, meant to protect consumer data, will likely spread to the rest of the United States due to the impact it will have on California’s many nation-wide industries.

In order to be CCPA compliant, businesses must:

  • Comply with consumer requests regarding the handling of their personal data
  • Disclose data collection policies
  • Restrict how much personal data can be collected
  • Offer the same level of service to customers who exercise their right to privacy
  • Ensure third-party data sharing meets CCPA compliance

The CPA is not a set of guidelines; it will be the law. The California Attorney General could fine you up to $2,500 if you violate any of the CCPA’s rules. 

HIPAA

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was created to protect health insurance coverage in the event of a job loss or change as well as health data privacy, integrity and availability.

All businesses who have access to patient information must abide by administrative, physical and technical requirements including:

  • Training staff on HIPAA compliance
  • Choosing a HIPAA compliance officer
  • Assigning unique identifiers for providers, patients and employees
  • Conducting regular vulnerability scans
  • Defining clear processes for handling data breaches

Non compliance could cost businesses $100 to $50,000 per violation (or per record) and penalties up to $1.5 million per year and imprisonment in severe cases.

ECPA

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was passed in 1986 in an effort to protect citizens from unnecessary surveillance and data theft by law enforcement and the government. There have been many provisions since, including the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, the Pen Register Act, the USA Patriot Act and the Email Privacy Act.

All amendments under the ECPA require providers to obtain a subpoena, warrant or court order before honoring government requests for user data; that’s right: Companies can and should tell government authorities “no” if they do not follow the proper procedures. This is a basic American right – to not have property seized without a proper warrant. Businesses who do not honor that right are subject to fines up to $500,000 and those held responsible for non-compliance may face lawsuits and imprisonment. 

The ECPA protects wire, oral and electronic communications including:

  • Email
  • Telephone conversations
  • Data stored electronically
  • Browsing history
  • Radio transmissions

CDSA

The Content Delivery and Security Association (CDSA) was founded in 1970 as a non-profit to protect entertainment, software and information content. Earlier in the year, the CDSA updated its guidelines to include TV and film cybersecurity.

The CDSA’s Production Security Working Group (PSWG) published 5 documents detailing industry security standards for the TV and film industry.

These guidelines include:

  • Security training
  • Access management
  • Defining assets and the perimeter
  • Data monitoring
  • Cyberdefense
  • Vulnerability assessment

It’s unclear what penalties will be incurred if productions or individuals on these productions are found to be non-compliant, but these standards are a great step in this evolving industry that suddenly found itself dealing with the same types of threats as software companies.

NERC CIP

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation Critical Infrastructure Protection (NERC CIP) is a set of security standards meant to protect electronic systems from cyber threats.

Compliance with CIP standards includes:

  • Cybersecurity training
  • Asset identification
  • Security management controls
  • Systems security management
  • Vulnerability assessment and management
  • Critical infrastructure penetration testing
  • Malware prevention
  • Incident reporting and recovery

Non-compliance with NERC CIP may include fines, sanctions and penalties.

Summary

Data privacy and protection regulations provide businesses with checklists to manage the risks from both known and unknown vulnerabilities and a way to make sure they conform with the regulations. The end goal is security improvement and awareness

Most businesses will be attacked, but if you comply with these data privacy standards and perform regular security testing, you can protect your business and your customers from loss of data. You can then rest assured, even in the event of an attack, knowing you did everything you could do to protect your business from fines, legal action and damaged reputation.

Beat the Business of Ransomware

Data protection is imperative, especially in the face of the growing business of ransomware. This guide, Beating the Business of Ransomware, will show you how to keep your cybersecurity measures on the offensive guard.

5 Simple and Effective Tips to Protect from Cyber Attacks for Cyber Security Awareness Month

 

This article was originally published on EIN Presswire on October 07, 2019.

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES, October 7, 2019 /EINPresswire/ — To mark the month of October being Cyber Security Awareness Month, Beyond Security, a leading provider of automated security testing solutions, is providing 5 effective and easy to follow tips for protecting against Internet security threats that can cause both financial and emotional damages. While the future remains uncertain when it comes to sophisticated cyber-attacks, it’s important to be prepared and safe guard vital and confidential data against any kind of security breach.

1. Update Your Software

Security is an arms-race, but thankfully the good guys aren’t resting. Make sure to use an up-to-date and supported operating system, browser and other software. Windows 10 has built-in protective measures that obstruct many forms of ransomware, and all leading browsers are continuously updated to combat the latest threats and attacks. The update is often simple and automated but the responsibility is on the user to make sure the updates are taking place. Don’t wait – check and make sure today that all software you are using is the latest version.

2. Deploy Preventative Tools

Don’t be reactive, be proactive. Deploy preventive tools like vulnerability assessment tools – those can accurately identify close to 100% of common vulnerabilities that are exploited by attackers. A simple, and regular vulnerability assessment for your systems will identify potential weak points and suggest proper remediation actions such as patch management that will stop a would-be attacker in its tracks.

3. Test Your Software

Most companies are unable to develop all the necessary software in-house and use independent software vendors (ISVs) to build the required software. The problem is that these applications are not always built with security in mind. Make sure your ISVs are using the accepted standard for security testing, including static code analysis (white box testing) and dynamic code analysis (black box testing or fuzzing) which drastically reduce the attack surface of applications. Having the ISV perform these tests during development will save you money in the long run compared to having to fix a security hole when the software is deployed.

4. Backup Critical Data

Make sure you have redundancy. Backing up your critical data regularly reduces the impact of a potentially successful Ransomware attack. It goes without saying that data storage must be coupled with other hardening measures such as encryption and strong authentication.

5. Buy Security Insurance

Buy insurance. Even with taking all the above measures, there is a chance that an attacker may get through since full security is never guaranteed. No one can achieve perfect security, and security risk needs to be managed just like every other business risk. There are options to buy cybersecurity insurance policies that will protect you in rare cases that an attack is successful.

How Can Beyond Security Help?

See which cybersecurity solutions are the most beneficial to your organization, schedule a demo today.

CVSS Explained

 

What Is CVSS?

The common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS) is open and free to industry for evaluating the seriousness of the software security vulnerabilities and is used in vulnerability management software. CVSS gives scores to vulnerabilities per the seriousness of the threat. Scores are computed considering several metrics. Scores are given between 0-10, with most severe score being 10.

First and CVSS

FIRST.Org, Inc (FIRST) is a non-profit organization based out of US that owns and manages CVSS. It is not required to be a member of FIRST to utilize or implement CVSS but FIRST does require any individual or organization give appropriate attribution while using CVSS. FIRST also states that any individual or organization that publishes scores follow the guideline so that anyone can understand how the scare was calculated.

CVE vs CVSS

Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) is a universal metric that measures the severity of a security vulnerability.  This makes it an integral part of vulnerability scanning tools.  Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) is a list of publicly known and reported vulnerabilities.

What is CVSS Used For?

Organizations used to adopt their own ways to create a score for security vulnerabilities.  However, these didn’t include crucial details about how each score was measured and weighted.  Not having a baseline for scoring created an overall problem from organization to organization.

The US National Infrastructure Assurance Council (NIAC) developed CVSS and the standards to measure the impact of severity in an IT environment.  CVSS is an open framework, so organizations have access to the measuring criteria used to create scores, enabling everyone to have a clear understanding of the vulnerability scores.

Organizations use this system to gauge the impact of vulnerabilities that are discovered.  These organizations use the scale to meet security requirements, regulations, standards, and compliance.  This system makes it easy to prioritize security tests and measure the most severe vulnerabilities, so they can be prioritized.

Do All Vulnerabilities have a CVSS?

If it’s a publicly known vulnerability, CVSS has a score for it.  The scores range from 0.0 to 10.0, which are based on a large number of varied, grouped metrics.

What Are the Three Metrics Groups of CVSS?

Base metric group

The base metric group shows the qualities of vulnerability that are consistent over a period of time and among different user environments. It is further made up of two sets of metrics.

Exploitability Metric

It shows how easily a vulnerability can be exploited. Referred to as “exploited component”. They have 4 components – attack vector, attack complexity, privileges required, and user interaction.

Impact metrics

Impact metrics show the result of a successful exploitation of a vulnerability referred to as “impacted component”.

Temporal metric group

The temporal metric group shows the characteristics of a potential threat or vulnerabilities that may change after sometime however may not change across users.

Environmental metric group

The environmental metric group shows the characteristics of vulnerability that are important and unique to a specific user’s environment. Affected users calculate this measure usually.

Below each metric is discussed in detail.

Understanding the CVSS Score:  Base Metrics

Base metrics are a representation of the vulnerability.  These characteristics never change and aren’t dependent on exploitability or based on an organizational security program that’s been implemented.  The rankings are listed in the National Vulnerability Database and are exclusive to base CVSS scores.

Base CVSS scores provides an easy starting point for patching and remediation, but it is also limited because it doesn’t account for real world exploits, patching availability, or mitigating organizational controls in place.

What are CVSS Metrics Based Off Of?

Exploitability – Exploitability metrics are based on the characteristics of the vulnerable component, with four sub sections; attack vector, attack complexity, privileges required, and user interaction.

Attack Vector – this metric is based on the level of access required to exploit a vulnerability.  A higher score represents that an exploit can be executed remotely outside of the organization vs a lower score requires an attack to be at a physical on-premise location.

Attack Complexity – this metric is based on things outside of an attacker’s control, such as key theft or a middle-man attack.  The higher score is based on extra effort the attacker needs to take outside of the cyber attack itself.

Required Privileges – this metric is based on the attacker’s privileges to exploit a vulnerability.  A higher score represents the level of administration privileges that are required to carry out an attack, whereas a lower score represents little to no privileges required. part.

User Interaction – this metric is based on if the attacker needs to recruit a willing or unknowing person in order to complete the attack.  A higher score represents no additional participation needed.

Scope – Scope metrics are based on the number of components needed to exploit a vulnerability.  The higher score if one exploit attack can lead into a deeper backend system attack.

Impact – Impact metrics are based on actual outcomes from an attack result.  There are three sub sections that weigh into this metric; confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Confidentiality – this metric is based on the amount of data the attacker has access to.  The higher score equals the most data the attacker can access, lower means no data can be reached.

Integrity – this metric is based on the ability of the attacker to alter data on the exploited system.  The score is high if the attacker can completely or severely modify the data.

Availability – this metric is based on the system loss once it’s exploited.  A higher score means the system will no longer be accessible by authorized users because of an attack.

1. Exploitability metric

1.1 Attack vector – shows how the vulnerability can be exploited.

Attack Vector
ValueDescription
Network (N)Attacker exploits vulnerability only through OSI layer 3 and are called “remotely exploitable”.
Adjacent (A)Attacker exploits vulnerability only through shared physical network.
Local (L)Attacker exploits the vulnerability locally or may depend on user interaction.
Physical (P)Vulnerable component must be physically touched or controlled by the attacker.

1.2 Attack complexity (AC) – This metric depicts the situations that are not under the attackers control and are required to exploit vulnerability.

Attack Complexity
ValueDescription
Low (L)Attacker can be successful more than once against the vulnerable component.
High (H)Attacker must be more prepared to execute a successful attack on the vulnerable component.

1.3 Privileges Required (PR) shows the amount of privileges the attacker must have to exploit the vulnerability successfully.

Privileges required
ValueDescription
None (N)The attacker doesn’t need access to files or setting to attack. Attacker is unauthorized.
Low (L)Attacker requires privileges to attack usually affects files and owned settings. Attacker has low authorization.
High (H)Attacker needs privileges that give them control and affects component wide files and settings.

1.4 User interaction (UI) it is a user oriented metric. It determines whether a separate user must be present or the attacker or alone exploit the vulnerability.

User Interaction
ValueDescription
None (N)Exploitations of vulnerability can be done without any interaction from any user.
Required (R)The user can do exploitation of vulnerability only after any action.

1.5 Scope scope refers to the group of privileges that are characterized by a computing authority when giving access to computing resources. These privileges are appointed based on a technique of approval and identification.

Scope
ValueDescription
Unchanged (U)The impacted component and the vulnerable component are the same. Resources affected are controlled by the same authority.
Changed (C)The impacted component and the vulnerable component are different. The same authority does not control resources affected.

2. Impact Metrics

2.1 Confidentiality Impact (C) this metrics limits access to information and reveals information only to authorized users. Also, prevents disclosure of information to unauthorized users.

Confidentially impact
ValueDescription
High (H)All resources of the impacted component are disclosed to the attacker due to total loss of confidentiality.
Low (L)Attacker can’t control the restricted information that is obtained. Some loss of confidentiality.
None (N)No loss of confidentiality.

2.2 Integrity impact (I) Measures the true nature of the information and how much it can be trusted. Successful exploitation of vulnerability is measured through impact to integrity.

Integrity Impact
ValueDescription
High (H)Total loss of integrity or protection. Attacker can alter any file.
Low (L)Attacker can modify a file but cannot control the consequences.
None (N)No loss of integrity.

2.3 Availability impact (A) Refers to how much information resources are accessible.

Availability Impact
ValueDescription
High (H)Attacker can deny full access to resources in the impacted component. Total loss of availability.
Low (L)Attacker cannot deny totally. Partial or full resources are available only for a certain period.
None (N)No loss of availability.

Temporal Metrics

1. Exploit code maturity (E) Exploit codes that are publicly available and are easy to use gives advantage to a potential attacker. This metric is based on the current state of techniques that measures the possibility of the vulnerability attack.

Exploit code maturity
ValueDescription
Not defined (X)The score will not be influenced if given this metric value.
High (H)Autonomous agents deliver exploit code on a regular basis and works in all situations.
Functional (F)If the vulnerability exists, the exploit code will work.
Proof-of-concept (P)Modifications are required to use such code by a professional attacker.
Unproven (U)No code is available.

2. Redemption level (RL) – The remediation level of a vulnerability is an imperative component for prioritization. The average weakness is unpatched when first distributed.

Redemption level
ValueDescription
Not defined (X)The score will not be influenced if given this metric value.
Unavailable (U)It is either impossible to apply or there is no solution.
Workaround (W)User provides their own solution unofficially.
Temporary fix (T)Temporary fix is available and is official.
Official fix (O)Official fix is available by the vendor.

3. Report confidence (RC) – At times only the presence of vulnerabilities is made public without giving specific details. This metric helps in measuring the credibility of the information and amount of confidence in the existence of the vulnerability.

Report confidence
ValueDescription
Not defined (X)The score will not be influenced if given this metric value.
Confirmed (C)Source code and reports are available in detail to verify the research independently.
Reasonable (R)Important details are published but there is no full access to source code to verify research independently.
Unknown (U)Reports indicate presence of vulnerability. Less confidence in reports that are available.

Environmental metrics

1. Security requirements (CR, IR, AR) – This metric helps in customization of CVSS score based on the affected IT to a user’s organization. Characterized as following:

  • Confidentiality (CR)
  • Integrity (IR)
  • Availability (AR)
Security requirements
ValueDescription
Not defined (X)The score will not be influenced if given this metric value.
High (H)Very serious consequences on the organization and associates due to loss of CR, IS, AR.
Medium (M)Serious consequences on the organization and associates due to loss of CR, IR, AR.
Low (L)Limited consequences on the organization and associates due to loss of CR, IR, AR.

2. Modified base metrics – It helps the adjustment of base metrics in accordance with the modification that is already present in the analyst’s environment.

Security requirements
Modified Base MetricValue
Modified Attack Vector (MAV)Same as base metrics above and not defined (default).
Modified Attack Complexity (MAC)
Modified Privileges Required (MPR)
Modified User Interaction (MUI)
Modified Scope (MS)
Modified Confidentiality (MC)
Modified Integrity (MI)
Modified Availability (MA)
Low (L)Limited consequences on the organization and associates due to loss of CR, IR, AR.

Company Profile

Fortra’s Beyond Security’s testing solutions accurately assess and manage security weaknesses in networks, applications, industrial systems and networked software. We help businesses and governments simplify the management of their network and application security, thus reducing their vulnerability to attack and data loss. We specialize in DAST – our product, beSTORM will help you secure your network and applications, comply with your NERC CIP policy requirements and exceed industry and government standards.

Learn How to Advance Your Current Cybersecurity

See how you can improve your current cybersecurity efforts and create a layered, proactive security portfolio with this guide, The Proactive Approach to Advancing Your Security Maturity.