CF are really only trying to avoid any legal liability in having to manage and secure keys which is not beyond them just costs money they don't want to spend. Few clients will be helped by this move to "secure" them form NSA prying which for most people is the least of your worries.
7 posts • joined 27 Nov 2012
Application control works and no it's not hard to decide what apps you want who to run on what. Many groups are very easy to whitelist like standard desktops domain controllers and web servers and database servers with a few exceptions and the exception shouldn't make the rule. Patching whitelisted apps though gets harder and patch management itself while easy is fraught with conflicting goals and timelines from app managers ops and sec-ops people. Still plenty of good sw to automate the Top 4 and make it achievable at a cost of course.
Re: Just who is surprised by this?
You really have worked in Government IT haven't you and for as long as me by the sound of your very healthy cynisim!
Whitelisting is the answer and NO it's not too hard just takes a disciplined approach and good whitelisting software with multiple ways of managing the exceptions that are allowing too many organisations to get away without implementing it.
AFP should be embarrassed about bothering to proceed with this. Even Content must be having a chuckle over how far this was blown out of proportion. No prime time telly interviews for the commissioner at the sentencing I will bet.
With all these techniques becoming more common a more strict default deny policy with approved apps only being allowed through next gen firewalls like Palo Alto Networks may be the only way to cope with this as users WILL open zip attachments.
The private advice site is too well secured with a 1024 bit cert with errors!