You have to give them points fro prompt disclosure as Australia still lacks mandatory disclosure laws to back the privacy act. Still doubtful that all is known early in the breach detection and if more was know The PR spin merchants now to release the bad bits later say over a long weekend or when Russia bombs the Syrian free army so its back page news. Lets hope free id theft insurance was offered as there would be enough info to get another credit card lost here.
13 posts • joined 27 Nov 2012
Blue Coat wasn't selling to Syria one of their distributors in UAE was actually. Stephan Link had to hand over $2.8 Million to the US Gov over that one. Should have been more careful before buying Fusion or any UAE company for that matter.
Nutanix is what you want to look at here
Have to agree Coward and of course we don't have any mandatory breach disclosure laws so if you did have a breach you don't need to worry about it anyway as long as its not your own financial account data why would you worry!
This is a bit misleading so how many breaches are caused by exploits of unpatched known vulnerabilities? It cuts both ways. Patching is the simplest and most effective way of mitigating being breached or compromised and it can be easily automated and managed for a majority of systems for lower cost than anti virus which isn't working anyway. Don't believe me than ask the Australian Signals Directorate. Their 'Top 4 Mitigation Strategies' which are:
3.Patch Operating System;
4.Minimise Administrative Privileges.
Mandatory Breach Reporting Laws need enacting in Australia
Data Breach's like this where nothing is done to assist or help the victims really do go to show you can't trust business to protect its customers data and government need to step in with simple clear legislation requiring prompt disclosure to allow people to take protective action and or $M fines for multiple breach's or late or no disclosure. This will force organisations to essentially do the right thing for their own financial benefit as they clearly won't do it to protect their customers.
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.
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!