News, stories and insights from the team at trackd
As a cyber security community, we need to re-think our commitment to – and investment in – compliance. Can we all agree it’s not working? If successful breaches were confined to organizations that either didn’t
Show me a large enterprise that was breached and I’ll show you a large enterprise adhering to multiple compliance standards.
Starr sheds light on the significance of considering the human factor in cybersecurity breaches. He emphasizes the importance of collaboration and empathy between different teams and how vendors can contribute to fostering a more collaborative
IT professionals endure a lot more criticism for causing downtime when patching than they do for patching too slowly, so their default state is to be exceptionally cautious while absorbing the cyber risk of exposed
“I really enjoyed our cybersecurity self-training today, and really plan to change my behavior as a result of it” said just about no one anywhere, ever. And yet, when the topic of the “human factor
You don’t need to be a Large Language AI model or cyber spy to conclude that diligent and regular vulnerability remediation is a foundational element of enterprise cyber defense. If you were to embark on
Much more commonly, it’s the CISO and senior cybersecurity professionals that serve as the CEO’s scapegoat in the event of a major breach. Yet, it’s voluntary resignations that are primarily responsible for CISOs holding the lowest average
So even with the knowledge that 98 out of 100 patches are safe to deploy, remediation teams are unlikely to modify their processes to patch more aggressively any more than the average person would change
The primary new technology for server patching uses crowdsourced data on patches that have been applied to help guide remediation teams and highlight patches that have a history of disruption, and perhaps more valuably, those
Tell us when patches are disruptive? Sure. But more importantly, let us know when they’re not, information that’s potentially much more actionable.
In this blog series, we’ll look at some of the more mundane – albeit common and operationally-significant – reasons patches fail.
The only thing better than learning from your own mistakes is learning from the mistakes of others. At trackd, we have come up with a radically simple but elegant solution to help organizations differentiate between the 98% of patches that are necessary and safe, and the 2% that will have your clients calling you on the weekends.
At trackd, our free users are essential to our business plan; we literally can’t deliver the unique solution we’ve designed without them.
It’s often paid lip service to (or worse, intentionally neglected), and rarely appreciated, but there’s an operational cost to be paid for security. Security controls create inefficiencies, and those security measures can also introduce operational risk.
The vulnerability management market answers every question a practitioner or cybersecurity professional could want answered…except the only one that matters: will this patch break my shit.
In today’s threat landscape, you don’t have to be a high-profile private or public organization to be targeted. You don’t have to be storing highly valuable technology IP or high-value health records, and you don’t have to piss off a hacktivist group with a bone to pick. You simply have to have an unpatched vulnerability that pops up on a list delivered to a threat actor after indiscriminately scanning the internet.
It’s time for vulnerability management technology innovators to spend less time identifying and reporting on vulnerabilities, and more time building tools to help IT teams fix them more efficiently…and without their fingers constantly crossed.
It probably makes sense to take the hyperventilating stories of cutting-edge attack vectors with a grain of salt. There will come a day when the primary means of initial penetration become obsolete or are abandoned by the cyber criminal community in favor of something revolutionary. However, the cyber security community – the good guys – will first need to render them ineffective and, unfortunately, we don’t seem to be close to achieving that reality.
The only thing that matters is whether the person responsible for product security is able to convince all stakeholders to care about the risks associated with the absence of secure software development practices or not. If they’re unable to do this then building security components into software will always be driven reactively as a result of an incident.
As a cyber security community, we need to re-think our commitment to – and investment in – compliance. Can we all agree it’s not working? If successful breaches were confined to organizations that either didn’t invest in compliance or were unsuccessful achieving it, then we could talk. But we all know that’s not the case. We need to start thinking about taking that 40% and investing more in the things that have the best chance of making the bad guys’ lives more difficult. We won’t win every battle, but at least we’ll be fighting the right war.
Copyright © 2022-2024 trackd, inc.
All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2022-2024 trackd, inc.
All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2022-2024 trackd, inc.
All rights reserved.
