
Uber may not face prosecution over its handling of a 2016 data breach – but its former chief security head does; how to defend your digital devices’ data while on vacation, and how to change your accent with artificial intelligence.
All this and much much more is discussed in the latest edition of the “Smashing Security” podcast by cybersecurity veterans Graham Cluley and Carole Theriault, joined this week by Paul Ducklin.
Plus don’t miss our featured interview with Ian Farquhar of Gigamon.
Show full transcript ▼
This transcript was generated automatically, probably contains mistakes, and has not been manually verified.
Hello, hello, and welcome to Smashing Security episode 285. My name's Graham Cluley.
Now, coming up in today's show, Graham, what do you got?
All this and much more coming up on this episode of Smashing Security.
And then you arrive right at the door and you don't have to listen to somebody else's conversation along the way telling you how fantastic it is to understand and agree with their political viewpoint or whatever it is.
And it's recently been announced that the United States Department of Justice is not going to prosecute Uber about its 2016 data breach, which occurred after two hackers found that Uber's software engineers left some of their login credentials lying around on GitHub.
And then whoops-a-daisy, you've left it somewhere public where someone else can scoop them up and abuse them, which appears to have happened in this particular case.
And the hackers—
And when you go to sync it back, you go, oh, new project, upload everything.
And you upload the hidden directories, including on Unix, the ones that start with a dot, that might include the subdirectory that has all your private stuff in it that you didn't mean to upload.
So you upload everything rather than a subset of everything. So you could even include the private keys that actually give access to the whole account just like that.
But anyway, back in 2016, these two hackers, they got hold of the passwords and that allowed them to access data which Uber had stored on AWS servers, and they stole confidential data related to 57 million customers and drivers.
If you don't want us to release it, if you want us to permanently delete it, just pay our ransom effectively.
And what do you think Uber, that rather controversial organization, might have done when faced with that?
They didn't tell the affected individuals.
They paid the hackers and they said to the hackers, "Look, shh." They said, "Keep it quiet, keep it under your hat, delete the data." Which breaches convention, right?
But rather than telling the authorities, "We've found out who one of the hackers is," Uber popped round to his place to go and have a chat with him.
So Uber's security team disguised the payment, saying this was just a regular bug which had been found, was reported via our bug bounty program.
And according to the DOJ, the hackers actually used their success in extorting money out of Uber as a bit of a selling point.
They went to Lynda.com, you know, that online training site, I think owned by LinkedIn.
And we've already had one big corporation pay us close to 7 digits, they said, and all went well.
But still, you know, with so many millions of people, what was it, 57 million people affected, 148 million, $57 million is only— Two bucks each.
Yeah, yeah, it's well, a number close to three bucks each.
And rather than informing the people who are affected, they paid the hackers over $100,000 to keep quiet.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that's in the story.
So obviously, if this had come out while they're in the middle of going, oh no, no, no, we've now got it all tickety-boo, you know, we've ticked all the boxes, it's all great.
Right at the cost of resolving the previous one, this thing came in, oh golly, we can't have two, let's reduce it to one.
So it seems that there's, I don't know whether that makes it better or worse, but it certainly makes it more complicated.
They also say that Sullivan kept the hack secret due to his own ego. He didn't want to admit failure on his watch because it looked bad on his CV.
Now, Carole, I don't know if you remember, we've actually had dealings with Joe Sullivan.
Uber has been cooperating with the government and they are not a named defendant in the case against Joe Sullivan. So Joe Sullivan is now being prosecuted.
Uber, now under different management than when the hack happened, have washed their hands. They've agreed with the DOJ.
They've accepted and admitted responsibility for the acts which its employees did.
Regarding the breach, they say that they're going to run a comprehensive privacy program for the next 20 years.
They're assisting with the investigation and with the ongoing case against their former security chief, Joe Sullivan.
I really— it bugs me when companies just kind of point the finger at one solitary individual, where obviously this must have been discussed at some levels?
Or do you think it was just Joe that was in on this?
Because again, it is alleged that he wanted bad things not to happen under his watch, and wouldn't it be easier if the bug bounty were to handle all this?
He is, by the way, a former federal prosecutor himself. So he'll understand what's going on the whole time. Yes, he does have a legal background.
Which maybe occasionally he tried to use against us in our past conversations. Maybe. He wouldn't. No, no, he was lovely.
And you're definitely, if you're going overseas from Britain, going to either have packed or wish you packed all your digital devices to keep the kids quiet in the car while you're waiting to get on the train or the bus.
But the point is that wherever you're going these days, you're almost certainly going to pack 1, 3, or 12 digital devices, possibly 1 or more for every member of the family.
Like, who would risk leaving the thing to distract the kids behind? Who would risk— you know, let's take the PlayStation, why not? It'll fit in the boot.
And everyone's got a mobile phone. I know someone who took a Roomba once.
Now, they're often the same every year, you know, do the obvious stuff. The problem is that people don't, and then they get alarmed. So the first two tips kind of go hand in hand.
One is, should I back up before I go? Well, that's a rhetorical question. Of course you should. You should be backing up anyway.
And the really important thing about making a decent backup, particularly if you make it onto, say, a removable drive and put it in the cupboard at home, it means you're not relying on having your whole life, say, on your phone.
You can remove some of the content from the devices you're taking with you so that if they get lost or stolen or inspected at customs or whatever it is, you have less on there.
So you're not trying to cheat anybody, you're just saying, why take absolutely every bit of information that I've got about myself with me when I don't need to?
And the flip side of that is, of course, don't think, well, I'm going on vacation, I might really need my phone, I'll sort of need it for boarding cards, I don't want to forget my lock code, I'll just go with 123400 or something that I'll easily remember in a hurry.
And so when you're going away, you might as well set yourself a decent lock code before you go.
You're allowed to write it down while you're at home and practice it for a few days or a week or so until you're comfortable with something which keeps your phone properly locked so that if someone runs off with it, they can't just guess what your code is, go in and see everything you've got on there.
So, and given that if that was your first phone, that was by the standards of the day when people have lock codes like 11 or 3, you know, like one good digit, let alone 4.
That was probably quite good because at least it can't be guessed. But, you know, people going, oh, well, who needs a long lock code?
The problem on your phone is that the lock code is protected by the hardware on the phone. So, you know, for example, on an iPhone, you can say after 10 wrong ones, wipe the phone.
And I think we all agree it's largely impossible to extract the lock code from the phone or to bypass the lock code because of the hardware protection that exists these days in modern devices.
But that lock code, it can't be attacked offline. So someone can't take the phone and try a million times, they still only get 10 goes.
But if they can guess the lock code, then they can pretty much get in and that unlocks the decryption key for the device itself.
And lots of people just stay logged in in all their apps. They never actually log out.
So if you can open somebody's Facebook app or Twitter app or Instagram app or WhatsApp app or whatever, you kind of get straight into their accounts.
I mean, that's the real weak link.
Or do you buy a shifting spanner costing $5? It's hard to sort of regulate for that.
But I said at the start, if you've backed up your stuff and you've removed data that you genuinely don't need from your phone, then that minimizes that risk as well.
And you could also go to apps that you don't use often and actually log out on the phone, which means if someone does steal your phone and does force you to unlock it and then runs off with it, when they try and use those apps, they'll be faced with having to log into the apps all over again.
The app doesn't live on my phone. The data doesn't live on the phone. Do you see what I mean?
So I don't say to people, look, they're compulsory, you have to use one. You might have some kind of fear about, well, what happens if my password manager gets compromised?
And the answer to that is there's no law that says if you use a password manager, you have to put every single password in the world into it.
So you might decide, well, accounts I only use occasionally, like my mortgage account or my this or my that, my pension account that I check up on once a month.
I'll log into those deliberately using, you know, something that I've locked away at home, for example.
So the nice thing about a password manager to me is not just that it picks great passwords every time and doesn't use your cat's name with two digits on the end, you know, or your first, second, and boyfriend's phone number.
The great thing is that it also protects you against old-school phishing attacks, which still work really well because the password manager can't be seduced by the fact that the site looks correct.
Oh, look, it's got exactly the right pixel-perfect backdrop. It's got exactly the right logo. It looks exact. It doesn't care what the site looks like.
It just says wrong URL, never heard of it. So it's not just that it won't help you, it can't go. Don't even know, never heard of it. Can't put in a password.
And so that's a great thing as well. Great.
And then the third thing that goes along with those two, of course, is that if you are traveling internationally, then you do have to think in advance.
Don't worry about it, prepare for it.
You do have to think in advance how you will conduct yourself at an international border if you're asked to reveal information that in your own country, or even once you are inside the country that you're planning to visit, you might have every right to say, I refuse to disclose it.
In other words, privacy rules can be quite a gray area in that sort of gray zone between leaving one country and entering the next, you know, totally at border control.
And certainly I know that the US and the UK, and they're by no means the only countries in the world, many countries have this, that they can ask you to show information, say, on your phone or your laptop.
They can ask you to unlock it. In fact, in some countries they might even say, look, we're going to make a forensic copy of your hard disk, so we want you to unlock it.
And you may decide that you don't like that and you're going to stick up yourself from a privacy point of view, but you need to research in advance what the side effect of that is likely to be, because you might just find that the immigration official is perfectly polite about it and says, that's your choice, but it's also our choice to refuse you entry to the country.
So we will securely transfer you to the departure lounge and you are welcome to get the next flight home.
And of course, once you've been refused entry to a particular country, that can make it very complicated to visit in the future. So don't be afraid about what's going to happen.
Just do your research beforehand.
And if you're going to a country where you find, wow, I don't like their privacy rules, I don't think I can agree with these, I think I'm going to shoot my mouth off and it's not going to end well, well, maybe pick a different destination.
Or just stay home.
When you're going on vacation, you don't go to your safe deposit box and get out all the documentation, physical documentation you've ever acquired in your life from your birth certificate, your marriage certificate, your passport, your previous passport, your mortgage documents, all of that.
You don't get that and put it in an envelope and take it with you generally because you're worried you might lose it.
So my simple advice is, if your life's on your phone, why not leave it at home? Ooh, I see the t-shirt slogan now, Duck.
It's my theory that, you know, if you're going somewhere with beachfront cocktail bars, the cost of buying a burner phone for your trip is probably going to be lower than the first round of drinks that you have on day one, shortly after you arrive.
And you're perfectly entitled to do that. Sage advice.
Another thing that many countries apparently do now, I haven't traveled internationally well since before lockdown, is that, you know how they'll say, well, what's the address that you're going to?
And you're obliged, supposed to put the name of the hotel you've got booked so they know you've got somewhere real to go to.
And they want to know your home address and everyone's used to writing that down and they want your passport number and they want your phone number, a landline if you've got one.
But increasingly, many countries are saying, and we also want, you know, your email address and your social media handles.
And again, you need to decide, you know, what am I going to say when I get to the border?
Because if you go, oh no, I don't have any social media accounts, just write not applicable, and then you're on your vacation and you're sharing stuff on your actual social media account with all your buddies, when you come to leave the country, two and two might not make four.
If you entered making a formal claim, no, I don't have any social media accounts. And then it's obvious that while you were there, you were publishing stuff for the world to see.
Exactly.
You know, you would understand why an immigration or a security official in that country might up their suspicion of you, you know, even if you haven't really done anything wrong.
Well, you have if you've made a false statement when you entered the country. So think before you do that.
That'd be the most sensible piece of advice because there may be all kinds of bad things you've said on those in the past. [LAUGHTER] Carole, what's your story for us this week?
So we have this globe of humans, right? Billions of us and all of us with different native languages.
And somehow it's been accepted by most that English is the preferred international digital language of choice. Can I say that? Would you guys agree with that?
It's strange when you listen to people speaking a language that you don't understand at all, how much you can understand when they suddenly start talking about computers and phones and apps.
Yeah, yeah.
In amongst incomprehensible words where you can't even figure out where the word boundaries are, and then suddenly you start hearing familiar words like Facebook, two-factor backup.
And you guys have had this, right?
I haven't found the English to be a problem. I've found the jargon and the direction of the call to be tricky. That's the hard part.
Even in English, it seems that we've learned how not to speak plainly quite deliberately, you know, in order to sort of disguise what's really going on.
I certainly have been living in the UK for 20 years, still sound as Canadian as the day I was born, you know. Oh, you're not from America?
So as far back as 2008, I found an article in Computerworld saying that IBM was looking to change or to address this problem.
So IBM's Indian research lab developed a web-based interactive language technology. You can see the language has changed so much, right? This is 2008.
To help people improve their English speaking skills.
And according to IBM, the system was based on advanced speech processing techniques that the company had devised for call centers in India to help improve the capability of its agents.
So it would evaluate grammar and pronunciation and comprehension and other spoken language skills, and then provide a detailed score for each category.
Don't think what could have given me that idea.
So they say on their site, quote, if you speak English as a second language, there's a good chance that your accent will stand in your way of communicating fluently with native speakers.
So many people assume that a mastery of English grammar and excellent vocabulary is enough to communicate in America. This is not often the case.
So they go on to say, correct native-level pronunciation or a firm grasp of the American accent is important for anyone who wants to live, work, and enjoy life in America. Hmm.
And they'd have accent reduction classes for private individuals and companies. And it's training, right? Just to help them with speech analysis and all this.
Where your accent makes a big difference to how you're perceived rather than how you're understood.
And I want you guys to think what could possibly go wrong, Graham, to use your catchphrase. So this newer approach, thanks to three Stanford undergrads.
So these guys started a company to help the world understand, that's their catchphrase.
And the pain point that instigated this whole company was that after the pandemic kicked off, these students, or all the students at Stanford had to go home, right?
And one went back to Guatemala and decided to be a tech support guy.
And his mates were like, quote, "We told them that he'd be the best tech support person they'd ever had because he's the smartest guy we've met and always had a smile on his face.
But it totally didn't work out because the locals couldn't understand his accent." So a team of students dedicated their empty pandemic hours to building a solution.
They did a lot of research on what people have done in the past. So people have done voice conversion for deepfakes, and that technology is pretty advanced, they say.
But there's been little done in accent translation. So this company is called Sanas. The name like that, they could be a bidet company, but anyway.
And I've put a link in the show notes.
You can actually see a demo of this working because they say they have an algorithm that can shift English to and from American, Australian, British, Filipino, and Spanish.
And they've developed it using a neural network trained with recordings made for the most part by professional voice actors. But I want to see what you guys think.
No, I think my concern with trying to control what people say exactly and just how they pronounce it, which you can usually work around if you do have some common understanding, is much less important than techies learning to speak or being willing to speak in plain English.
And it is very good at neutralising the accent, at least in the demo, which they're claiming is how their technology works.
But what comes out does sound rather robotic and characterless, doesn't it?
This could be misused." You could then— This could be used by all kinds of phone people calling up, pretending to be in the neighbourhood, putting on a regional accent, and actually they're calling from 5,000 miles away.
They could be local, but they could want to convince you that, oh no, I'm actually calling from overseas on behalf of a friend who's had an accident.
You know, the fakery doesn't just go with fitting in with the locals, it goes with fitting in with whatever backstory you've concocted for the scam at hand.
I was thinking about this and I was thinking, but you know what, this would be marvelous for the medical field when you're trying to do cutting-edge operations or something like that.
And the expert happens to be based in India, and another expert is based in Bucharest, and another expert somewhere else, and that they're all able to communicate robotically but extremely clearly.
Or when politicians get together for a global hoedown they have translators in there to help them understand everything.
And those translators obviously have pretty clear accents that are understandable to the person they're meant for.
So it's effectively trying to make this ubiquitous, I think, across the web. I don't know, I thought it was kind of interesting, but scary too.
English is the basis of the language that ships use for communicating, but the vocabulary has been stripped down even for native English speakers so that there is no chance of you using a phrase that could be misunderstood.
So there's no politeness and there's no rules. No, it's not pirate speak.
Apparently, if you don't hear the person, then you don't say, 'Oh, I'm terribly sorry, old chap, could you say that again?' You just say, 'Say again?' Right.
And that's— there's no other way to ask the person to repeat themselves. And that way, you know, with huge ships closing in on each other unable to stop quickly.
You can see that in some cases, I can imagine that just simplifying the vocabulary rather than how you say it could be much more important.
Because that means that politeness is all very well when you're chatting to someone face to face, but it can lead to terrible misunderstandings when there's a crisis on.
And I guess all emergency responders are used to that as well. You look at how 911 or 999 people are trained to respond. They use standard phrases that can't be misinterpreted.
Do not hang up the phone.
So with an investment of $32 million for a company, a startup company that started a year ago, okay, so some big dogs have gotten involved, including global supply chain companies, because they're very keen to making sure everything always, you know, slick and smooth as they try and get goods or services from one geography to another where there might be language barriers.
So, you know, watch this space.
But are you going to start using this on the podcast maybe to make yourself easier to understand?
It offers a deep observability pipeline that harnesses actionable network-level intelligence to amplify the power of observability tools, enabling companies to conquer blind spots and overcome the threat of today's sophisticated ransomware attacks.
Gigamon's latest report into the state of ransomware reveals how insider threats are evolving, what impact cyber insurance and blame culture are having on the cybersecurity industry, and why deep observability is the new frontier for tackling the ransomware crisis.
So what are you waiting for? Download the report today at www.gigamon.com/smashing. That's www.gigamon.com/smashing. Smashingsecurity.com/smashing.
And thanks to Gigamon for supporting the show.
Not only does Bitwarden offer enterprise-grade security, conducting regular third-party security audits, and is compliant with Privacy Shield, HIPAA, GDPR, CCPA, SOC 2, and SOC 3 security standards.
This is pretty slick stuff. You can get started with a free trial of a Teams or Enterprise plan at bitwarden.com/smashing. That's bitwarden.com/smashing.
Or you can try it for free across devices as an individual user. That's bitwarden.com/smashing. And massive thank you to Bitwarden for sponsoring the show.
They make managed security affordable and accessible to all small to medium-sized organizations. Check out SolCyber's foundational coverage services.
They include ransomware assessment and training, advanced email protection, endpoint detection and response, Active Directory abuse prevention and lateral movement detection, and 24/7 security operations center capability.
As a SolCyber Foundational customer, you also get access to expedited cyber insurance coverage and discounts of up to 30% off your premiums.
Mention Smashing Security and you'll get 1 month free for every 12 months you subscribe to SolCyber's foundational coverage services.
Visit smashingsecurity.com/solcyber to learn more. That's smashingsecurity.com/solcyber. And thanks to SolCyber for sponsoring the show.
It doesn't have to be security related necessarily, better not be. And my pick of the week this week is not security related.
I think everyone really is a big fan of the rude curse word, saying something rude, having some sort of offensive phrase. Not me.
The amount of stuff I've heard coming from your potty mouth over the years is quite extraordinary.
And in fact, I thought maybe you need some inspiration, maybe you need some new ones.
And that is why I have found, and I will include a link in the show notes to a page which is all about compound curse words.
What someone has done is they've taken data from Reddit comments and they've analysed the frequencies of different compound insults.
So, I love it, your buttheads, your dirtwads, your weasel boys, your wankpuffins. Wank nozzle. So they've created a matrix, effectively. Douche wit, yes.
And they've also, they're showing how frequently these different phrases are used. So something like dumbass, for instance, or scumbag, very commonly used.
Of course, something like poop goblin, not often used. Do you want that to be your nickname, that clue? Well, I don't know.
And they've also analysed whether dictionaries are keeping up with all these things, because some dictionaries have included a number of curse words, but some are not being represented in dictionaries and therefore probably unlikely to be accepted on a Scrabble board as well.
And I think that is something which we might want to look into as well. So I am including, I've put into the show notes here some links.
You guys can choose your own favourites here as well, absolutely, so you can have a trump nozzle.
It tickled me, and I've been playing a lot of Scrabble lately, so I've been looking for some more words to use.
And so it's been quite helpful to me, and that is why it is my Pick of the Week.
Duck, what's your Pick of the Week?
And that is, I discovered a delightful pastime which is very enjoyable probably the first, second, and maybe the third time you do it.
And in all my life, this is the very first time I've done it, so it was great.
And that was, I happened to be riding my bicycle around a lot to go around the river and that, because this time of year, gorgeous wildflowers, birds singing, all of that stuff in the early evening.
And a boat was puffing along into a lock. It was Pinkhill Lock, actually. And I glibly said, I'll do the gates, and so I got to do the lock gates.
It's not a, they're not narrowboats on the River Thames.
The locks are much wider, so they've generally got two gates, and some of them are electrified, but the electricity gets turned off after hours.
And this one is still mechanical, so you have to do all the work yourself, swinging these great, have you ever done that, Graham?
And when I was a kid, they were all hand-cranked.
So I was hoping that you would not mention the St. Lawrence the Seaway or Mary or wherever, the Soo Locks. But these you can do all by hand. It's very cool.
And you know what's really weird is the River Thames did not have proper locks, what they call pound locks.
You'll actually seal off a section of water to let it up and down until about the 1920s.
Most of the navigation was done with what are called flash locks, which is basically there's just a channel with a weir, and you basically run the rapids. That's insane.
I kid you not. When you want to come upstream, they just— you basically row your boat up to the water pouring over and attach ropes, and a few hefty fellas—
So the water's so shallow that they're basically totally unsteady. Anyway, I did the lock, and I think I left it correct.
Upper gates closed, bottom gates open, lock empty so the walls can dry out.
Very cool, and I thought it was great, and it'll be great for the next two times, and then I suspect I might start to shirk my duties. I think it dulls fairly quickly.
Eight locks in a row, I think by the third one you'd be going, oh no, not even halfway.
And you know, to improve what I doing, you know, painting watercolor.
So I went to this place called Dedham Hall, and it's a place I'd never heard of, but today it is my pick of the week because this is a beautifully amazing quaint hotel and art retreat in this lovely village of Dedham.
And it's run by Jim and Wendy. So big hello to you two if you're listening. And they are the most incredible welcoming and organized people I've ever seen.
They were working all the time. They've been doing it for 30 years, and they're just a joy. And Wendy's an incredible cook. Lemon tart night was a big deal, right?
Everyone was going mental for it. And they also host art retreats, which is what I was doing. And I met amazing people, students and artists at the top of their game.
Steve Hall was there. So he gives classes around the UK and also at Dedham Hall. And he was there because he wanted to see Andy Evans paint. So it was all very cool.
I met loads of amazing people.
And there's this one guy named Jacek, and he did this LiDAR thing on me, a 3D capture of me on a rock while we— I was in a boatyard trying to paint a boat, and I did a horrific job.
But I've put it in the show notes so you can take a look at it.
You covered yourself up in the appropriate places. But it's kind of amazing.
So my pick this week is Dedham Hall Hotel and Artist Retreat, and links in the show notes, and check it out because they're amazing.
They didn't ask for your passwords or anything that, didn't ask you to unlock your devices, though I helped quite a few of them, some of the artists, because it turns out they're not necessarily super au fait with technology.
So once they found out I did this, I was—
Can you just look at me appendix scar? It's been throbbing a bit.
You know, I've got a strange rash on the underside of my— Do you mind if I take my shoes and socks off and take a quick look at it in public? You do get a lot of questions.
Observability, observability, observability. But check it out, guys. It was really fun.
Alrighty, listeners, today we are talking about the current state of ransomware, and we are with Iain Farquhar. He is Global Field CTO at Gigamon.
Thank you for coming on the show, Iain. I know you must be very busy. I know you've been up since the very early morning today. Thank you for having me on. I appreciate it.
So Gigamon's paper called State of Ransomware for 2022 and Beyond looks into insider threats, blame culture, which I'm super interested in, and of course, zero trust.
And let's be honest, cybersecurity professionals around the world are currently facing some serious challenges and the exacerbation of ransomware, I'm sure, is not helping reduce pressure.
Let's talk maybe about the insider threat first. You know, how is it going inside?
I mean, I used to do DLP years and years ago, I did a huge focus on DLP, 2008 to 2013.
A lot of that was about insider threat, and then we pivoted as an industry and we focused on advanced persistent threats, and we kind of forgot about it, but it never went away.
Now, the focus here is on, of course, ransomware threat actors, ransomware teams, ransomware crews are now using insiders as one more way to get into the organization.
But we've always had an insider threat. We need to start focusing more on it.
They write some huge amount of data onto a USB key that they're not meant to do, and then they lose it. Somebody picks it up and that data is breached.
So you've got this multiple ways of dealing with vectors that a threat could enter your organization through an insider.
And governments have been dealing with insider threats for years. That's what security clearances are about.
But we don't really actually look at this out in non-government enterprise. Maybe it's time that we did.
There is definitely an issue of blame culture. A lot of CISOs feel very, very strongly that they can be held to account.
If they have built a solid infrastructure, but they still get breached, they can be tarred personally, and that worries a lot of them.
You hear stories, for example, about CISOs who ask for an investment.
They get denied, and then they'll say something like, right, I need an email from the CFO or the CEO saying, I've told you this, you decided not to invest in it.
That's a terrible situation to be in. The blame culture has really got to end because it is very useful to understand when an organization has been breached.
It allows the customers of that organization, the people, to respond to it appropriately. If they don't, that's bad.
I might do something bad and then go, "Oh, God, I shouldn't have done that," and try and hide my tracks rather than going to the IT guys and going, "Okay, I have to be honest.
Do you know what happened?" So how do you get around that?
They not only allow people who are affected by breaches to deal with this, but they also support investments.
People don't want to be subject to them because one of the things we found out in this paper is that 33% of organizations actually see ransomware as mostly a reputational issue.
So if your reputation is going to be affected by being mandatorily exposed, that's definitely going to drive behaviors.
It's going to drive people towards better data governance and better protecting information that they hold.
I shouldn't say that. Kick in the shins.
You know, 9 out of 10 boardrooms, 89% of boards see ransomware as a priority concern. That was one of the findings in this paper.
So you've got, for example, the top area investment seems to be more cybersecurity tooling, and that's absolutely a legitimate approach.
You know, one of the things that I love to see is defense in depth. We tend to forget about that with security tooling, or a lot of people do.
I think in that we assume that security tools are perfect. No, they're not.
Therefore, the more coverage we have, the more visibility we have, the more observability of our network we have, the better, the more likely we are to catch the incidents, to catch the issue.
Issues that are causing it, but that's not the only thing. You've got security awareness and training. That's about half of people are doing that.
And security awareness and training is a great approach. And I do a lot of security awareness and training, not only in my job, but also as a volunteer to other organizations.
The problem is, is that a really good attacker will still get around that. There was an organization I used to work with many years ago.
It was a large government supplier in the US that used to use the most punitive, absolutely vicious security training where they would train their staff and then they would have an internal tiger team that would attack their own staff.
And you got one freebie, you got one freebie, and if you failed, if they successfully attacked you, you had to go and do a 4-hour training course and update.
If you did the second one, you had to go and report to a vice president.
Now bear in mind, that also means 90% success. Yeah. So what 1 in 10 means, 9 out of 10 they didn't hit. So it's a useful tool, but it's not the only tool.
Defense in depth is so important.
I'm just interested, as we're talking about the senior management team, are they buying into that concept? Is that something worthwhile?
Cyber insurance is a huge issue now, and certainly this international survey, and in Australia and Singapore, 9 out of 10 organizations have cyber insurance against ransomware.
And in fact, one quarter in Asia Pacific. That was their only approach. The problem is we're aware of organizations that simply can't afford it anymore.
The premiums are going through the roof, and the cyber insurance companies are asking a huge amount of details about the risk remediations that these organizations have in place.
And that was the diligence the insurance company was using to determine what premium they should be charging.
You have to have technicians to go through all the systems to make sure they're meeting all the stipulations in order to be covered. Absolutely. Yeah, right.
So this is why deep observability is so vital.
There is the existing industry concept of observability, which is the old concept of logs, events, metrics, and tracing. And we've been doing that for a lot of years.
Essentially, it reports about the inside of a system, a workload, a cloud instance. Deep observability looks at it from the outside.
It looks at a cloud image from the outside, looking at what it is doing on the network.
Now, one of the first things a good attacker will do when they break into a workload is they'll turn off logging. I mean, you can go and read the Mandiant report.
That's one of the first things the attacker that breached SolarWinds did. They turned off logging and cleared the logs. That's in their reports.
The first ever incident response I did, I'm almost ashamed to admit this, in 1989, fine. I saw them turning off logging. They turned off syslog.
So, you know, this is an old attacker TTP. On that basis, you've got to look at logging. While it's essential, and I'm not saying don't do it, it's not good at catching attackers.
If once they violate a workload, once they get in, they compromise something, be it ransomware, be it an advanced threat two-factor, they are going to compromise logging.
How do we deal with that? We go back to defense in depth.
We look at what that workload is doing from the outside, and they can't easily compromise that because that workload still needs to generate traffic, and that's what deep observability is.
If you had a burglar come in, the first thing they'd want to do is turn off CCTV or video recording, right, in order to get away doing what they want to do without any evidence.
It makes perfect sense.
All of these environments have network traffic. All of these environments we can do deep observability in.
So if your environment is on-prem, hybrid, multi-cloud, private cloud, public cloud, it doesn't matter.
We can deliver the traffic from those environments and deliver them to the tools needed to detect the ransomware, to detect the insider threats, to detect all of the stuff that are a risk to your organization.
It's hard enough as it is to detect threats without dealing with overwhelming a tool with useless data.
I spend a lot of my time doing zero trust, and I think it's an amazing concept because it gets us away from all of those security assumptions like good people inside, bad people outside that just aren't realistic.
One of the things I will say is that if you are doing zero trust with just normal observability, well, you're probably not looking at it.
You should be looking at normal observability, deep observability, and as much information about risk as you can derive. Then you will achieve a really good outcome.
And it looks into insider threats, blame culture, and of course, zero trust. And it's yours for free by visiting gigamon.com/smashing.
That's Gigamon, G-I-G-A-M-O-N, dot com forward slash smashing. And all that I have to say is thank you so much, Iain Farquhar, Global Field CTO for Gigamon.
What's the best way for folks to do that?
And don't forget to ensure you never miss another episode. Follow Smashing Security in your favorite podcast apps such as Overcast, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts.
It's thanks to them all that this show is free.
For episode show notes and sponsorship information and guest lists and the entire back catalog of more than 284 episodes, check out smashingsecurity.com.
Hosts:
Graham Cluley:
Carole Theriault:
Guest:
Paul Ducklin – @duckblog
Show notes:
- Uber Enters Non-Prosecution Agreement Related to 2016 Data Breach — US Department of Justice.
- Former Uber Security Chief Joe Sullivan Must Face Driver Fraud Charges — Bloomberg.
- Uber to pay $148 million in data breach settlement — TechCrunch.
- Uber paid hackers $100,000 to keep data breach quiet — Graham Cluley.
- Uber CISO's trial underscores the importance of truth, transparency, and trust — CSO Online.
- 7 cybersecurity tips for your summer vacation! — Naked Security.
- Sanas demo.
- Sanas Raises $32M for Breakthrough AI Technology for Real-Time Accent Translation — Sanas press release.
- This 6-Million-Dollar AI Changes Accents as You Speak — IEEE Spectrum.
- Call centre workers can use AI to mimic your accent on the phone — New Scientist.
- A little less accent, a little more customer service — ComputerWorld.
- What Is Accent Reduction? — Accent Advisor.
- Compound pejoratives on Reddit – from 'buttface' to 'wankpuffin' — Colin Morris.
- Melissa computer virus — Wikipedia.
- Dedham Hall.
- 3D capture of Carole Theriault — Polycam.
- Smashing Security merchandise (t-shirts, mugs, stickers and stuff)
- Support us on Patreon!
Sponsored by:
- Bitwarden – Password security you can trust. Bitwarden is an open source password manager trusted by millions of individuals, teams, and organizations worldwide for secure password storage and sharing.
- Gigamon – Gigamon is the leading deep observability company. Download their latest report into the state of ransomware to learn why deep observability is the new frontier for tackling the ransomware crisis.
- SolCyber – SolCyber delivers Fortune 500 level cybersecurity for small and medium-sized enterprises. If the bad guys aren’t being discriminating about who they’re attacking, how can you settle for anything less?
Follow the show:
Follow the show on Bluesky at @smashingsecurity.com, on the Smashing Security subreddit, or visit our website for more episodes.
Remember: Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or your favourite podcast app, to catch all of the episodes as they go live. Thanks for listening!
Warning: This podcast may contain nuts, adult themes, and rude language.


