No. That's not what the DHS did. That would be stupid.
Instead, what the DHS did was require vulnerability disclosure policy. This is very smart. It's not the same thing.
Instead, what the DHS did was require vulnerability disclosure policy. This is very smart. It's not the same thing.
The order doesn't require federal agencies to increase protections. It makes no mention of this. It's about setting up a "vulnerability disclosure policy", so that agencies can receive information about vulnerabilities. It doesn't say they have to fix these vulnerabilities.
Vulnerability disclosure is one of the few things in the cybersecurity industry that's been found to work. it's one of the few things we can point to and say "this is a good idea". But it's subtle. Most people's instinct is to cover up vulnerabilities instead.
What consistently doesn't work is this highlighted by this Simpon's episode, having clueless people running around saying "safen up" or "increase protections". 
We have a ton of "safen up" style rules that seem to do little other than increase costs. What makes vulnerability disclosure policies is that they are based on clue. That DHS directive has a lot of clue, which surprises a cynic like me.
