I received an early copy of this year’s Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR) by @VZDBIR because I'm such a thot leader so I wrote a post with my thots and hot takes about it: kellyshortridge.com/blog/posts/kel…
thread of tl;dr snippets for mortals with no attention span:
Yet again, the #DBIR data shows 94.6% of breaches are financially driven.
It's reminder for us to invest in security that addresses reals rather than feels; and a reminder that the best way to hurt attackers, whether at local or macro scales, is to poison their ROI.
1/N
Pretexting doubled this past year per the #DBIR! Attackers are using employees' email access to insert themselves into existing threads to ask a target victim to perform some sort of task.
I find this funny because I spend a lot of effort avoiding being in email threads...
2/N
Ransomware's proportion of breaches stayed flat (~24%), and 93% of ransomware incidents had *no loss.* Otherwise, the lower bound was just $1.00; you can't even get a slice of pizza in NYC for that anymore!
Worth noting pretexting has 5x the payoff of ransomware now, too...
3/N
Log4Shell wasn't quite the bombshell we anticipated -- only ~0.4% of incidents -- but I think we should also be proud of our efforts to make it a non-event.
Also worth noting is 73% of Log4J cases were for espionage purposes; I muse on why that might be in the blog post...
4/N
According to the #DBIR 41% of breaches involve mail servers (not just sending and receiving email).
Okay, but why the fuck is anyone still rolling their own mail server??? It isn't even convenient! Some real bottom energy there.
5/N
Desktop sharing isn’t caring.
Desktop sharing software was right behind email as the top "action vector" for ransomware in the #DBIR. I call out Microsoft specifically in my blog post, although I don't have much hope in things changing...
6/N
Supply chain FUD isn't really backed up by the #DBIR data. Based on it, the biggest "threat" is a software vendor's dev or admin creds getting stolen and used for BEC, rather than a fancy "backdoor-the-update" attack.
Read that part of the post if you want extra spice...
7/N
Overall, this year’s @VZDBIR is worth the read to challenge your assumptions and ponder the data, even if it lacks weird charts... I leave it up to you to read my post before or after: kellyshortridge.com/blog/posts/kel…
GitLab’s S-1 (IPO filing) mentions security as a risk factor only after:
- managing future growth
- sustaining growth rate
- profitability
- competition
- new / unproven market
- sales & marketing
- “responsible” transparency
- company handbook
What does this tell us?
If your security program is inhibiting:
- revenue growth
- profitability
- staying competitive
- adapting to an evolving market
- sales & marketing execution
- company values
…then don’t be surprised when it’s deprioritized. And if it isn’t enabling any of the above, why not?
In the “new and unproven market” risk factor, $GTLB mentions that if they or other SaaS providers have security incidents, loss of customer data, or disruption in service delivery, the overall market might be negatively affected.
1/8 First, let’s recall that Prospect Theory leads humans to overweight small probabilities (like attackers using 0day chains) and underweight large probabilities (like attackers intercepting 2FA).
2/8 What’s a counter to lizard brain? Belief prompting, the art of encouraging second / N order thinking — considering your adversaries’ responses to whatever mitigations you implement (then how you respond to their response to your response etc.)
Social engineering isn’t all about charm and luck — it involves a strategy & a plan, always.
You gather everything you can about the org, identify the best target based on ROI (highest reward + lowest risk of detection), then craft a story to approach them.
TIL F500 firms won 41% of R&D awards in 1971, but only 6% in 2006. In general, despite increases in science, we aren’t seeing increases in productivity.
This paper explores why, & I’m gonna highlight some interesting things from it in this thread: nber.org/chapters/c1425…
1/14
First, if you wanted a history of corporate labs, this paper is your nerding-out haven.
Turns out antitrust policy mid-century discouraged M&A & led corporations to focus on internal R&D for innovation (vs acquiring it). Maybe renewed antitrust focus will bring them back?
2/14
Another key aspect of the science =/= productivity shift is that universities focus on research, while corporations focus on dev.
This specialization makes it harder to “translate” research findings into practical solutions.
@snare@IanColdwater I am so glad to be your token (former) i-banker contact ✨
unfortunately my former i-banker stock advice is limited to those who have adorable dogs named Seymour, but my general advice is:
* choose a company you think will exist in 10 years
* buy stock
* hold 10 years
@snare@IanColdwater Do not think you can “hack” the equity markets... you can’t, & people with many millions of $$$ will always do it better.
Don’t put all your net worth in one stock. Don’t panic when markets dip, so only invest an amount that won’t screw you. Wait to sell as long as you can.
@snare@IanColdwater Probably most reading this are tech-savvy, & will roughly know what is “sticky” at tech companies. Don’t try to learn the ins & outs of like, biotech.
As a starter, just buy a cheap S&P 500 ETF & keep your horizon to 5 years — it is unlikely it will not go up (esp @ 10 years)
SecOps hierarchy of needs was created in the 1970s, as pointed out by @argvee, & we’re constantly rethinking how to do detection. She thinks we’re in the early days of this current 5 year detection cycle — this time, catalyst is the cloud
“In 2050 when data centers are running on Mars (😂), we’ll have data readily available to make decisions, & humans won’t be needed to make those decisions — the systems will defend themselves” - @argvee