Changes

From Security Weekly Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
4 bytes added ,  15:52, 29 September 2016
== Jack's Stories ==
#This week Jack goes barking mad about "Active Defense", "Hacking Back", and Related Stupidity.
##*[http://www.recode.net/2016/9/23/13032420/yahoo-breach-hackers-preemptive-cybersecurity This article says the Yahoo breach proves that we should "act preemptively" to combat breaches.] Yeah, at a company that ignores its security team that will work very well.##*[http://ethics.calpoly.edu/hackingback.htm Here's a PDF on the ethics of hacking back] which takes the position that all active defense is "hacking back" and misses the mark in several other ways. BUT, there are a few decent thoughts hiding in the derp.##*[http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_ActiveCyberDefense_Lachow_0.pdf An older PDF of a policy brief on "Active Cyber Defense"] which is pretty decent, in spite of using the phrase "CEZ, Cyber Engagement Zone".##*[https://tuftsdev.github.io/DefenseAgainstTheDarkArts/notes/4858-1066-strike.pdf A short 2004 article (PDF) from Jennifer Granick on "strike back"] which shows just how far we have *'''not* ''' come in addressing this in any meaningful way.
#[http://www.pcworld.com/article/3123075/linux/linux-wont-install-on-your-laptop-blame-intel-not-microsoft.html You will be stunned to learn this, but people were wrong on the Internet. All of that "Microsoft won't let Lenovo let customers install Linux on their computers" noise last week? Not so much, blame Intel, not Microsoft.] Don't worry we still get to blame MS for all kinds of other things.
#[https://hbr.org/2016/09/good-cybersecurity-can-be-good-marketing The Harvard Business Review says good security can be good for marketing]
477

edits

Navigation menu