You probably have an appointment schedule with your dental office that gets you there every 6 months. The best case scenario is that these are routine cleaning appointments with 90 seconds of DDS time to tell you that yep everything still looks good. What happens when, well, things don't look so good but you don't have any tooth pain? Do you just do what the doctor says and get the treatment (for maybe thousands of dollars) because after all the doctor is a medical professional with very significant educational experience and credentials that need constant updating? Do you go dental practice shopping because you suspect that your current dentist wants to drill and bill? Do you trust your dentist? What about the CISO of the company you just invested in? Do you just do what the cyber-practice leader says and get the AI-based SOC (for maybe millions of dollars with constant upgrades) because after all the leader is a battle-tested professional with very significant educational exp...

The Litany of the Hacked is a monthly feature to, um, highlight the fact that hacks are nearly everywhere.  Our point is not shame, but shared awareness to pool resources where possible and create a sense of community. Thus, the litany now includes: GitLab...Oracle WebLogic...Norway's public digital services...an unidentified powerplant in the UK (continuing the theme of attacking utilities )...Boston Scientific...Alation...multiple US federal agencies...OpenAI (aggravation: attacked by its own AI agents)...Sheel...Phillips...Siemens... We're moving into an era where, with the encouragement of the White House, private-sector companies are going to start hacking adversarial (state-affiliated) entities. This is going to get ugly. Brendan has been focused this month on insider threats as arising from error (oopsie), negligence (I don't wanna), or malice (because they owe me and because I can!). What we see on this month's litany when married to Brendan's review is t...

This is the second in a series about the different kind of Insider Threats: Accidents , Negligence and Malice. This series is itself part of our recent focus on Insider Threats. In the cybersecurity context, accidents and negligence cause incidents which were unintentional. Malice is intentional. Once you determine that the incident was malicious your options become few and obvious: dismissal, criminal prosecution or one of those murky NDA-driven arrangements. If the incident was caused by someone on their way out the door then you have to balance the reputational cost of criminal prosecution with the deterrent effect or satisfaction or legal obligation. If the incident was not  caused by someone on their way out the door then their motives might not be easy to fathom. Unless you are in law enforcement it can be difficult to find out if someone recently received significant money or other considerations. Unless you are a trained mental health professional it can be difficult to un...

This is the second in a series about the different kind of Insider Threats: Accidents , Negligence and Malice . This series is itself part of our recent focus on Insider Threats. In the cybersecurity context, accidents and negligence cause incidents which were unintentional. The different is that negligence means that someone failed to follow procedure while accidents are not failures to follow procedure. When dealing with cybersecurity incidents you should determine what came before (the proximate cause), what was involved (the actual incident) and what comes after (the lesson or adjustment). When dealing with negligence you have to confront the fact that someone did not do what they were supposed to do. This isn't a matter of fine-tuning policy or clarifying procedure, as might be the case with Accidents. This is a case of a human failure rather than a human error. As such it falls more into the behavioral cybersecurity category than into the classic cybersecurity category. These...

This is the first in a series about the different kind of Insider Threats: Accidents, Negligence and Malice . This series is itself part of our recent focus on Insider Threats. In the cybersecurity context, accidents and negligence cause incidents which were unintentional. The different is that negligence means that someone failed to follow procedure while accidents are not failures to follow procedure. When dealing with cybersecurity incidents you should determine what came before (the proximate cause), what was involved (the actual incident) and what comes after (the lesson or adjustment). When dealing with accidents, the cause might be just very bad luck, which case what you learn is that sometimes bad things happen to good Cybersecurity Programs. The cause might be carelessness, in which case you need to determine if the person is chronically careless or if there was a some reasonable cause, such as the birth of one's first child. The cause might be a process or procedure whic...

Pythia Cyber's co-founder  Brendan recently posted about insider threats. An insider threat is someone who can cause damage, either unintentionally or through negligence or through deliberate malice. There is a cottage industry regarding insider threat especially in law enforcement and intelligence work.   We at Pythia Cyber are in the behavioral cybersecurity arena. As much as insider threat, which are behaviors, affects the risk management of cyber-systems, we address insider threat. But unlike the cottage industry we focus on identification before a potential threat actor is hired as well as after , and our tools review both employees and managers . It is critical to start, before getting to discussing insider threats, by asking you what a threat is.  Brendan mentioned unintentional damage (threat): knocking something over, unplugging a system, etc. That's a talent and performance management issue. Then there is negligence: not auditing logs, not being current i...