Tag Archives: cybersecurity

Security Information and Lotsa Lotsa Events Management

When Erich Winkler explained Security Information and Event Management (SIEM), he started by talking about events.

“On a medium-sized corporate network, we are talking about tens of thousands of log entries every single minute. Hundreds of thousands per hour. Millions per day.”

A lot of events, and a lot of information. Now here is the problem.

“Now imagine your job is to find the three events in that ocean of data that actually indicate a real attack.”

Ouch. But that’s why we need tools, friends.

To find out why you need to tune your SIEM tool to reduce false positives without hiding real ones, read Decoded Security.

Don’t Trust

I’ve previously noted that too many identity/biometric companies use the same word—trust—in their marketing. Resulting in non-differentiated sameness and uniformity.

Even though the technical underpinnings behind the companies’ solutions have moved away from the ideas of firewalls, trusted networks, and trusted devices. In today’s mandated zero trust environment, everyone—including your chief engineer—must prove their rights to access information. Every. Time.

Zero trust is even stricter than the Reagan-era “Trust, but Verify.” Which is a 2026 cybersecurity expert’s worst nightmare.

And to truly embrace zero trust in both technological and business contexts, customers must demand that vendors prove themselves continuously.

Some customers don’t make such demands, but others do. I know of a national agency that had been with a vendor for years…and then decided that it was a good idea to learn what the other vendors were offering. After hearing the others, the customer let the original vendor (my then employer) make its own pitch. For a variety of reasons they switched vendors…but haven’t switched since.

If your customers insist on continuous trust evaluation, how can you as a vendor continuously re-earn that customer trust?

Water, Programmable Logic Controllers, Iran, and Critical Infrastructure

Here in the southwestern United States, water or the lack thereof may be so contentious that we blithely say that we have to fight for it.

Meanwhile, things happen.

“Water and wastewater utilities in at least seven states have now reported cybersecurity incidents involving Internet-facing programmable logic controllers (PLCs), according to the FBI and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)….Specific states were not named.”

But at least four incidents HAVE been explicitly named.

“Meanwhile, Minnesota officials announced this week that at least 30 community water systems across the state were hit with malicious cyber activity, and an investigation is ongoing there….

“Four Minnesota city water organizations publicly announced cyber incidents, but others are unidentified. Braham’s water plant went temporarily offline; Plymouth announced impacts to automated controls and cellular-connected equipment at water towers and lift stations; South St. Paul announced a cybersecurity incident on automated controls; and Maple Plain declared a temporary emergency.”

Now perhaps this is just a bunch of instances of kids messing around.

Beavis and Butt-Head at Hoover Dam.

Or perhaps it’s something else.

“The authoring agencies urgently warn U.S. organizations of ongoing Iranian-affiliated cyber targeting of internet-connected operational technology (OT) devices, including programmable logic controllers (PLCs).”

Yes, Iran. You may recall that we are at war with them.

This brings these incidents into the realm of critical infrastructure. Among our 16 critical infrastructure sectors is the water and wastewater sector.

“In the United States, there are approximately 152,000 public drinking water systems, including 50,000 community water systems, and more than 16,000 wastewater treatment systems. Over 80 percent of the U.S. population receives their potable water from these drinking water systems, and about 75 percent have their sanitary sewerage treated by these wastewater systems. 

“The Water and Wastewater Systems Sector is vulnerable to various threats, including physical attacks, cyberattacks, and contamination with harmful agents. Such incidents could result in widespread illness, casualties, and service disruptions, significantly impacting public health and economic stability.”

Messing up someone’s computer is bad enough. But messing up their glass of drinking water is devastating. And whether the damage is done by a state-sponsored terrorist or by Beavis, you want to prevent it from happening.

Google Gemini.

Who Performs Anti-fraud Continuous Learning?

George W. Bush is an anti-fraud expert.

“There’s an old saying in Tennessee—I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

President George W. Bush.

Because when a cyberattack is successful, it often leaves a trail. You can analyze this trail after the fact, as IBM notes.

“AI-powered machine learning models trained on historical data may use pattern recognition to automatically catch and block possible fraudulent transactions from being executed….

“AI systems used in banking fraud prevention are highly tuned for specific tasks. AI models are trained using large amounts of carefully curated data through a process called supervised learning. This method teaches the model to recognize specific patterns for specific tasks.

“In contrast, unsupervised learning allows AI systems to draw conclusions from previous data without directed training materials.”

This continuous improvement of fraud detection models benefits us all.

Google Gemini. Altered picture.
Won’t (Not Can’t) Get Fooled Again.

Is It Harder to Monitor Confidential Data Transfers?

In the pre-digital days, if you wanted to transfer confidential data you had to hand-carry it.

Now it is possible to track movements of confidential data digitally.

If data moves off a laptop you can track it.

Google Gemini.

Unless it moves off a laptop or a smartphone that you’re NOT monitoring.

Oops.

Your Personal Cybersecurity Diagnostic

I’ve deprioritized Substack and therefore don’t see Erich Winkler’s posts any more, but I do receive his Decoded Security emails.

And a recent one announced a quiz.

“Most people drift through cybersecurity without a clear direction.

“They watch random YouTube videos. They start certifications they never finish. They burn months going nowhere.

“Sound familiar?

“It is called the Cybersecurity Path Finder.

“A 60-second diagnostic that gives you a personalized reading list from the Decoded Security archive based on your background, your goals, and where you are right now.”

You can take the quiz yourself at https://quiz.decodedsecurity.com/

If Your Passwords Failed, Your Other Factors Could Fail Also

There are all sorts of apocalyptic literature: apes taking over the world is but one example. But the scariest thing I’ve read lately was published by Factonic.

“Imagine waking up one morning and realizing that every password you’ve ever created has suddenly stopped working. Your bank account, social media profiles, and even your email are either completely locked or frighteningly exposed. There’s no reset option, no backup plan—just instant confusion and panic.”

Factonic believes that massive hacks, quantum computing power, and other catastrophic events could eliminate password protections.

“In the first 24 hours after passwords stop working, the digital world would slip into chaos.

“Banking systems could either freeze to prevent unauthorized access or come under heavy attack as bad actors try to exploit the sudden vulnerability, leaving people unable to access their money or complete transactions.

“Social media accounts would be rapidly hijacked, spreading misinformation, scams, or malicious content as users lose control of their profiles.

“Meanwhile, businesses would likely shut down access to their platforms entirely in an attempt to contain the damage, halting operations and cutting off services to millions of users.”

But before you say that the passwords are finally dead and we can move on to other factors of identity verification and authentication…

…those same hacks and power could also affect all the other factors. Imagine quantum computing power that could generate matching fingerprints, faces, behaviors, and identity documents in seconds. As I said in 2021:

“But wait a minute. Isn’t it possible to spoof biometrics? And when a biometric is compromised, you can’t change your finger or your face like you can with a compromised password. And the Internet tells me that biometrics is racist anyway.

“So I guess “biometrics are dead” too, using the “passwords are dead” rationale.

“And we obviously can’t use secure documents or other “something you have” modalities either, because “something you have” is “something that can be stolen.” And you can’t vet the secure document with biometrics because we already know that biometrics are spoofable and racist and all that.

“So I guess “secure documents are dead” too.“

So much for protection. Have a good day.

So What About OMB M-22-09?

In a previous post I looked at the Biden Administration Executive Order 14028 – Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity, including its championing of Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) and least-privilege access.

During the Biden Administration, the Office of Management and Budget issued a related memorandum, M-22-09 (PDF), that dictated a particular approach. Again, ZTA was emphasized.

And the OMB proposed an action plan:

This memorandum requires agencies to achieve specific zero trust security goals by the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024. These goals are organized using the zero trust maturity model developed by CISA. CISA’s zero trust model describes five complementary areas of effort (pillars) (Identity, Devices, Networks, Applications and Workloads, and Data), with three themes that cut across these areas (Visibility and Analytics, Automation and Orchestration, and Governance).

Naturally I’m interested in the identity part.

Agencies must employ centralized identity management systems for agency users that can be integrated into applications and common platforms.

Agencies must use strong MFA throughout their enterprise.

  • MFA must be enforced at the application layer, instead of the network layer.
  • For agency staff, contractors, and partners, phishing-resistant MFA is required.
  • For public users, phishing-resistant MFA must be an option.
  • Password policies must not require use of special characters or regular rotation.

When authorizing users to access resources, agencies must consider at least one devicelevel signal alongside identity information about the authenticated user.

Did the Federal Government accomplish the OMB M-22-09 identity objectives?

Sort of.

  • While some agencies mostly moved to centralized systems, some legacy systems didn’t transition.
  • Authentication moved away from weak MFA (such as sending an SMS to a device as the second factor).
  • Device signals aren’t fully implemented. Using one example, dynamically blocking access in real-time if a virus is detected is NOT fully operational. But this is challenging when you consider all the computers, smartphones, and other devices (including Internet of Things devices) that are managed.

But the government said (in a 2024 Impact Report) that the government performed well.

In effect, OMB M-22-09 is now a legacy document since the 2024 deadline has passed. But it’s still referenced, somewhat, in government cybersecurity efforts.

Are you meeting your prospects’ zero trust needs?

If Bredemarket can help you with strategic and tactical analysis, content, and proposals that address the zero trust architecture, set up a free meeting with me to discuss your goals.

About the Operational Zero Trust Architecture Portions of Executive Order 14028

Phishing-resistant government systems are no longer a “nice-to-have,” but are now a federal mandate. Government agency information technology (IT) leaders are compelled to meet Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) mandates.

One such mandate is Executive Order 14028 – Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity, originally issued by President Joe Biden in 2021. Although portions of this executive order were subsequently modified by Executive Order 14306, the impetus toward ZTA remains.

As you can see from the sections quoted below, the Federal Government agency emphasis focuses on:

  • Zero Trust Architecture, which supersedes the prior notion that the “internal” portions of a network can be trusted. Threats can come from anywhere.
  • Securing cloud implementations, including Software as a Service (SaaS), Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), and Platform as a Service (PaaS).
  • Least-privilege access, in which each user (this was when users were assumed to be human) only has the privileges they require.

Section 3, Modernizing Federal Government Cybersecurity

(a) To keep pace with today’s dynamic and increasingly sophisticated cyber threat environment, the Federal Government must take decisive steps to modernize its approach to cybersecurity, including by increasing the Federal Government’s visibility into threats, while protecting privacy and civil liberties. The Federal Government must adopt security best practices; advance toward Zero Trust Architecture; accelerate movement to secure cloud services, including Software as a Service (SaaS), Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), and Platform as a Service (PaaS); centralize and streamline access to cybersecurity data to drive analytics for identifying and managing cybersecurity risks; and invest in both technology and personnel to match these modernization goals.

(b) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall…

(ii) develop a plan to implement Zero Trust Architecture, which shall incorporate, as appropriate, the migration steps that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) within the Department of Commerce has outlined in standards and guidance, describe any such steps that have already been completed, identify activities that will have the most immediate security impact, and include a schedule to implement them…

(c) As agencies continue to use cloud technology, they shall do so in a coordinated, deliberate way that allows the Federal Government to prevent, detect, assess, and remediate cyber incidents. To facilitate this approach, the migration to cloud technology shall adopt Zero Trust Architecture, as practicable. The CISA shall modernize its current cybersecurity programs, services, and capabilities to be fully functional with cloud-computing environments with Zero Trust Architecture….

(i) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security acting through the Director of CISA, and the Administrator of General Services acting through FedRAMP, shall develop a Federal cloud-security strategy and provide guidance to agencies accordingly. Such guidance shall seek to ensure that risks to the FCEB from using cloud-based services are broadly understood and effectively addressed, and that FCEB Agencies move closer to Zero Trust Architecture.

Section 10, Definitions

(k) the term “Zero Trust Architecture” means a security model, a set of system design principles, and a coordinated cybersecurity and system management strategy based on an acknowledgement that threats exist both inside and outside traditional network boundaries. The Zero Trust security model eliminates implicit trust in any one element, node, or service and instead requires continuous verification of the operational picture via real-time information from multiple sources to determine access and other system responses. In essence, a Zero Trust Architecture allows users full access but only to the bare minimum they need to perform their jobs. If a device is compromised, zero trust can ensure that the damage is contained. The Zero Trust Architecture security model assumes that a breach is inevitable or has likely already occurred, so it constantly limits access to only what is needed and looks for anomalous or malicious activity. Zero Trust Architecture embeds comprehensive security monitoring; granular risk-based access controls; and system security automation in a coordinated manner throughout all aspects of the infrastructure in order to focus on protecting data in real-time within a dynamic threat environment. This data-centric security model allows the concept of least-privileged access to be applied for every access decision, where the answers to the questions of who, what, when, where, and how are critical for appropriately allowing or denying access to resources based on the combination of sever.

The Bredemarket sales pitch

Can Bredemarket help you describe your zero trust architecture solution? If so, set up a free meeting with me to discuss your needs.