Reviving keynotes

If we are to win this battle of Cyber Security we have to keep thinking strategically, learning from past and present and getting ready for tomorrow. I find a lot of value in learning from the leaders we have in the InfoSec community, they bring a wealth of experience and thought leadership to the table and this is often well expressed as part of their keynotes at conferences. Often the message may get lost during edutainment and networking at conferences.

I think there is a value for myself, researchers and leaders in the community to revive the keynotes and continue the discussion. I intend to blog about one keynote every month, let’s say every second Friday of the month (#GoalsShouldBeSpecific). The idea is to summarize the data, thoughts, proposed solutions, open questions and challenges from the talk, add my $0.02 too and engage in an interesting and productive conversation with the community.


Mikko’s “Government as Malware Authors” version at TrustyCon

For the first one in this series, I have picked the last keynote that I have watched and that was given by Mikko Hypponen (@mikko) CRO at FSecure at TrustyCon. There is a history behind this talk which is well known and well talked about and to avoid diverting your own attention from the main purpose of this entry I would not comment on it.

The talk is available at TrustyCon’s official youtube channel as part of one long recording of conference or as an extracted segment by embedded below.

Interesting points raised:

  • Security vendors commit to providing secure environments to their clients, we are trusted for it if we break that trust what’s left? Trust can be broken intentionally or via having their infrastructure compromised (RSA breach?)
  • There are various entities with their business success depending on being able to break our systems (VUPEN, Hacking Team, Defense Contractors, etc), they clearly are not here to make our systems securer, and can’t be classified as malicious parties either?
  • Many governments are getting into authoring malware / APT attacks / cyber warfare, not only the obvious ones US, China, Russia, Israel, even Iran is not a big surprise, but we have now seen this in India vs Pakistan and to add to list we (very likely) have some Spanish speaking country as well.
  • Are or will security vendors white list government malware?
  • Doesn’t this all make security vendors legitimate military targets?
  • It is easier to protect customers from cyber crime which is analogous to protecting from street robbers but to protect from governments trying to break in is very hard just like protecting you from James Bond, as shown below from one of last slides of his talk.


My $0.02

(Note the use of ‘we’ below is for us as users, vendors, CISOs, and analysts)

  • Our community has to continue to uncover, track and educate on APT / government malware, and work with policy makers, human right groups, international peace organizations to set up policies, procedures, accountability and consequences for violations.
  • We need to think about who is discovering APT and who is not, and why not? (intentional oversight, warning signs lost in noise, lack of investment in flagged for review?) 
  • What else can we do better detect and attribute the Stuxnet, Flame, Careto, etc in the future?
  • How can we make deniability harder for those responsible and then have appropriate national and international laws be enforced?
  • Along with this I think we can raise the bar pretty high with user education, security by design, running secure operations, rewarding for pro security attitude and penalizing otherwise.

Finally, I would like to thank Robert Freeman, for his valuable feedback for this entry.


More from CISO

Bringing threat intelligence and adversary insights to the forefront: X-Force Research Hub

3 min read - Today defenders are dealing with both a threat landscape that’s constantly changing and attacks that have stood the test of time. Innovation and best practices co-exist in the criminal world, and one mustn’t distract us from the other. IBM X-Force is continuously observing new attack vectors and novel malware in the wild, as adversaries seek to evade detection innovations. But we also know that tried and true tactics — from phishing and exploiting known vulnerabilities to using compromised credentials and…

What’s new in the 2023 Cost of a Data Breach report

3 min read - Data breach costs continue to grow, according to new research, reaching a record-high global average of $4.45 million, representing a 15% increase over three years. Costs in the healthcare industry continued to top the charts, as the most expensive industry for the 13th year in a row. Yet as breach costs continue to climb, the research points to new opportunities for containing breach costs. The research, conducted independently by Ponemon Institute and analyzed and published by IBM Security, constitutes the…

Cyber leaders: Stop being your own worst career enemy. Here’s how.

24 min read - Listen to this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you find your favorite audio content. We’ve been beating the cyber talent shortage drum for a while now, and with good reason. The vacancy numbers are staggering, with some in the industry reporting as many as 3.5 million unfilled positions as of April 2023 and projecting the disparity between supply and demand will remain until 2025. Perhaps one of the best (and arguably only) ways we can realistically bridge this gap is to…

Poor communication during a data breach can cost you — Here’s how to avoid it

5 min read - No one needs to tell you that data breaches are costly. That data has been quantified and the numbers are staggering. In fact, the IBM Security Cost of a Data Breach estimates that the average cost of a data breach in 2022 was $4.35 million, with 83% of organizations experiencing one or more security incidents. But what’s talked about less often (and we think should be talked about more) is how communication — both good and bad — factors into…