Will There Be Repeat Victims in 2018 Breaches?
Enterprises have mistakenly come to believe that endpoint compromises are unavoidable and the new normal. In fact, over the last three years, many…
November 29, 2017 at 12:44 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Enterprises have mistakenly come to believe that endpoint compromises are unavoidable and the new normal. In fact, over the last three years, many companies have had two or more disclosed data breaches including: Aetna, Aflac, Anthem, Boeing, CVS Health, Equifax, Humana, Hyatt Hotels, IRS, Intuit, Kaiser Foundation, Neiman Marcus, Rite Aid, Sabre, T-Mobile, Uber, Walgreen, Walmart, and Yahoo.
Jon Loew, CEO of AppGuard, endpoint cybersecurity software provider, recently sat down with Inside Counsel in an exclusive interview. With $100 million in total funding, most recently closing a round in September, AppGuard has risen to the occasion in 2017. Its unique approach to endpoint security has secured its clients from some of the biggest hacks this year, such as OurMine and WannaCry. As an insider excelling in the space over the last year, Loew elaborated on key trends he's seen in 2017.
“There are perspectives that characterize the customers of these enterprises as the victims rather than the victims themselves,” he explained. “Rarely is a data breach truly unavoidable. More often than not, each results from a mistake or a choice. No cyber budget is large enough to mitigate all possible risks.”
According to Loew, choices must be made as to how large the budget should be and then how that budget should be allocated. These choices change for the bigger, more secure budgets when the impacts to the end-customers are large enough to impact the enterprise enough to warrant change. And therefore, some don't regard the enterprise as the victim.
Today, cybersecurity vendors profit far more from treating symptoms than root causes. Imagine all of the cybersecurity tools, functions and personnel that exist because of chronically compromised enterprise endpoints, for instance. There's another dimension to this. In addition, vendors profit from a chronic and pervasive cybersecurity skills shortage, because it creates demand for tools to alleviate that.
“Now, imagine if malicious code attacks were suddenly made obsolete, how many products, services and staffing requirements would vanish or diminish?” Loew explained. “Flip this over. Consider the profit centers of the vendors. Those revenue streams that only treat symptoms far outweigh those that actually treat root causes. Large vendors therefore have a conflict of interest.”
Prevention products threaten their greater revenue streams–smaller vendors are less conflicted; they are the potential disruptors. However, big vendors exert the most thought leadership and mindshare. Big vendors tend to offer broad product portfolios that address all customer needs. If they copy what others do, they retain or grow their market share. If, however, they solve root problems, the bulk of the profits can evaporate.
So why have enterprises come to believe that numerous endpoint compromises are unavoidable and the new normal? The big four antivirus vendors have failed to protect enterprise computers for the last decade, prompting many to publish/state that “antivirus is dead,” per Loew. Application whitelisting failed to defeat in-memory and non-malware attacks. Machine learning enhanced products that magically tell good from bad files are susceptible to the same obfuscation tactics as antivirus, and they miss in-memory and non-malware attacks. EDR and behavior analytics products, which have a lot of the same hype, allow malicious code to detonate before these products do what they do.
He added, “Industry pundits have preached resilience, adding that it's not a matter of if the adversaries will get in but when. Big Data will auto-magically find the intrusions. All combined, many believe endpoint compromise prevention is unattainable, and the new normal.”
Amanda G. Ciccatelli is a Freelance Journalist for Corporate Counsel and InsideCounsel, where she covers intellectual property, legal technology, patent litigation, cybersecurity, innovation, and more.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAs AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle
AI Adoption, Data Center Building Boom Opening More Doors for Cybercriminals, Many of Them Teenagers
Legal Departments’ Lack of Third-Party Oversight Leaving Small, Midsized Banks Exposed
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250