Skip to main content

Security is a mindset not a technology

I often get asked what I look for when hiring security professionals and my answer is usually that I want the right attitude first and foremost - knowledge is easy to gain and those that just collect pieces of paper should maybe think about gaining experience rather than yet more acronyms. However, it's difficult to get someone to change their mindset, so the right attitude is very important. But what is the right attitude?

Firstly, security professionals differ from developers and IT engineers in their outlook and approach, so shouldn't be lumped in with them, in my opinion. The mindset of a security professional is constantly thinking about what could go wrong (something that tends to spill over into my personal life as well, much to the annoyance of my wife). Contrast this with the mindset of a developer who is being measured on their delivery of new features. Most developers, or IT engineers, are looking at whether what they have delivered satisfies the requirements from the 'customer', the positive case, i.e. does it perform the function we intended? Security professionals look for the negative case, i.e. can I do anything other than the function intended? Of course, as a security professional, if you don't understand the intended function then you cannot set appropriate security controls or assess the potential impact if things go wrong, but your mind will immediately go to the 'what if' scenario. Therefore, expecting an IT engineer to deliver effective security is unrealistic.

Secondly, security professionals have to be curious (and I don't mean odd), continuously learning and embracing change. The threat landscape is constantly changing and technology doesn't stand still, so it isn't possible, as a security professional, to know everything. What you have to be able to do is go back to first principles and work out what you should be worrying about, not just churning out the same solutions and technologies you always have in the past. Anyone who turns up for an interview with me pretending to know everything, or puts little effort into understanding the scenario, is going to get dismissed pretty quickly. Equally, I'm not interested in someone who knows one single technology inside-out and shows no interest in learning something new - their knowledge will be obsolete very soon and then they're of no use.

Finally, a key identifier of a good security professional is whether they're interested in learning the business - if they're not, then they'll never understand the impact of what can go wrong and they'll probably default to deploying tried and tested technologies rather than embracing change and setting appropriate controls. Security professionals have to spend time understanding the business in order to gauge the impact and assess risk correctly so that work can be prioritised and the risk appetite of the business met.


Popular Posts

Trusteer or no trust 'ere...

...that is the question. Well, I've had more of a look into Trusteer's Rapport, and it seems that my fears were justified. There are many security professionals out there who are claiming that this is 'snake oil' - marketing hype for something that isn't possible. Trusteer's Rapport gives security 'guaranteed' even if your machine is infected with malware according to their marketing department. Now any security professional worth his salt will tell you that this is rubbish and you should run a mile from claims like this. Anyway, I will try to address a few questions I raised in my last post about this. Firstly, I was correct in my assumption that Rapport requires a list of the servers that you wish to communicate with; it contacts a secure DNS server, which has a list already in it. This is how it switches from a phishing site to the legitimate site silently in the background. I have yet to fully investigate the security of this DNS, however, as most

Security Through Obscurity

I have been reminded recently, while looking at several products, that people still rely on the principle of 'security through obscurity.' This is the belief that your system/software/whatever is secure because potential hackers don't know it's there/how it works/etc. Although popular, this is a false belief. There are two aspects to this, the first is the SME who thinks that they're not a target for attack and nobody knows about their machines, so they're safe. This is forgivable if misguided and false. See my post about logging attack attempts on a home broadband connection with no advertised services or machines. The second set of people is far less forgivable, and those are the security vendors. History has shown that open systems and standards have a far better chance of being secure in the long run. No one person can think of every possible attack on a system and therefore they can't secure a system alone. That is why we have RFCs to arrive at ope

Web Hosting Security Policy & Guidelines

I have seen so many websites hosted and developed insecurely that I have often thought I should write a guide of sorts for those wanting to commission a new website. Now I have have actually been asked to develop a web hosting security policy and a set of guidelines to give to project managers for dissemination to developers and hosting providers. So, I thought I would share some of my advice here. Before I do, though, I have to answer why we need this policy in the first place? There are many types of attack on websites, but these can be broadly categorised as follows: Denial of Service (DoS), Defacement and Data Breaches/Information Stealing. Data breaches and defacements hurt businesses' reputations and customer confidence as well as having direct financial impacts. But surely any hosting provider or solution developer will have these standards in place, yes? Well, in my experience the answer is no. It is true that they are mostly common sense and most providers will conform