• ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    I guess you didn’t read the article or think about what you’re saying?

    They aren’t phishing low tier workers. They’re getting executives and people high up in companies to the data they’re after. They aren’t getting in by using an hourly employees info.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the low tier employees that usually monitor for breaches and anomalies and they just won’t give a shit.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And “tech debt” (which I’m sure said execs would lump refactoring infrastructural security under) isn’t a new feature that generates money, so it’ll get consistently deprioritized.

        Source: am software+devops engineer

        • thesmokingman@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Cyber gets paid but help desk folks, ops managers, general help staff, and the little people with too much least privilege who actually get shit done usually aren’t.

          Source: am executive with compliance history

            • thesmokingman@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The article explicitly talks about social engineering. If you’ve solved social engineering for the positions I listed, you have effectively ended the need for most security solutions. Yes, we can mitigate its effects, but no, watching doesn’t prevent it which was the context of this thread.

                • thesmokingman@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You have to define adversary objectives then separate those from normal behavior. Again, you haven’t solved the problem raised in the thread. How are you, a highly paid cyber security professional, going to prevent social engineering from allowing privilege escalation and negative outcomes ranging from fraudulent invoices to knowledgeable, intentional use of applications following expected behavior?

                  Read the article.