printer friendly version

Safer than Sony

Carey van Vlaanderen, CEO of ESET Southern Africa.

In late November 2014, Sony was the victim of a cyber attack that involved the release of stolen data, including yet-to-be released films. The hack not only destroyed data, but it also impacted present and former employees – exposing private emails and personal information such as social security numbers and salaries. The hackers called themselves, ‘Guardian of Peace’ or ‘GOP’ and demanded the cancellation of the planned release of the film, ‘The Interview’.

In the light of the attack, not only are we now seeing lawsuits, there is also the bigger issue of brand damage, and whilst Sony did manage to claw back some brand benefits by going ahead with the release of ‘The Interview’ in the way they did, the brand has still taken a hit.

Part of this is an historic issue, and the term systemic failure is not out of place here. Sony is an organisation that has a history of being attacked, and one that has failed to understand digital or cyberspace. Ten years ago, in 2005, Sony was responsible for the largest corporate spread of malware with their digital rights management that they put on music CDs, which was actually a stealthy root-kit that was installed on a lot of machines, and was then exploited by cyber-criminals. This was a black eye that showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the digital landscape, and it did not help that in 2011 their Playstation network was hacked, with 77 million user accounts exposed.

There are several ways that one can respond to an issue like this; the first is to implement the most excellent security that there is. The other strategy is to just live with the risk.

There were some comments made by Sony employees around the latest hack that there were known weaknesses in their security. We even know about some of the known weaknesses at Sony, because Price Waterhouse Cooper’s audit from the second half of July showed that there was a significant chunk that was outside of the corporate security team’s monitoring. This is something that we see all too often, where certain parts of an organisation go outside of the corporate security umbrella.

In light of the attack, here are three key lessons that businesses should take away from what may be the most notorious attack of this century thus far:

Lesson no. 1: Don’t leave unencrypted audit reports in the executive email in-boxes

We tend to take email for granted and we think that because it is corporate email it must be protected. The truth is, if the cybercriminals manage to get into the system, your emails are not safe. Yes, you may be encrypting your email on the server. However, if someone owns an account then it is not encrypted as the account owner gets to read that email. It seems like a simple rule, but it is a mistake that can lead to very nasty consequences. So, first and foremost, do not put anything in email that you may later regret saying or sharing (words, images, reports, etc.).

Lesson no. 2: Make your security awesome before you antagonise known hackers

This is not implying that we must give in to pressure from those that want to stifle our lives. However, the issue is that if you do not have a secure position from which to advocate beliefs, or say what you want, then you don’t really have the freedom of speech which in principle you have. There are situations in the real world where your freedom of speech is limited by the neighbourhood that you are in when you think about saying something out loud to the world. The reality is that if you are antagonising people that are known to be active in hacking you have to be very secure.

Lesson no 3: A reminder that hacktivism is here to stay

In security, we are fond of saying that the bank robber Willie Sutton was asked, ‘Why do you rob banks, Willy?’, and he replied, ‘because that’s where the money is’. This is not actually true. Why did he rob banks? His actual words were, ‘Because I enjoyed it.’ This is the point of view of most hackers – it is because of the fun of it. The Internet is fundamentally asymmetric. It is very difficult to stop people who are destructive. With Ddos attacks you can bring a tremendous amount of resources to bear with just as a small group of people.

Share this article:

Further reading: