Cyber-vakantielectuur: 2 #mustread boeken over impact van desinformatie en fake news, de wondere wereld van factchecking

Vakantie is de ideale tijd om even bij te lezen… dus ik heb van de gelegenheid gebruik gemaakt om 2 nieuwe, versgepubliceerde boeken onder handen te nemen. 1 boek van onderzoeksjournalist Tim Verheyden en een boek van fact-checker Maarten Schenk.

Beide gaan over desinformatie en fake news…een vakgebied dat op ‘t eerste zicht niks te maken heeft met privacy, data protection of cybersecurity…

Hoewel het minder relevant is voor cyber-security, is het na 2 jaar corona-pandemie anders wel heel erg duidelijk hoe desinformatie en manipulatie van de publieke opinie een belangrijke rol heeft gespeeld in het verloop van de pandemie…

Maar als je even wat verder kijkt en beseft dat recente wereldconflicten en grote politieke evenementen tegenwoordig allemaal vooraf gegaan worden door grote cyberaanvallen en massieve internet-propaganda campagnes, wordt het snel duidelijk dat desinformatie en fake news daar integraal een onderdeel van zijn.

Maar desinformatie is geen recent fenomeen. Dat is in de voorgaande wereld-oorlogen ook steeds toegepast of zelfs in recente oorlogsgeschiedenis,… kijk maar waar zogezegde atoomdreiging in het Midden-Oosten toe geleid heeft…

Alleen, door internet zijn de proporties en de mogelijkheden enorm toegenomen om beïnvloeding en manipulatie toe te passen.
En het feit dat we zowat alles vanop afstand regelen, en nauwelijks nog direct contact met mekaar hebben… (en zeker niet tijdens corona), maakt desinformatie alleen maar makkelijker.

En dit heeft een grote impact op respect voor mekaar, begrip voor mekaar, tolerantie, rekenschap/aansprakelijkheid, vrijheid van spreken, … heel wat grenzen vervagen.

En dat is wat de boeken van Tim Verheyden en Maarten Schenk mooi uit de doeken doen, op een goed leesbare manier. (Maar ik garandeer je dat je op ‘t einde met een hoop nieuwe vragen achter blijft…)

2 boeken

Het is erg nuttig om beide boeken na elkaar te lezen…

Start eerst met het boek van Tim Verheyden: “Het had waar kunnen zijn”.

De reden is simpel, op het einde van zijn boek verwijst Tim naar het tweede boek: “De fake news files” van Maarten Schenk (Subtitel : “De onthullingen van een bullshit detective“).

Beide boeken bespreken een heel aantal real-life cases en verwijzen naar een shitload van andere lectuur, boeken, papers, websites en ander referentie materiaal. Het boek van Tim Verheyden vermeldt niet duidelijk de bronnen.
Dat is erg jammer, want het is vaak erg handig om eens te gaan kijken naar de inhoud en de kernpunten van het verhaal.

[Dit is alvast een oproep aan Tim Verheyden om, net zoals Maarten Schenk, een bronnenlijst te publiceren, zodat je zelf wat verder op zoek kan gaan naar de achtergrond van hun verhalen.

Tim is een uitstekende onderzoeksjournalist, dus die lijst heeft ie al. Daar ben ik zeker van.]

“Het had waar kunnen zijn”

Tim Verheyden toont aan, met ondersteuning van een aantal experts zoals Nathalie Van Raemdonck, Siri Beerends, Rien Emmery, Maarten Schenk, … hoe erg desinformatie en fake news ons dagelijks leven beïnvloedt.

Het pakt echt bij de adem als je erbij stilstaat hoe ver het gaat.
Maar vergis je niet, zoals ik al eerder zei, dit is geen recent probleem. Desinformatie, propaganda en fake news is zo oud als de mensheid. Dus het is erg moeilijk uit te roeien, net zoals roddels is het een onderdeel van menselijk gedrag.

Het is door internet en de overvloed van informatie, alleen maar moeilijker geworden om feiten en fictie uit elkaar te houden.

De conclusie van Tim is duidelijk, we moeten back to the basics van persoonlijke communicatie, zeker na de corona periode.

“Durf bullshit te benoemen, meer dan ooit. Maar laten we vooral weer met elkaar praten”

(Tim Verheyden)

Bovendien zijn we de laatste decennia heel erg gewoon geraakt aan een stabiele, bijna risicoloze wereld. En Corona en de Russisch-Oekrainse oorlog heeft dat beeld ernstig verstoord.

“De fake news files”

Terwijl Tim Verheyden als onderzoeksjournalist, desinformatie, fake news en propaganda eerder bekijkt vanuit het recente wereldnieuws, bekijkt Maarten Schenk het onderwerp eerder vanuit een technische hoek.

Dit is op het eerste zicht een totaal andere aanpak… Maar het wordt snel duidelijk dat de 2 boeken heel erg op elkaar aansluiten. En het boek van Maarten Schenk brengt heel wat verheldering op het boek van Tim Verheyden.

Daarnaast verwijzen ze allebei naar herkenbare verhalen, die we allemaal wel al ergens in ‘t nieuws gezien hebben, of op internet of op social media…

Maarten maakt duidelijk dat voor heel wat mensen de desinformatie een essentieel onderdeel van hun identiteit geworden is en dat elk redelijke discussie of bewijsmateriaal van het tegendeel dan onmogelijk is omdat het een persoonlijke belediging wordt, die op hun persoon gericht is.

Maar deze gedachtengang kan, net zoals het corona virus, erg aanstekelijk zijn… En je kan door continue factchecking wel een soort vaccinatie opzetten, die de impact besmetting kan indammen… maar het is werk van lange adem.

En je moet er continue aan blijven werken want er komen elke dag nieuwe fabeltjes bij.

Extra info – Het had waar kunnen zijn (Tim Verheyden)

Frances Haugen

Frances Haugen (Facebook klokkenluidster)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Haugen

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/24/frances-haugen-i-never-wanted-to-be-a-whistleblower-but-lives-were-in-danger

https://time.com/6121931/frances-haugen-facebook-whistleblower-profile/

Haar website: https://www.franceshaugen.com/

Frances Haugen on Twitter: https://twitter.com/franceshaugen?lang=en

Arjen Luback – De fabeltjesfuik

Siri Beerends

https://www.siribeerends.nl/

Research: https://www.siribeerends.nl/research/

SETUP Media Lab: https://www.setup.nl/

World Economic Forum (WEF) – The Great Reset

https://www.weforum.org/great-reset

Extra info – De Fake News Files (Maarten Schenk)

Leadstories

Just Because It’s Trending Doesn’t Mean It’s True — Fact checking at the speed of likes since 2015

https://leadstories.com/

Trendolizer

https://www.trendolizer.com/

Referenties & bronnen

Maarten Schenk heeft de meeste van zijn bronnen en referenties uit het boek verzameld op onderstaande link, wat het erg handig maakt om dit verder door te nemen…

https://leadstories.com/de-fake-news-files.html

Boek referenties

Als je de boeken zelf in je kast of eLibrary will hebben, dan vind je hieronder de nodige informatie.

(Ter info, ik heb beide paperbacks hier in de kast staan, moest je ze even willen uitlenen… laat me iets weten.)

“Het had waar kunnen zijn” (1 jun 2022), uitgeverij Pelckmans

e-book (ISBN 978-94-6401-659-8, €14,99): https://www.pelckmansuitgevers.be/het-had-waar-kunnen-zijn-e-book.html

Paperback (ISBN 978-94-6401-609-3, €22,50): https://www.pelckmansuitgevers.be/het-had-waar-kunnen-zijn.html

De Fake News Files (22 mar 2022), uitgeverij Lannoo

Paperback: (ISBN 978-94-0147-686-7, €22,99): https://www.lannoo.be/nl/de-fake-news-files.

E-book (ISBN 978-94-0148-391-9, €12,99): https://www.ebook.nl/ebook/9789401483919-de-fake-news-files-maarten-schenk/

Andere interessante referenties

(deze referenties kunnen in de toekomst nog verder bijgewerkt worden, of er kan nog bijkomende info toegevoegd worden na de initiele publicatie…)

VRT – Boek bespreking door Jef Cauwenberghs

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2022/06/09/zes-inzichten-desinformatie-tim-verheyde/

Zelf verder zoeken! Meer weten?

Online

Tim Verheyden

Blog met heel wat interessante artikels: https://timverheyden.com/blog

Nathalie Van Raemdonck

LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nathalievraemdonck/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/eilah_tan

Website: https://nathalievanraemdonck.com/

Enkele van haar laatste presentaties:

https://eooh.eu/podcasts/he2rnyb04b5no6q6k1xbdpeiey0kd0-nf5e8-99npr-7jnyr

Rien Emmery (@ArbiterOfTweets)

Twitter

Tweets by ArbiterOfTweets

Website

https://muckrack.com/rien-emmery/articles

Boeken

On Bullshit (1986), Harry G. Frankfurt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit

And also

VRTNWS fact checks:

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/rubrieken/desinformatie/check/

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2022/06/28/de-checkers-2022/

De Checkers

https://decheckers.be/ : “Een non-profitorganisatie die het publieke debat wil voeden met feiten en nieuwsgeletterdheid stimuleren. deCheckers werkt samen met journalisten van Knack, VRT NWS en Factcheck.Vlaanderen.“

Note-to-self: CIS Software Supply Chain security guide

CIS (Center for Internet Security) has published an interesting guide on software supply chain security.

Even if you do not build software on your own, it still is useful to to pick the relevant security measures/controls as part of your information security management to protect yourself and your enterprise.

As we all learned from the log4j issue which impacted many generally used platforms, it has become very clear that you need to look beyond the first level of control (your own)…

It’s critical to manage 2nd (your suppliers) and even third level (suppliers of suppliers)

Highlights

In high level overview, the document discusses:

1. Source code
   • Code changes
   • Repository management
   • Contribution access
   • Third party
   • Code risks
2. Build pipelines
   • Build environment
   • Build worker
   • Pipeline instructions
3. Dependencies
   1. Third party packages
   2. Validate packages
4. Artifacts
   • Verification
   • Access to artifacts
   • Package registries
   • Origin traceability
5. Deployment
   • Deployment configuration
   • Deployment environment

Supply chain guide access (need to register on CIS)

https://workbench.cisecurity.org/files/3972 (login needed, but it’s non-commercial, limited data protection risk)

More info:

• Original post by Troels Oerting on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6945661110029045760/
• https://venturebeat-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/venturebeat.com/2022/06/22/software-supply-chain-security/amp/

Extra references

Software impacted by Log4j, see the NCSC Github / Software inventory: https://github.com/NCSC-NL/log4shell/tree/main/software

(if necessary this post will be updated with more interesting material, when applicable)

You expect a phishing test… and then the real stuff kicks in… some quick tips to block evasion techniques

I see more and more phishing exercise fatigue kicking in at my customers…

But it’s more than ever required to be vigilant for new techniques that try to circumvent the typical URL blocking and the other protection layers you put in place.

You’re the best firewall.

What is going on?

You know, these companies that first announce a #phishing test…

which go unnoticed because they are caught by the 𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐦 𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫…

And a few weeks later you get the 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐟𝐟 𝐢𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐛𝐨𝐱 from the same company.

With ridiculous worse quality than the actual test… but still its in the inbox ready to click (DON’T!).

You assume phase 2 of the phishing test…another round, right? (you think: “yeah, right, not me.”).

Because the new mail comes with ridiculous bad quality (⚠️1) than the actual test…

Nowadays you expect smart mails from these criminals…

But still it doesn’t feel OK …you start to realize that this might the real stuff…

Checking for some more phishing indicators (⚠️)

A mail with you in bcc…. (⚠️2)

Addressed to a very strange (New-Zealand) mail address (⚠️3)

with a PDF alike icon image embedded (⚠️4)

via a google drive link (⚠️5)….

SPOILER: I crippled the link mentioned in previous screenshot to avoid any accidents…

SPOILER 2: DO NOT, EVER CLICK these links…

Still, If you can’t control your curiosity, you might peek into the link via alternative methods (see later).

The display of unrelated content, with payment instructions (⚠️6), isn’t really what you would expect.

Because if you even dare to click the links you get another link (⚠️7)… and this time the browser malware detection (Smartscreen filtering) kicks in .. at last… so I’ll stop the curiosity here…

Why is this an issue?

The main issue here is: the phishing links are pointing to well-known (like Google drive, Microsoft OneDrive, Dropbox…) for hosting malware, which usually escape or bypass the malware URL detection…

Security tips

Rule nr 1: Don’t click links in unexpected mails

Curiosity kills the cat: Please withstand the urge to click the links to satisfy your curiosity….

If you don’t expect the mail, be very cautions, don’t click the links.

Control your curiosity: test the links in isolated mode

If you can’t control your curiosity, don’t ever click the links on your main computer.

But copy the link and open it

• in a Windows sandbox
• virtual machines or test machine… not your production machine
• mobile device

Use Windows Sandbox

Since Windows 10 (Pro) you can use Windows Sandbox (free), that is a virtual, isolated environment. So you can test some interesting things without damaging your production host machine.

By stopping the Sandbox, the machine forgets all settings and returns to default state, pristine.

More info: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/threat-protection/windows-sandbox/windows-sandbox-overview

Run a quarantined client in virtual machine

Use Microsoft Hyper-V (free) or Oracle Virtual box (free) and install a client OS in the virtual machine.
Snapshot the machine before the test, perform the test, return to snapshot to avoid any left overs of malware.

Run the link on a mobile phone

Less secure, but better than running malware on your most important machine, is running the link on a browser on your mobile device. There is lower risk of infection and less impact than loosing your primary working machine, although… be aware, there is still a small risk of infection even for smartphones…

Additional security measures

To permit some stupidity and protect against accidents, please make sure

• to implement all the latest OS security updates, patch on a continuous basis
• have an anti-malware and anti-virus that is updated continuously
• keep the default OS security features enabled including local system firewall and malware detection
• consider a paid antivirus subscription, it’s worth the money and keep it up to date every hour
• get a mail protection against malware, tracking, phishing and ransomware (like Windows defender for 365) have regular backups (1 online and 1 offline) and test the restores
• use cookie/tracking/advertisement blockers
• use a DNS blackhole system to protect your network from accessing suspicious URLs (including tracking and phishing websites, advertisements, C&C Command and control malware domains, …)

You’re the best firewall

Don’t get caught.

Don’t be curious.

Suspect everything you don’t expect.

Don’t click the links.

And if you’re curious, keep it safe and secure.

Note-to-self: #DPIA for cloud – reference material (focus on #Microsoft cloud)

In interesting set of reference material, that is regularly coming back in data protection, cybersecurity and information security discussions I lately had with peers and colleagues.
May you can use it too…

Feel free to provide some feedback yourself, if you know additional pointers I should add.

You know where to find me.

Change history

2022-04-27 14:00: Added EDPB announcement to references section

Governmental DPIAs

Netherlands

2018-12-06: DPIA on Microsoft Office 2016 & 365

https://iapp.org/news/a/dutch-government-commissioned-dpia-on-microsoft-office-pro-plus/

Direct download of PDF:

Click to access DPIA+Microsoft+Office+2016+and+365+-+20191105.pdf

2022-02-22: DPIA on Microsoft Office 365

https://www.dataguidance.com/news/netherlands-dutch-government-publishes-dpia-microsoft

Press release by Dutch Government:

2022-02-21 https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/publicaties/2022/02/21/public-dpia-teams-onedrive-sharepoint-and-azure-ad

Publication of DPIA by Dutch Government

2022-02-21 : https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/publicaties/2022/02/21/public-dpia-teams-onedrive-sharepoint-and-azure-ad

Source: Beltug news https://www.beltug.be/news/7430/Dutch_government_publishes_DPIA_and_DTIA_for_Microsoft/

2022-02: The Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security requested an analysis of US legislation in relation to the GDPR and Schrems II by GreenburgTraurig.

Switzerland

In a recent article (In French) by ICT journal, the Canton of Zurich published a

https://www.ictjournal.ch/articles/2022-04-26/comment-le-canton-de-zurich-a-estime-le-risque-de-passer-sur-le-cloud-de

Research

Researchgate

Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) for Cloud-Based Health Organizations

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349882283_Data_Protection_Impact_Assessment_DPIA_for_Cloud-Based_Health_Organizations

Guidelines

CNIL

https://www.cnil.fr/en/tag/Privacy+Impact+Assessment+(PIA)

https://www.cnil.fr/en/guidelines-dpia

IAPP

https://iapp.org/news/a/guidance-for-a-cloud-migration-privacy-impact-assessment/

Templates

IAPP

https://iapp.org/resources/article/transfer-impact-assessment-templates/

Referring to:

IAPP Templates

• Cloud Computing: Risk Assessment of Lawful Access By Foreign Authorities
• EU SCC Transfer Impact Assessment (TIA)

Supplier references

Microsoft

Data Protection Impact Assessment for the GDPR

2021-11-17: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/compliance/regulatory/gdpr-data-protection-impact-assessments

Data Protection Impact Assessments: Guidance for Data Controllers Using Microsoft Professional Services

Part 1: Determining whether a DPIA is needed

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/compliance/regulatory/gdpr-dpia-prof-services?view=o365-worldwide#part-1–determining-whether-a-dpia-is-needed

Part 2: Contents of a DPIA

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/compliance/regulatory/gdpr-dpia-prof-services?view=o365-worldwide#part-2-contents-of-a-dpia

Download Customizable DPIA document

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=102398

(more to come, this article will be updated with additional references when necessary)

Other relevant references

EDPB (European Data Protection Board)

Launch of coordinated enforcement on use of cloud by public sector

https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2022/launch-coordinated-enforcement-use-cloud-public-sector_en

Note-to-self: free download of interesting guides for SME from DigitalSME.eu

Jean-Luc Allard pointed out to a #free#download of interesting guides for #SME on implementing the #informationsecurity basics we all need:

Freshly published: Essential controls for SMEs to protect user’s #privacy and data and ensure #GDPR compliance (based on new #ISO27002)
https://lnkd.in/epridtnY

Direct download of PDF: https://lnkd.in/en8rVMBY

And also: The #ISO27001 standard made easy for SMEs:
https://lnkd.in/eiaBbdmp
Direct PDF access: https://lnkd.in/eFR2yjp

And there is more on the website of European DIGITAL SME Alliance (website: https://www.digitalsme.eu/)

#smebusiness#smesupport#smallbusiness

#ICYMI, check these online fully accessible + freely downloadable ISO standards, relevant for information security, privacy & data protection

#ICYMI, In case you missed it.

Online freely accessible ISO standards

In the midst of the #COVID19 corona pandemic, the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) has unlocked free reading access to a bunch of relevant standards, including

• ISO 22301:2019, Security and resilience – Business continuity management systems –Requirements
• ISO 22316:2017, Security and resilience – Organizational resilience – Principles and attributes
• ISO 22320:2018, Security and resilience – Emergency management – Guidelines for incident management
• ISO 31000:2018, Risk management – Guidelines
• ISO 13485:2016, Medical devices — Quality management systems – Requirements for regulatory purposes

The general access page with all online, fully accessible standards can be found here: https://www.iso.org/covid19.

Important note:

• these standards are available online, but not downloadable (for legitimate downloads you need to purchase your copy in the ISO shop or with your national standards organisation)
• there is no guarantee for continued free access once the Covid pandemic is over, if ever. That’s the sole discretion of the ISO, of course.

Freely downloadable ISO standards

Next to the (temporary) free online access, there is also a set of standards you can download for free, no payment required.
See here: https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/

Short url to bookmark: https://ffwd2.me/FreeISO.

Check the interesting ISO standards (from the information security point of view) below

ISO27000 (Information security)

The ISO27001 vocabulary

ISO/IEC 27000:2018 EN – FR

5th

Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Overview and vocabulary

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27

Privacy Framework (ISO29100)

ISO/IEC 29100:2011 EN – FR

1st

Information technology — Security techniques — Privacy framework

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27

Cloud Computing Reference architecture

SO/IEC 17788:2014 EN	1st	Information technology — Cloud computing — Overview and vocabulary	ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 38
ISO/IEC 17789:2014 EN	1st	Information technology — Cloud computing — Reference architecture	ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 38

Cloud computing vocabulary

ISO/IEC 22123-1:2021 EN

1st

Information technology — Cloud computing — Part 1: Vocabulary

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 38

Cloud computing policy development

ISO/IEC TR 22678:2019 EN

1st

Information technology — Cloud computing — Guidance for policy development

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 38

Cloud Computing SLAs

ISO/IEC 19086-1:2016 EN	1st	Information technology — Cloud computing — Service level agreement (SLA) framework — Part 1: Overview and concepts	ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 38
ISO/IEC 19086-2:2018 EN	1st	Cloud computing — Service level agreement (SLA) framework — Part 2: Metric model	ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 38

Common Criteria (ISO 15408)

ISO/IEC 15408-1:2009 EN – FR	3rd	Information technology — Security techniques — Evaluation criteria for IT security — Part 1: Introduction and general model	ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27
ISO/IEC 15408-2:2008 EN – FR	3rd	Information technology — Security techniques — Evaluation criteria for IT security — Part 2: Security functional components	ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27
ISO/IEC 15408-3:2008 EN – FR	3rd	Information technology — Security techniques — Evaluation criteria for IT security — Part 3: Security assurance components	ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27

Identity management

ISO/IEC 24760-1:2019 EN – FR

2nd

IT Security and Privacy — A framework for identity management — Part 1: Terminology and concepts

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27

Note-to-self: CIS Controls v8 (2021-05)

No need to pay with your privacy to bypass the registration wall… (no need to accept cookies either)

CIS Controls v8 PDF

https://learn.cisecurity.org/l/799323/2021-05-18/47qgs

CIS Controls v8 Excel

https://learn.cisecurity.org/l/799323/2021-05-18/47qgv

v8 Change Log

https://learn.cisecurity.org/l/799323/2021-05-18/47qgz

Also available

Translations

Italian, Portuguese, Japanese, Spanish:

https://learn.cisecurity.org/control-download

Note-to-self: SOC2 mapping to ISO27001

Just in case you get into SOC2 and want to know how to map it to existing information security implementation, whatever it may be, GDPR, ISO27001, NIST, … check this page

https://www.aicpa.org/interestareas/frc/assuranceadvisoryservices/mappingsrelevanttothesocsuiteofservices.html

It includes:

• 2017 TSC mapping to ISO 27001
• 2017 TSC mapping to NIST CSF
• 2017 TSC mapping to COBIT5
• 2017 TSC mapping to NIST 800-53
• 2017 TSC Mapping to GDPR

These links have nice XLS format sheets, with a bidirectional comparison between the frameworks.

Info on SOC1/SOC2/SOC3

https://www.aicpa.org/interestareas/frc/assuranceadvisoryservices/sorhome.html

SOC and SOX?

“ SOC reports refer to an audit of internal controls to ensure data security, minimal waste, and shareholder confidence; SOX relates to government-issued record keeping and financial information disclosure standards law. In other words, one is about keeping information safe, and the other is about keeping corporations in check.“

https://immedis.com/blog/what-are-the-key-differences-between-soc-and-sox/

https://www.logicgate.com/blog/a-comparison-of-soc-and-sox-compliance/

Also

https://linfordco.com/blog/soc-2-security-vs-iso-27001-certification/

(braindump article, still in progress)

CCSP and CCAK, not versus: build your cloud security expertise path based on your needs.

Last week (ISC)² published a blog post on the choice between CCSP and CCAK.

You can find it here: https://www.isc2.org/articles/CCSP-versus-csa-ccak.

“What is the right certification for you?”

The main title of the (ISC)² article on CCSP vs CCAK is “CCSP Certification vs. CCAK Certificate: What Are the Distinctions?”

That’s exactly what you get. A list of technical differentiators between CCSP and CCAK, but according to (ISC)².

But if you hope to get an actual answer to what the right certification is, for you… they forget to ask …you.

What do you think would be the conclusion, if you ask that question to either one of the contestants while you compare 2 certifications? Of course each party will simply draw the conclusion that their own certification is the best choice.

To answer the most important question, the dilemma CCSP or CCAK, is simple: do you need technical or audit skills for cloud security?

The answer

In essence, the answer is simple:

• if you need cloud audit skills, dive in to the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) and ISACA Certificate CCAK.
• if you want to have architect level technical cloud expertise and knowledge, choose CCSP
• if you want cloud security knowledge, in basic or advanced hands-on, there are other choices to start with (more about it below)

So, if you ask the question “what is the right certification for you”, you immediately know that there is no right answer, but there are many options.
Options for a multi level expertise roadmap in cloud security, based on your current skills and your future goals.

If you like a tough challenge: why not jump into the CCAK or CCSP, CCSP or CCAK, whatever, right away.

But if you would like to boost your chance of success… take a deep breath and better plan smartly.

And don’t start with CCSP/CCAK, but prepare your track towards CCSP/CCAK first.

First some background to plan your roadmap

Setting expectations

Just to set expectations, this article only focuses on the personal education and certification options, offered by (ISC)², ISACA and CSA. Including other education provider would lead us too far.
There are way more other (cyber)security certifications available, but we focus on the cloud security track, which limits the options…

Feel free to comment with other options for cloud security training. I’ll update the article where relevant.

CSA CCSK

The Cloud Security Alliance launched the CCSK in 2011. And as they explained here, “the CCSK was quite literally the industry’s first examination of cloud security knowledge when it was released back in 2011. “

The CCSK is an easy entry, high level introduction to Cloud Security, and it doesn’t require you to have deep technical cloud security expertise.

But it still is a nice baseline for the cloud security essential knowledge.

(ISC)² – CCSP

In short: CCSP = CISSP [by (ISC)²]+ CCSK [by CSA]

The long version is explained in the (ISC)² article comparing CCSP and CCAK.

• CCSP = Certified Cloud Security Professional
• You need at least five years of cumulative, paid work experience
• CCSP is pretty much the same level of difficulty as CISSP, but has focus on cloud security.

The CCSP was launched in 2015, as a cooperation between (ISC)² and CSA. (see CSA press release here), a couple years after the CCSK launch in 2011.
The CCSP is the bigger brother of the CCSK, more advanced, and as CSA rightfully mentions in there CCSK-CCSP comparison blog, the CCSP is on the level of CISSP with a major cloud flavor.

That’s where the dummy math description comes from…

CCSP = CISSP + CCSK.

But CCSP certainly is not an entry level exam.

More information:

• https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/blog/2018/04/24/ccsk-vs-ccsp-unbiased-comparison/

ISACA & CSA – CCAK

CCAK = CISA [ISACA] + CCSK [CSA]

CCAK (Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge) is cohosted by ISACA and CSA.
And then you immediately know the approach is different than the approach of (ISC)².

ISACA (Previously known as the Information Systems Audit and Control Association®) stems from audit.
CSA focuses on cloud security.

That’s exactly what CCAK is about : cloud security audit.

See here:

• https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/education/ccak/
• https://www.isaca.org/credentialing/certificate-of-cloud-auditing-knowledge

As ISACA mentions on their product page: “The Industry’s First Global Cloud Auditing Credential”.

CISSP

For completeness, I mentioned the CISSP ( Certified Information Systems Security Professional).
I don’t think it needs a lot of explanation, it’s pretty much the reference standard for IT Systems security. (ISC)² references it as “The World’s Premier Cybersecurity Certification”.

It’s a pretty heavy exam, and it does require at least 5 years professional security experience. This is not an entry level exam.

More info: https://www.isc2.org/Certifications/CISSP

SSCP (Systems Security Certified Practitioner)

Due to the experience requirements, CISSP might be a tough credential to start with, although you can pass the exam, and continue to build your experience to grab the CISSP title…

If you want the plan your credentials the smart way, or you’re fresh in cyber-, information or IT-security, you better start with SSCP.

That the little brother of CISSP, and it’s an excellent way to step up to CISSP. More info: https://www.isc2.org/Certifications/SSCP

Where to start?

Cybersecurity & Information security essentials

As explained earlier, for tech skills in cyber-, IT and information security: look into SSCP first.

(Then step up to CISSP.)

Cloud security essentials: CCSK

Now it’s obvious what your first step in cloud security education should be: CCSK.

The CCSK is the perfect introduction to cloud security essentials.

Although it’s very helpful to have some technical IT basic knowledge, the CCSK is very accessible for general audience.

To prepare for the CCSK, you can follow classes or self-study via a completely free preparation toolkit.

Source: CSA CCSK v4 exam (https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/artifacts/ccskv4-exam-prep-kit/)

You can buy a double-try access ticket for the CCSK online exam (60 questions, 90 minutes), so if you would fail the first attempt, study again and retry the exam.

Then plan your track: only technical (no interest for audit) or audit, or both

Only technical

If you focus on technical expertise in cloud security, CCSP is a reference standard (at least, on of them…) .

As mentioned: CCSP = CISSP + CCSK.

So the track is clear

• After passing the CCSK exam,
• Take the CISSP exam
• then take the CCSP

This is the easier route if you already have 5yr+ experience. It’s not the cheapest route, as you pass the CISSP first, but it’s worth the effort. (you only need to pay 1 yearly fee at (ISC)², so after 1 certification, … no extra cost in yearly membership fee)
For junior, less experienced, security engineers, start with SSCP before jumping into CISSP, and then CCSP.

Audit

When you target IT security audits, you need to take a different route depending your background.
Having the CCSP/CISSP background is extremely useful to boost your career in audit.

But for the CCAK, the core audit baseline is CISA.

Keep in mind, similar to CISSP and CCSP, CISA has the same requirements regards professional experience, 5 years.

But if you’re a ISACA CISA, you can add CCSK to the track and land on the CCAK.

Both?

Then it’s obvious, first tech, then audit, meaning a smart combination of

1. CCSK
2. (SSCP > ) CISSP
3. CCSP
4. CISA (or alternative)
5. CCAK

Alternative routes

ISO27001 Implementer & Auditor

And alternative route to the auditing experience is ISO27001 auditing, but you’ll need some implementation experience before you can audit.

CISM

Within the ISACA portfolio, the CISM (Certified Information Security Manager), covers the same areas as most ISO27001 (lead) implementer courses.

Which can be helpful to ramp up for the CISA audit part, to gain some hands-on in IT & Infosec governance.

Visualizing your cloud security education roadmap

Lots of blah for a simple choice?

Allow me to visualize the options…

The difference between “certification” and “certificate”, does it really matter?

In it’s blog post (ISC)² tries to put CCSP above CCAK by saying “CCSP is a certification; CCAK is a certificate.”

And they continue “A certification recognizes a candidate’s knowledge, skills, and abilities, typically framed by a job role, while a certificate’s scope is narrower and only documents training course completion. A certification often requires continuing professional education (CPE) to stay in front of trends, while a certificate’s body of knowledge does not evolve over time or require CPE credits to maintain.“

And their explanation is at least flawed and cutting corners to benefit CCSP.

There are many explanations and interpretations of “certification”, depending the context.
But in essence, “certification” is a process and a certificate is a document (the result).

When you certify for “CCSP” at (ISC)², you need to comply with the CCSP condition and then get a document, your CCSP certificate.
Idem for CCAK, you need to comply with their conditions.

Both the certification process for CCSP as the process for the CCAK are used by other similar education providers.

Eg, PECB, ISACA, EC-COUNCIL, … and others require to pay a yearly fee, keep CPE/CPD (continous professional education or development). Some yearly fees are cheaper as others.

Like CSA, Microsoft and others ask for a 1 time exam fee, and then update the exam on longer term, not yearly, and do not require a yearly maintenance fee.

It’s a choice of the certificate owner, how the evaluation and exams are done.

Some of them comply to the ISO17024, and education standard. There are huge benefits to comply (like increased credibility, compatibility with other certifications, …). But it’s not mandatory.

(ISC)² uses an exam, with experience requirement and continuous education once you pass the exam, but you do not need to pass the exam again, unless it’s upgraded to a new build or major version.

But CSA does exactly the same, for example when CCSK was upgraded from v3 to v4, you needed to pass the exam again.

Not on a yearly basis, but the program is updated, the exam is updated… on a regular basis, without yearly fee.

It’s rather a (small) financial effort, not of significance for most companies paying the bill. (Although as an individual, the cost of certification can become a serious burden…)

And it’s certainly not relevant when choosing between CCSP and CCAK. CCAK is cheaper, as referenced in the (ISC)² comparison chart.

References

(ISC)²: CCSP Certification vs. CCAK Certificate: What Are the Distinctions?

• https://www.isc2.org/articles/CCSP-versus-csa-ccak

Cloud Security Alliance (CSA)

• https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/

CSA Certificate of Cloud Security Knowledge (CCSK)

• https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/education/ccsk/

CSA & ISACA CCAK

• https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/education/ccak/

• https://www.isaca.org/credentialing/certificate-of-cloud-auditing-knowledge

CCAK learning material

• Learn on your own: https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/education/ccak/#prepare-for-exam
• or, option 2, check the training

CCSK vs CCSP

• https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/blog/2018/04/24/ccsk-vs-ccsp-unbiased-comparison/

Vocabulary (alphabetical)

CCAK: Certificate of Cloud Auditing Knowledge (https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/education/ccak/)

CCSK: Certificate of Cloud Security Knowledge (https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/education/ccsk/)

CCSP: Certified Cloud Security Professional (https://www.isc2.org/Certifications/CCSP)

CSA: Cloud Security Alliance (https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/)

(ISC)²:  International Information System Security Certification Consortium (https://www.isc2.org/)

Is “not paying” THE solution against ransomware?

The discussion and opinions on paying ransom in case of cyber-ransomware is very alive and vivid.

Many people have strong opinions, but the actual victims of ransomware are seldom heard. They mostly keep silent.

This article is the English translation and adaptation of an article, originally published in Dutch, earlier.

(Source) Initial article in Dutch : https://identityunderground.wordpress.com/2021/07/30/de-oplossing-tegen-ransomware-volgens-brian/

In Trends magazine, Brian Schippers published an opinion article a few days ago with a very easy and simple solution against ransomware: don’t pay. (Source: Trends)

I must admit, it’s a great opinion article to get a nice discussion going with companies. At least it helps to raise awareness of ransomware and ransom payments. But unfortunately the article is not a Greek ancient-wise talk [σοφςς].

But he’s right about the reprehensible statements made by some of the ransomware victims. It is outrageous that a company dares to claim that ‘only’ 300K has been paid.

(translated quote) “We understand that we are suffering reputation damage, but we can’t be blamed,” the company manager told reporters. That statement in the press will haunt him for a while.

And it’s not the first time we’ve witnessed such statements. For another company from the Westhoek (Western Belgian Region, near the coast) , it was “less than 1 million”…

It’s very meaningful, how little business leaders worry about ransomware or how careless they can be to protect their business.

And Brian puts forward a very nice theory how to stop ransomware, … in the ideal world.

But unfortunately, the article does not show in any way that the opinion-maker, in real life, has ever been on the side of a defenseless victim who is completely under the control of some remote criminal.

Because the choice to (NOT) pay a ransom is only available if you have a well-functioning and thoroughly tested backup and restore system.

At that moment, when it happens, all preventive measures have clearly failed already. Way too late to have regrets…

Prevention only works BEFORE the criminal strikes. Or when he has left again, to avoid repetition.

People do not choose to pay ransomware. It’s the last resort.

They just have no choice. All other means are already exhausted or unavailable.

You don’t pay a ransom if your backup/restore system works properly.

Without a guaranteed recovery function, mathematics is very simple

If you

• DO NOT pay =  100% GUARANTEE that you LOSE your DATA and you’re almost certain that your company will also be dead very quickly, or at least suffer long-term or irreparable damage.
• PAY = there is SOME chance that you may see (something) of your data again. That’s always better than the previous option, no matter what it costs.

The third option in between is that the cost of the ransom is lower than the real cost of restoring your data. If you run into a cheap criminal, you can only try to talk him out of it and limit the damage. Pure math.

What if…?

It’s very easy to imagine: if a good-looking homejacker just rings the doorbell at your home. And your dearest opens the heavily armed front door.

A few seconds later, the robber asks you to clear your bank account completely with a gun to your dearest one’s head.

Are you going to pay or not?!

Do you have a choice?!

Replacing your dearest… is not an option, I would think.

With ransomware, the situation is exactly the same.

Well, Brian Schippers apparently doesn’t think so.

In his article Mr. Schippers is very convinced that you should certainly not pay a ransom. But the article does not offer any concrete, useful solution or practical suggestion as alternative.

He talks about a “security solution”… and reading between the lines you easily know where it should come from.

But there is no mention of decent and continuous training of people, thorough awareness training and thorough backup/restore or even better offline backup, even in the current age of cloud.

Because with “wise” software alone, it won’t work.

Even with the best technical security you have, people remain the weak point.

And the stronger the security, the more crime will target people directly.

And people make mistakes. People make software. Each software contains errors.

And mistakes will always be exploited.

And you only need just one employee who is fooled by a cleverly designed, but infected mail or a noble unknown on the phone.

It happens in no time, there are more than enough statistics in practice.

Because the hack or phishing is so well designed these days, that even cyber professionals can’t easily detect fake mails.

“The budget should not be a problem.”

Yes, yes, of course it shouldn’t, Brian! Nice slogan.

NOT.

Because the practice proves something completely different:

cyber protection < a very small percent of the IT budget < a small percent of the company budget.

Well, now what?!

It would be quite different if business leaders and managers were personally held liable for a pertinent lack of “state-of-the-art” (i.e. up-to-date) security that aligns both people, processes and technology very well.

Only THAT would solve the whole ransomware problem, very quickly. Deprive the criminal from his leverage.

Don’t look too far. Just look at how the insurance companies are doing in real life.

See how they implement car, fire, liability or other insurance. If it is shown that you are negligent, knowingly refuse to implement sufficient security … then the insurance will not pay or will claim back the refund.

Easy and simple, isn’t it?

Not so in cyber insurance, that’s the wild west. For a couple a thousand Euros in insurance, you get a bag of money of a couple millions to pay the criminal.

You bet on hackers to give up.

And if you bet hackers will give up soon, start by giving a “tournée générale” (buying a beer to everyone).

Because cybercrime and ransomware is big business. They make a lot of money with crime, so they won’t give up. Not now, not ever.

[BTW, it’s not because known ransomware groups suddenly disappear that they’re gone too. We don’t know the facts about that yet…]

But criminals don’t respect any law or rule. And they certainly don’t have ethical principles. It’s just a business that makes a lot of money.

So they are always have a head start and they are very motivated. And they will twist your arm even harder… or worse.

Finally

We must keep repeating that state-of-the-art security is all about security solutions at different layers and levels, which look beyond technology.

When you keep claiming you should not pay for ransomware, you’re running after the facts. In practice, it doesn’t solve anything… People in distress and panic will ignore law and ethical guidelines.

Also in physical life, many authorities officially declare that they do not give in to ransom demands. Is paying a ransom prohibited by law? But in many cases, money is paid clandestinely. Reality check.

So?

Make sure that the liability for implementing poor security measures hurts the right person, in the right place. Not the employees, but their boss.

And consequently:

So make sure that cybersecurity is sponsored at the top management level.