Is "Green IT" Defeating Security?
I was reading my morning newspaper one day this past week (a real treat since my cataract surgeries) and I came upon several articles concerning a local municipality that experienced a self-imposed DOS due to a massive malware infection. The CIO explained that "curiously, only those employees who had turned off their computers at night were infected". Now, in security, we understand fully why this happened and it is not curious at all. This statement causes flashbacks to all the times I have experienced many a cost-conscious "green" dept. heads, with good intentions, requesting their employees to turn off their computers at night to save money and the planet. Hey, I'm as green as the next guy, but at some point, penny pinching and IT just don't mix.
Maybe we aren't explaining this situation well enough, (more likely CIO support for security was non-existent), but it seems to me that the IT security department at this municipality needed to explain to the CIO and advise city employees that the majority of security updating is completed during off hours as to not interfere with production. Yes, we do have ways to kick off updates after the computer is turned on in the morning, but at the same time, we have allowed production requirements to interfere with those updates by allowing the users to stop scans or generally override any security setting which may interfere with the goal of production. That said, our main responsibility must be to keep our domains as up-to-date as possible to combat the barrage of morphing attacks. And we realize even that isn't enough, when that one "green guy" opens an infected PDF file or is redirected to a malware spewing site. A site directing attacks to the third-party software we can't find the budget or time to patch with any regularity.
The recent news of the ZeusBot revelations (not to us) and the whole Google/China mess shows what can happen when employees are not educated about their role in keeping the enterprise secure. Employees must have the "big picture" to be of any help. Counting on updating our AV program is just is not a viable methodology any more. While it is imperative that we keep doing our jobs by keeping definitions as updated as possible, (and prevent over-ride of security settings), we are still back to the subject of application patching. All the glorious AV definitions in the world will not prevent an employee from making that search that redirects, or opening an attachment that starts the proverbial ball rolling toward weeks of clean-up and bad press via media hype.
Maybe the publicity helps our cause. At one point I did believe that. Do you think we are still making in roads with the non-security folks with continuous media exposure? Or is it just possible that the public and our CIO's have come to accept these violations as a way of life? I'd like to hear your comments.
Mari Nichols
Handler on Duty
Comments
Turning off your computer at night doesn't even fit my idea of 'green IT'. I would use that to describe systems that automatically power down in some way (monitor, disks, CPU speed, peripherals) when not in use; or operate more power-efficiently when actually in use (eg. replacing inefficient hardware, or through platform and/or storage virtualisation).
Steven Chamberlain
Feb 21st 2010
1 decade ago
Shutting down systems after hours is not simply beneficial to the environment. It is also saves companies money - which is critical to those ever-present layers 8 and 9.
Tisiphone
Feb 21st 2010
1 decade ago
Bozo
Feb 21st 2010
1 decade ago
In other words, it's become easier to account for and accept a certain amount of damage because it's seen as too costly or difficult to operate in a proactive manner.
No Love.
Feb 22nd 2010
1 decade ago
Our stuff is off when not in use and patched in a timely manner. Any impact on peoples ability to get their work done is negligible if noticed at all.
Obviously, larger networks would have to stagger when updates are applied differently, but the majority of Windows patches are small enough that you don't really have to only do them at night.
SMB
Feb 22nd 2010
1 decade ago
Therefore the updates get done while the user is not impacted, and power is saved in the long run. You will want the program to either wait a random time before running, or queue the updates through a central scheduler to avoid congestion when everyone leaves. The only downside are those updates that need to do a reboot and then continue the updates.
KDN
Feb 22nd 2010
1 decade ago
In a hospital where the computer may never be turned off, patching may never be completed, and when a patch is half-applied the computer may be at a higher risk of infection than before.
Anti-Virus programs with central-distribution can also fail due to a compromise that takes place on that local workstation. Once compromised the computer may appear to be filtering malware but in reality it may be loading more by the minute.
There is no way to blame green-computing for the failures of a poor budget (no upgrade because there may not be enough memory) or a lazy IT staff (I will get around to it after we test it a year or so and I do it all remotely. I never have to see the computer). Green computing can slow deployment, but in many cases the infection happens months after a patch is available anyway.
Still, the fault is basically on us all, but IT will always get the blame. That can be assured..
-Al
Your Data Center
Feb 22nd 2010
1 decade ago
Al - you need something to verify the updates worked. Something has to report on the updates and if the systems are up-to-date. Installing the patches/updates is only part of the problem.
No matter what time you choose, someone will be upset with it. Overnight, the "green" people say we are burning up the planet. Morning and people complain how slow it is when they log on. Over lunch and you are interfering with Ebay, Farmville, or ESPN surfing time. You can only make some of the people happy most of the time and most of the people some of the time. Never all of the people all of the time.
Most admins choose overnight to install the patches because that is the time when the least amount of people would be impacted by any potentially bad patch and hopefully remedy the situation...wait, Microsoft doesn't do that any more. ;)
JB
Feb 22nd 2010
1 decade ago
On the AV side.. Symantec update has a lot of flaws that allow an update to take place, but not be used. The report to the server will be the correct version, and that it is working but even then your end-user may be hijacked 100%.
Just pointing that out. I am sure a lot of other AV vendor programs are just as weak, but this one hits home LOL..
-Al
Your Data Center
Feb 22nd 2010
1 decade ago
Al: at best reporting tools show you which systems you don't need to check and some of the systems you need to check. The trick is finding the rogue systems who don't show up in the reporting tools. What I used to do is compare inventories from different tools like software update, DHCP, AV and personal firewalls, and see what systems show up in some but not in others.
KDN
Feb 22nd 2010
1 decade ago