Rendered at 02:50:50 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
xvxvx 5 hours ago [-]
‘a lay-language resource‘.
IMO this misses the mark. Yes, it’s a decent attempt at simplifying cybersecurity, but if this is aimed at entry-level, non-technical people, it’s not gonna work.
One of my earliest jobs was to redesign training materials for one of the worlds largest companies. I stripped the training to its core, the true basics, and started there. The results were remarkable. I feel the urge to do the same with this document…
mcmcmc 4 hours ago [-]
Have to agree with you. You can’t introduce concepts like phishing and MFA without actually explaining what they are.
Sn0wCoder 2 hours ago [-]
To be fair the linked paper links to both MFA and Phishing along with links to almost every topic it touches.
Kind proves the point it’s not written for the layperson no?
rramadass 29 minutes ago [-]
Read the document; it does explain phishing/etc. for a layperson in simple terms in the document itself. The gp just pointed to more resources for further study mentioned in the document.
jaggederest 5 hours ago [-]
I'd be interested in a small sample of what you're talking about. I suspect that's a marketable product these days even if all you do is deslopify generated documentation.
philosopherNoob 4 hours ago [-]
I’m seconding the request. Anything specific that you (xvxvx) would explain to a layman differently? Even the briefest of examples would be a nice thought to chew on. “A should be B because C.”
I do a lot of explaining to non-techy people. My approach would be to print out the document and walk through it with them. Have the goal first be understanding of why certain things are a priority. Like it’s a baseball game: the three outfielders and three infielders are important to covering all your bases. We’re talking about this angle, in this context, and once the “why” is understood it’ll help them interpret the document correctly.
zoeysmithe 2 hours ago [-]
Have you read CSWP50? Its not exactly written on the 3rd grade level. I think its a pretty good compromise between something only your IT department can understand and what a small employer needs to know. If anything, it leans too technical and verbose.
Not only are there links to go deeper into each subject matter but also a part telling the employer how to hire help if they need cybersecurity help and with a link to the "Small Business Cybersecurity Support Programs Finder" directory. Ideally they should be asking around in the small business community for a local vendor, but this document does a lot of things right.
I think this is an excellent document for small business and doesn't really talk down to them.
rramadass 31 minutes ago [-]
> I think this is an excellent document for small business and doesn't really talk down to them.
Right, the gp has not read it or are intentionally trying to spread FUD.
This is a good document as is generally the case for all NIST documents. It is even more relevant for the "general public" since every home has similar problems as far as cybersecurity is concerned.
Cybersecurity knowledge is vital for everyone nowadays. Hence I highly encourage people to read this and other documents linked to.
NIST is one of the few orgs who still do a pretty good job and hence should always be taken seriously. Based on their recommendations create your own checklist/workflow and have everybody at your org/home follow it.
philosopherNoob 4 hours ago [-]
This is my first time seeing “SI” in the wild. That is such a wrong term. It’s jargon in a place where it doesn’t belong.
It’s a darn fancy algorithm and a cool tool. Putting it on a pedestal instead of grounding it to reality is not going to help anyone. My condolences to the authors.
tomrod 4 hours ago [-]
Yeah, I dislike it too. As do most of the agencies forced to swap over to it I reckon, since "SI" is a vanity project and "AI" is what the rest of the world understands it to be.
cowlevel 4 hours ago [-]
"SI" is a shibboleth. It's designed for the present government to know who's loyal to them.
tomrod 4 hours ago [-]
Its worse than that though, as it isn't a loyalty test -- US federal executive agencies have to adopt it whether they like it or not.
cowlevel 28 minutes ago [-]
Federal executive agencies have to be loyal to the government because they are the government. Working for the government and refusing to do what it wants is at best dereliction of work duties and at worst treason.
avaer 3 hours ago [-]
It's even worse than that; the president has declared anyone using the term "AI" is the Enemy, and aiding the Enemy is a capital crime.
You could say the president is just joking about such things; I don't think this will actually be acted upon, but the political/legal situation is quite rough.
coderatlarge 51 minutes ago [-]
maybe it should be re interpreted as silicon intelligence
walrus01 2 hours ago [-]
I hear they have great "AI" programs in El Salvador! If you say the right things you might even be selected for a free trip here. Such a bargain. And the weight loss plan their nutrition experts have put together is top tier.
tkdb 4 hours ago [-]
I'm not a security expert.
Requests for comments from career security experts: is this any good?
NIST generally publishes excellent guidelines on operational security for academics, and commercial firms.
As a "solo" anything you are going to fail sooner or later. At minimum one requires a gray-beard IT person/consultant with a vested interest in your survival, legal consultant in corporate contract/employment laws, legal consultant in Intellectual Property (Copyright/Trademarks/Patents), a commercial Accountant familiar with tax laws, and a customs broker to handle international shipping rules.
No one is an "expert" all the time, but without key people a small firm will get squashed pretty quickly. =3
0x4e 3 hours ago [-]
As the target audience for this white paper, I’d appreciate HN’s take on the accuracy of this. Whether it misses something, deserves praise or any resources you can point out to make this advice even more actionable.
What’s your advice to a non-technical / non-tech savvy small business owner? Say, for example, people used to buy anti virus as a solution. What could they do now that resembles that?
—-
I work with lots of non-technical / non-tech savvy small business owners and many of them are showing concern. So, I’d love to share as much as possible with the people who are not Palo Alto networks clients.
IMHO NIST advice is highly reliable but it's often too complicated to be useful, which seems to be the case here (that's up to you, of course).
Otherwise, you need to start with an idea of what valuables you have and what threats - hackers? lawsuits? competitors? how well-resourced? - you're protecting against. No security will be perfect. You need to make it more expensive to steal your data than it's worth to the attacker.
A few general tips off the top of my head:
* As much as possible, don't store anything on a computer that you don't want to read in the news or hear read to you in court. The safest data doesn't exist. For any communications, set a retention period (e.g., delete messages in 30 days), and just save separately anything you need to keep.
* Store confidential data (passwords, credit card numbers, anything that can cost money or reputation) only in a secure database; the only exception is when the data is actually requird. Password databases, if they have long-enough fields, can work here. Do not keep it in emails - don't email around passwords, credit card numbers, etc.; otherwise when the hacker accesses your email, all is lost. This especially applies to confidential client data - you don't want to have to explain to all your clients, 'you're confidential data might have been stolen - I don't really know if they hacker found it or will use it.' With a secure database, you have peace of mind.
* Use Apple products. They prioritize security and have the resources to deliver on it; they are the fastest route to security. Windows' value is to larger organizations managing large numbers of computers. Linux is too complicated to secure for non-technical users (and probably isn't as secure as Apple). It does require trusting Apple, but you need to trust someone.
* Use Signal for communication, as much as possible.
* Security is much too hard to do yourself. Depending on need, use products that a vendor remotely manages (but then you need to trust the vendor). Use your firewall to filter viruses, though that's imperfect and you need to be careful about it slowing down throughput.
coderatlarge 35 minutes ago [-]
makes me wonder how many super markets would have thoughts to include the food in their freezers as part of their securables before the recent cyber attacks that spoiled food by taking control of the cooling systems. it’s a good framework but hard to apply…
alhirzel 4 hours ago [-]
I wonder how this relates to the ongoing ambiguity with CMMC 2.0 rollout.
walrus01 2 hours ago [-]
If I see a document that uses "SI" seriously I'm going to treat everything in it with a very high degree of suspicion. Whatever people produced this document have clearly been required to kiss the ring by using the new federal mandate for SI, which makes its entire content suspect.
Hopefully the Canadian, Australian or some European governments have a better and functionally equivalent guide that can be better trusted not to mislead the reader.
I didn't review it, but i for one appreciate that at least there is an attempt to help small business owners in this area.
minfazhai 14 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
lunargamma676 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
dkobia 5 hours ago [-]
Instead of a guide. Why not a prompt?
312c 5 hours ago [-]
Guide loses all credibility when it uses "Super Intelligence"
mxuribe 4 hours ago [-]
No, no, you're missing the point! Today its only "super" intelligence, then soon enough as it improves it will go to ludicrous intelligence, at which point its intelligence will have reached plaid!
conorcleary 3 hours ago [-]
shh wait for the minaj release
walrus01 2 hours ago [-]
Not SI, but SA: Super Anaconda?
esseph 4 hours ago [-]
Maybe, but they would not be legally allowed to release the guide without using that term.
IMO this misses the mark. Yes, it’s a decent attempt at simplifying cybersecurity, but if this is aimed at entry-level, non-technical people, it’s not gonna work.
One of my earliest jobs was to redesign training materials for one of the worlds largest companies. I stripped the training to its core, the true basics, and started there. The results were remarkable. I feel the urge to do the same with this document…
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/CSWP/NIST.CSWP.50.pdf
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/fact-s...
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/MFA-Fa...
I do a lot of explaining to non-techy people. My approach would be to print out the document and walk through it with them. Have the goal first be understanding of why certain things are a priority. Like it’s a baseball game: the three outfielders and three infielders are important to covering all your bases. We’re talking about this angle, in this context, and once the “why” is understood it’ll help them interpret the document correctly.
Not only are there links to go deeper into each subject matter but also a part telling the employer how to hire help if they need cybersecurity help and with a link to the "Small Business Cybersecurity Support Programs Finder" directory. Ideally they should be asking around in the small business community for a local vendor, but this document does a lot of things right.
I think this is an excellent document for small business and doesn't really talk down to them.
Right, the gp has not read it or are intentionally trying to spread FUD.
This is a good document as is generally the case for all NIST documents. It is even more relevant for the "general public" since every home has similar problems as far as cybersecurity is concerned.
Cybersecurity knowledge is vital for everyone nowadays. Hence I highly encourage people to read this and other documents linked to.
NIST is one of the few orgs who still do a pretty good job and hence should always be taken seriously. Based on their recommendations create your own checklist/workflow and have everybody at your org/home follow it.
It’s a darn fancy algorithm and a cool tool. Putting it on a pedestal instead of grounding it to reality is not going to help anyone. My condolences to the authors.
You could say the president is just joking about such things; I don't think this will actually be acted upon, but the political/legal situation is quite rough.
Requests for comments from career security experts: is this any good?
As a "solo" anything you are going to fail sooner or later. At minimum one requires a gray-beard IT person/consultant with a vested interest in your survival, legal consultant in corporate contract/employment laws, legal consultant in Intellectual Property (Copyright/Trademarks/Patents), a commercial Accountant familiar with tax laws, and a customs broker to handle international shipping rules.
No one is an "expert" all the time, but without key people a small firm will get squashed pretty quickly. =3
What’s your advice to a non-technical / non-tech savvy small business owner? Say, for example, people used to buy anti virus as a solution. What could they do now that resembles that?
—-
I work with lots of non-technical / non-tech savvy small business owners and many of them are showing concern. So, I’d love to share as much as possible with the people who are not Palo Alto networks clients.
Otherwise, you need to start with an idea of what valuables you have and what threats - hackers? lawsuits? competitors? how well-resourced? - you're protecting against. No security will be perfect. You need to make it more expensive to steal your data than it's worth to the attacker.
A few general tips off the top of my head:
* As much as possible, don't store anything on a computer that you don't want to read in the news or hear read to you in court. The safest data doesn't exist. For any communications, set a retention period (e.g., delete messages in 30 days), and just save separately anything you need to keep.
* Store confidential data (passwords, credit card numbers, anything that can cost money or reputation) only in a secure database; the only exception is when the data is actually requird. Password databases, if they have long-enough fields, can work here. Do not keep it in emails - don't email around passwords, credit card numbers, etc.; otherwise when the hacker accesses your email, all is lost. This especially applies to confidential client data - you don't want to have to explain to all your clients, 'you're confidential data might have been stolen - I don't really know if they hacker found it or will use it.' With a secure database, you have peace of mind.
* Use Apple products. They prioritize security and have the resources to deliver on it; they are the fastest route to security. Windows' value is to larger organizations managing large numbers of computers. Linux is too complicated to secure for non-technical users (and probably isn't as secure as Apple). It does require trusting Apple, but you need to trust someone.
* Use Signal for communication, as much as possible.
* Security is much too hard to do yourself. Depending on need, use products that a vendor remotely manages (but then you need to trust the vendor). Use your firewall to filter viruses, though that's imperfect and you need to be careful about it slowing down throughput.
Hopefully the Canadian, Australian or some European governments have a better and functionally equivalent guide that can be better trusted not to mislead the reader.