Touché. ;)
- WJR On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Steven M. Caesare <scaes...@caesare.com>wrote: > Well given that it’s occurrence is a 100% certainty, I didn’t think that > it really was fair to consider there being “odds” of it’s happening…**** > > ** ** > > -sc**** > > ** ** > > *From:* listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto: > listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] *On Behalf Of *William Robbins > *Sent:* Friday, August 2, 2013 2:27 PM > > *To:* ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] man-in-the-middle attack**** > > ** ** > > I notice there's been no mention of the coming zombie apocalypse.**** > > > **** > > > - WJR**** > > ** ** > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Steven M. Caesare <scaes...@caesare.com> > wrote:**** > > Substitute any risk you what in any circumstance you want.**** > > **** > > As long as the odds are > 0 then you have to consider mitigating that > risk… it then becomes a matter of cost to do so, the value proposition of > which depends on the potential damage from the event occuring.**** > > **** > > How unlikely does an event have to be in order to spend $X on it?**** > > **** > > -sc**** > > **** > > *From:* listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto: > listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] *On Behalf Of *Micheal Espinola Jr > *Sent:* Friday, August 2, 2013 11:40 AM**** > > > *To:* ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] man-in-the-middle attack**** > > **** > > Again, apples/oranges. I'm speaking of specific circumstance, and I'm not > about to include natural disasters in the debate. You can either choose to > see what I'm saying for what I'm saying, or don't. I'm not generalizing. > I'm speaking of data loss to remote access intrusion.**** > > > **** > > -- > Espi**** > > **** > > **** > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Steven M. Caesare <scaes...@caesare.com> > wrote:**** > > > The odds dont matter if the risk will result in catastrophic loss to > the business. **** > > **** > > Sure they do.**** > > **** > > A meteor that wipes out your facility in North America can be mitigated by > having a completely redundant $50bil factory in Europe.**** > > **** > > Are you recommending that?**** > > **** > > -sc**** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto: > listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] *On Behalf Of *Micheal Espinola Jr > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:55 PM**** > > > *To:* ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] man-in-the-middle attack**** > > **** > > IMO, its a matter of recreational gambling vs. professional (done for a > living) gambling[1]. You know the odds, or you don't - doesn't matter. > What matters is if you can continue to profit from the risk. Will the > risk hurt the continuity of business operations in terms of revenue loss. > The extreme example of this is Russian roulette.**** > > **** > > The resulting exposed data in a MitM scenario is unique and has > substantial potential. What is important to monetize here is the loss > resulting from a MitM attack at all levels of remote access for the > organization. **** > > **** > > The odds dont matter if the risk will result in catastrophic loss to the > business. As someone that has discovered corporate espionage intrusions, > and systematically prevented the loss of future business deals worth > millions of dollars (whose loss would have otherwise collapsed the > business) - I have a specific view of this issue. The only additional info > on this that I will provide is that the intrusion allowed a bidding > competitor access to corporate communications as well as business plans and > bidding documents. My discoveries led to the prevention of a competitor > from staying one step ahead of us in business planning and bidding, and > eventual Federal prosecution of the intruder.**** > > **** > > **** > > 1. I'm not a gambler, but I have known professional gamblers. **** > > > **** > > -- > Espi**** > > **** > > **** > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Ken Schaefer <k...@kj.net.au> wrote:**** > > > In any event, the odds are irrelevant - the issue is the business risk > of intrusion/loss. **** > > **** > > How can you say that “odds are irrelevant” if the issue is business risk? > **** > > **** > > Risk is “potential for loss”, and potential includes a weighting for > likelihood (i.e. “the odds”)?**** > > **** > > Can you clarify what you mean?**** > > **** > > Cheers**** > > Ken **** > > **** > > *From:* listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto: > listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] *On Behalf Of *Micheal Espinola Jr > *Sent:* Thursday, 1 August 2013 1:43 AM**** > > > *To:* ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] man-in-the-middle attack**** > > **** > > Odds would be very difficult to extrapolate with any legitimate accuracy, > as you need to know and control the possible environments and habits of > your remote employees. In any event, the odds are irrelevant - the issue > is the business risk of intrusion/loss. **** > > > **** > > -- > Espi**** > > **** > > **** > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 8:07 AM, David Lum <david....@nwea.org> wrote:**** > > I need to present management with the odds of this actually getting > exploited, as I’d want to force TLS 1.2 for ADFS but that takes Chrome and > more importantly Safari (iOS devices) out of the mix, so I suspect > management might say “we want compatibility instead of protection from some > obscure attack that is unlikely to happen.**** > > **** > > In short, what are the odds of a MITM attack actually happening between my > remote employee and our ADFS server?**** > > *David Lum* > Sr. Systems Engineer // NWEATM > Office 503.548.5229 //* *Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > ** ** >
