Can a Damage Reduction Framework Strengthen Cybersecurity?


Kyle Tobener desires info security professionals to eliminate the words “don’t do that” from their vocabulary. Tobener, VP, Head of Security and IT at DevOps startup Copado, spoke at Black Hat USA 2022 on August 10 about how constructing a damage reduction structure can improve cybersecurity more than just concentrating on usage decrease.

Supplying efficient security guidance is not as simple as telling individuals “Don’t click that link” or “Do not reuse passwords,” according to Tobener. The first part of a harm decrease framework for cybersecurity calls for those offering guidance to accept that people are going to take part in risk-taking behaviors.

Individuals participate in dangerous habits for a factor. The reward for the behavior can surpass the threat. People recycle passwords because it conserves them time and mental energy despite their awareness of the security danger.

The human pattern of taking risks is well established in more than simply cybersecurity. Just banning risky behavior is not always effective. Tobener used the example of alcohol prohibition in the United States. While alcohol usage initially went down following the development of restriction, consumption crept back up while the expense of enforcement increased. The smuggling company boomed, and alcohol became more potent. Merely trying to stop people from taking part in a behavior showed to be ineffective.

“There is something called the abstinence infraction result. This happens when people are faced with impractical use reduction objectives,” Tobener said. “They can really increase their threat taking because they seem like they can’t satisfy your overly high expectations.”

Lower Unfavorable Effects

Damage decrease has a long history in healthcare. Tobener pointed to the function needle exchange programs play in decreasing HIV infections amongst intravenous drug users. He likewise highlighted e-cigarettes as an example. When initially banned in the United States, a black market bloomed for e-cigarettes, and lots of people passed away. The UK chose guideline instead of a blanket ban. E-cigarette usage was lower, and there were no deaths.

If risk-taking habits is unavoidable, what does that mean for cybersecurity assistance? Discovering ways to lower negative repercussions is the next part of Tobener’s damage decrease structure.

“Over and over in research we are seeing [that] just use decrease boosts damage to individuals,” he described. “To be more efficient, you require to look at the hazardous results of the dangerous behaviors you have in your environment and style treatments that reduce those dangers and harmful results.”

Instead of telling people simply not to take part in a habits, deal insight into how to alleviate the effects of their behavior. “There are more risky and less risky versions of habits. Danger exists on a spectrum,” Tobener said.

Releasing a harm reduction framework does not indicate totally leaving use reduction techniques. “No specific control is enough,” stated Tobener. “You can layer controls, and in the aggregate, have an extremely effective security program by embracing harm reduction.”

Deal Compassion

The last part of Tobener’s damage decrease structure may feel counterproductive. What does empathy involve cybersecurity?

“Call and pity” strategies are common in cybersecurity. The objective is to connect unfavorable repercussions to behaviors that result in security risk. That sort of social preconception can backfire and make cybersecurity guidance less reliable. “When it pertains to shaming and stigmatizing, this lowers the effectiveness and increases the damage that can be caused by high-risk habits,” said Tobener.

He offered an alternative to stigmatizing dangerous behavior. “By building a caring, trusting relationship with the people you are trying to guide, your guidance will be more effective,” Tobener said.

A relationship constructed on trust, rather than fear, makes people most likely to adopt guidance and learn from any mistakes they make along the way. “When we castigate individuals, when we shame them for making mistakes in their security program, they’re less most likely to share the outcomes of what they have actually found out in their breach, their errors, their reaction efforts. That makes everybody less protected. We do not gain from the knowledge they gained,” Tobener argued.

Effective cybersecurity guidance keeps companies and individuals safe by welcoming pragmatism. “The objective here is remove ‘Don’t do that’ from your vocabulary. Rather say something like ‘Attempt not to do that, however if you do, here are some ways to make that behavior safer,'” said Tobener.

What to Read Next:

Black Hat at 25: Why Cybersecurity Is Going to Get Even Worse Before It Gets Better

How Cyberattackers Are Cultivating New Strategies and Reconfiguring Classic Gambits

July 2022 Global Tech Policy Publication: From Biden’s Chip Triumph to Data Personal Privacy Post-Roe


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *