The Truth About Approaching Cybersecurity

With cybersecurity achieving an increasingly important position in the world, many companies have found that their initial measures have not held up well enough in the face of novel cyber-attacks. This issue stems from factors such as failure to seriously consider cybersecurity, as well as an inability to implement security effectively. That’s why so many companies are falling victim to hackers who can gain access to all of their business and client data, causing many problems. However, with the risk of hacking increasing, more companies are beginning to understand the severity of the situation and are looking to increase their existing security measures. A lot of businesses are looking into companies like Fleetsmith (visit this link here) to see if they can secure their company devices and prevent an attack.

Possibly the most difficult-to-grasp aspect of defense in cyberspace is the need to escape notions that are true for the physical world but are not necessarily true for cyberspace. One example of this is a common understanding of borders and proximity. In the physical world, borders are observable, placed, and maintained by the people around them with clear dimensions. Location and distance are very different in cyber space, as Michael Daniel, president of the Cyber Threat Alliance, states in an article in the Harvard Business Review. “Proximity is a matter of who’s connected along what paths, not their physical location.”

Daniel also points out the flaws of relying on physical jurisdictions – a cyber-attack can be purported from any location to any network, using an array of hacker tools. It is thus not reasonable to mandate jurisdiction based on physical location. Laws and policies regarding cybersecurity need to be approached with a new mindset, one that acknowledges the need for flexibility in securing the networks of the world. Defending your business’s computer systems from external threats like hackers is precisely why enlisting help from a managed services provider is something worth considering. You might not have much in-house expertise on the matter which could leave you open to cyber-attacks and is why this kind of service is popular amongst businesses looking to avoid this.

The responsibility for the protection of companies and consumers lies not only with governments but with those individual entities and end users as well. For a field in which designating areas of jurisdiction is so asymmetric, the division of accountability cannot afford to be rigid. Daniel suggests employing the same strategy taken by disaster response planners.

“In disaster response, preparedness and initial response reside at the local level; if a given incident overwhelms or threatens to overwhelm local responders, then steadily higher levels of government can step in. We could apply these principles to allocating responsibility in cyberspace -businesses and organizations remain responsible for securing their own networks, up to a point. But if it becomes clear that a nation-state is involved, or even if the federal government merely suspects that a nation-stat is involved, then the federal government would start bringing its capabilities to bear.” (Michael Daniel, 2017)

Daniel’s statements echo Trillium’s beliefs, that no business or organization should lack preparation for a cyber-attack. Waiting defenseless until an incident occurs and then depending on the government to take care of the situation is not only risky, but irresponsible. If the damage caused by the initial infiltration is severe enough, loss of wealth, privacy, and even life can occur. To this end, it is imperative that the world prepares itself for the future, for in an invisible environment in which countless threats lurk, no shelter is not an option.