I must say that BeyondTrust handled this really well. The company I work for also uses BeyondTrust's remote support tool and I was immediately informed by the account manager and their security...
I must say that BeyondTrust handled this really well.
The company I work for also uses BeyondTrust's remote support tool and I was immediately informed by the account manager and their security team of the breach and how to resolve it. It included an emergency patch closing the breach.
Breaches happen, we can't (always) fault companies for that. What we can look at and judge is their response. So far, their response has been great.
Exact same experience. We got notified day of the patch release and was told to push to production ASAP. Glad we did. Kudos to BT/Bomgar for handling this well. I've seen much, much worse...
Exact same experience. We got notified day of the patch release and was told to push to production ASAP. Glad we did.
Kudos to BT/Bomgar for handling this well. I've seen much, much worse responses from more "storied" companies.
"It's only cool when we collect this data from the entire planet." The NSA This comment is making me reflect why I relish in the hypocrisy of foriegn state actions being bad and our state actions...
"It's only cool when we collect this data from the entire planet."
The NSA
This comment is making me reflect why I relish in the hypocrisy of foriegn state actions being bad and our state actions being good (as a national narrative). I think it has something to do with a cross between "almost nobody sees themselves as a villain" and "oh, we only have something to hide when China does it.". We're reaping the rewards of "treat others the way you want to be treated." But that's kind of the proto-thought, I'm sure it'll come to fruition someday.
Espionage is kind of a fact of life unfortunately. Like the the OP mentioned, morality doesn't really enter the equation. As a member of a state, purely from a self interested perspective,...
Espionage is kind of a fact of life unfortunately. Like the the OP mentioned, morality doesn't really enter the equation.
As a member of a state, purely from a self interested perspective, adversarial espionage against your state is bad, and espionage against adversaries by your state is good. That is, your life is materially better if enemy espionage is unsuccessful, and friendly espionage is successful.
"Good" and "bad" in those terms aren't a moral judgement, but a material judgement.
I'll add that domestically, having good security is important for making sure that legal processes are followed. A lot of Internet traffic was unencrypted before the Snowden disclosures, including...
I'll add that domestically, having good security is important for making sure that legal processes are followed. A lot of Internet traffic was unencrypted before the Snowden disclosures, including traffic between data centers. That's no longer the case, so it means that someone needs to get a search warrant.
Morality is beside the point when we think about how to deal with espionage. If it weren't the Chinese then it would be some other country, or non-state actors. It's going to happen and the only...
Morality is beside the point when we think about how to deal with espionage. If it weren't the Chinese then it would be some other country, or non-state actors. It's going to happen and the only solution is to prevent and fix vulnerabilities.
How is it hypocrisy? If you live in a nation state, yes, you'd want it to be good at surveilling over states and for over states to have a hard time surveilling your state. That isn't hypocrisy,...
How is it hypocrisy? If you live in a nation state, yes, you'd want it to be good at surveilling over states and for over states to have a hard time surveilling your state. That isn't hypocrisy, because you obviously have a natural vested interest in one side over the other.
If country A were at war with country B, it's hardly hypocrisy for the citizens of country A to celebrate country A's victories and despite country B's victories.
When using a nationalist lens it's not hypocritical, but sometimes people do view the world with a universalist lens, considering people everywhere in the world as the same in some ways. If you...
When using a nationalist lens it's not hypocritical, but sometimes people do view the world with a universalist lens, considering people everywhere in the world as the same in some ways. If you subscribe to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in some circumstances but not others, this can be seen as inconsistent.
But the golden rule is a poor fit for Internet security. The Internet is too large, with too many bad actors. Hackers don't care that you haven't attacked anyone.
I must say that BeyondTrust handled this really well.
The company I work for also uses BeyondTrust's remote support tool and I was immediately informed by the account manager and their security team of the breach and how to resolve it. It included an emergency patch closing the breach.
Breaches happen, we can't (always) fault companies for that. What we can look at and judge is their response. So far, their response has been great.
Exact same experience. We got notified day of the patch release and was told to push to production ASAP. Glad we did.
Kudos to BT/Bomgar for handling this well. I've seen much, much worse responses from more "storied" companies.
"It's only cool when we collect this data from the entire planet."
This comment is making me reflect why I relish in the hypocrisy of foriegn state actions being bad and our state actions being good (as a national narrative). I think it has something to do with a cross between "almost nobody sees themselves as a villain" and "oh, we only have something to hide when China does it.". We're reaping the rewards of "treat others the way you want to be treated." But that's kind of the proto-thought, I'm sure it'll come to fruition someday.
Espionage is kind of a fact of life unfortunately. Like the the OP mentioned, morality doesn't really enter the equation.
As a member of a state, purely from a self interested perspective, adversarial espionage against your state is bad, and espionage against adversaries by your state is good. That is, your life is materially better if enemy espionage is unsuccessful, and friendly espionage is successful.
"Good" and "bad" in those terms aren't a moral judgement, but a material judgement.
I'll add that domestically, having good security is important for making sure that legal processes are followed. A lot of Internet traffic was unencrypted before the Snowden disclosures, including traffic between data centers. That's no longer the case, so it means that someone needs to get a search warrant.
Morality is beside the point when we think about how to deal with espionage. If it weren't the Chinese then it would be some other country, or non-state actors. It's going to happen and the only solution is to prevent and fix vulnerabilities.
How is it hypocrisy? If you live in a nation state, yes, you'd want it to be good at surveilling over states and for over states to have a hard time surveilling your state. That isn't hypocrisy, because you obviously have a natural vested interest in one side over the other.
If country A were at war with country B, it's hardly hypocrisy for the citizens of country A to celebrate country A's victories and despite country B's victories.
When using a nationalist lens it's not hypocritical, but sometimes people do view the world with a universalist lens, considering people everywhere in the world as the same in some ways. If you subscribe to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in some circumstances but not others, this can be seen as inconsistent.
But the golden rule is a poor fit for Internet security. The Internet is too large, with too many bad actors. Hackers don't care that you haven't attacked anyone.
The golden rule doesn't say "don't use basic internet security" it is more emphasizing the POV.