Here we go again, and this one is not (energy) sector specific. It's more geo-specific ... see: Middle East and North Africa, at least for now. This is a clear-cut case of marketing security through fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD), and using the press's predictably Pavlovian response to maximize impact.
Depending on where you fit in the cyber food chain, maybe you like it, but I'm sick of it. Sick of it, I say. And I'm not going to take it anymore! (Yeah, right)
Here's the opening salvo fired on March 29 by InformationWeek (and many others), giving you the fever-pitch, straight up horror story, no chaser:
Step aside, Stuxnet: Newly discovered espionage and information-gathering malware known as Flame ... appears to be even more sophisticated than the Stuxnet.And with that we were off to the races. Just about every IT, cybersecurity and even mainstream media outlet picked up and broadcast the story in the first 24 hours. No questions asked it seemed.
Then along comes CSIS Senior Fellow James Lewis, two days later, with something quite a bit more tempered:
Flame is not a weapon, it's not the most sophisticated, it's not really that new, but it might be part of a large battle shaping up over the future of the Internet. Cyberespionage happens every day. This should not be news.With that, Lewis definitely helped bring the hysteria down a notch or two. Much appreciated, Jim.
Finally we've got what I hope becomes the final word on this event, in the form of a post from my colleague and friend, cybersecurity expert Chris Poulin of new IBM company Q1 Labs. Chris begins:
I’m not so impressed: I believe we’re seeing the beginning of a long line of copycats, and Flame is a klunky primate of the next stage in the evolution of advanced malware; it’s just another generation in the APT ontogeny.And then Chris turns the mike over to IBM X-Force's statement on the subject:
At this time, Flame appears to be limited to a very small geography, primarily certain countries in the Middle East, and does not appear to autopropagate. This malware appears to be highly targeted and designed to infect a minimal number of specifically targeted individuals. Consequently, the immediate threat from this malware, in the general network population, remains very very low despite its high profile in the press.
Like the way that piece finishes: very very low threat vs. high profile in the press. Succinctly said, and to me, what should be the nail in the coffin of this ridiculous escapade.
Image credit: Wikipedia
Security professionals in the electric sector and elsewhere: how are we going to be taken seriously by senior business leaders if some of us, even a small percentage, keep using misleading, inaccurate and gratuitously sensationalist methods to try and drum up more business? It's embarrassing.
I don't need to tell you there's plenty of business out there for vendors who play fair and square. Don't cry wolf unless there's a wolf. Don't say the sky is falling unless it is. Be good: important businesses and other organizations need your help, but they won't let you help if they don't trust you.
Image credit: Wikipedia