 




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Security pros need to practice vigilance not avoidance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/regulatory-compliance/security-professionals-need-to-practice-vigilance-not-avoidance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/regulatory-compliance/security-professionals-need-to-practice-vigilance-not-avoidance/</link>
	<description>A SearchFinancialSecurity.com blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 May 2013 04:04:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Yetanotherdamnscreenname</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/regulatory-compliance/security-professionals-need-to-practice-vigilance-not-avoidance/#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>Yetanotherdamnscreenname</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:30:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/regulatory-compliance/?p=403#comment-16</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I see that there is all manner of approach and opinion when it comes to new technology and it&#039;s implementation in the corporate world. My first reaction as a security professional whenever a new techology becomes publicly available is to block it&#039;s use. Personally, I can&#039;t see any other responsible alternative, given the level of vetting anything new recieves when marketed to the general public. The attitude seems to be &quot;security be damned! Let&#039;s sell this new widget, get users hooked on it and then worry about it&#039;s vulnerabilities.&quot;. So, until a new techology has matured, shown it&#039;s vulnerabilities and susceptability for abuse, it should continue to be blocked until a secure method of deployment and use is determined.

That&#039;s not to say that new technology shouldn&#039;t be embraced, but on the flipside, there needs to be a legitimate business justification before it should be allowed on the corporate network. For me, Facebook and the like simply don&#039;t provide that justification. I can&#039;t see any additional value that a simple email account or corporate website doesn&#039;t already offer. Especially given the potential for security vulnerabilities. If my users can&#039;t access their twitter accounts, oh well, they will get over it. If, however, data or intellectual property is compromised, it&#039;s my neck, not the user who clicked on the bad link. Perhaps it&#039;s because of the blending of personal and professional use. If I have a corporate email account, I&#039;m going to behave in a professional manner and with the proper mindset. Whereas with a personal social networking account, I may be less on guard, play with the little apps and toys that are made available (which is where the security nightmare begins).

You, yourself even state that a highly experienced and skilled security professional can&#039;t even guarantee that his faceboook account is secure. What chance then do normal, corporate users have of being secure? Does that sound like a technology that is so necessary as to jeopardize an entire business?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see that there is all manner of approach and opinion when it comes to new technology and it&#8217;s implementation in the corporate world. My first reaction as a security professional whenever a new techology becomes publicly available is to block it&#8217;s use. Personally, I can&#8217;t see any other responsible alternative, given the level of vetting anything new recieves when marketed to the general public. The attitude seems to be &#8220;security be damned! Let&#8217;s sell this new widget, get users hooked on it and then worry about it&#8217;s vulnerabilities.&#8221;. So, until a new techology has matured, shown it&#8217;s vulnerabilities and susceptability for abuse, it should continue to be blocked until a secure method of deployment and use is determined.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s not to say that new technology shouldn&#8217;t be embraced, but on the flipside, there needs to be a legitimate business justification before it should be allowed on the corporate network. For me, Facebook and the like simply don&#8217;t provide that justification. I can&#8217;t see any additional value that a simple email account or corporate website doesn&#8217;t already offer. Especially given the potential for security vulnerabilities. If my users can&#8217;t access their twitter accounts, oh well, they will get over it. If, however, data or intellectual property is compromised, it&#8217;s my neck, not the user who clicked on the bad link. Perhaps it&#8217;s because of the blending of personal and professional use. If I have a corporate email account, I&#8217;m going to behave in a professional manner and with the proper mindset. Whereas with a personal social networking account, I may be less on guard, play with the little apps and toys that are made available (which is where the security nightmare begins).</p>
<p>You, yourself even state that a highly experienced and skilled security professional can&#8217;t even guarantee that his faceboook account is secure. What chance then do normal, corporate users have of being secure? Does that sound like a technology that is so necessary as to jeopardize an entire business?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
