COVID-19 Phishing Tests: WRONG
Malware Jake Tweeted a poll last night which asked the following:
"I have an interesting ethical quandary. Is it ethically okay to use COVID-19 themed phishing emails for assessments and user awareness training right now? Please read the thread before responding and RT for visibility. 1/"
Ultimately he decided:
"My gut feeling is to not use COVID-19 themed emails in assessments/training, but to TELL users to expect them, though I understand even that might discourage consumption of legitimate information, endangering public health. 6/"
I responded by saying this was the right answer.
Thankfully there were many people who agreed, despite the fact that voting itself was skewed towards the "yes" answer.
There were an uncomfortable number of responses to the Tweet that said there's nothing wrong with red teams phishing users with COVID-19 emails. For example:
"Do criminals abide by ethics? Nope. Neither should testing."
"Yes. If it's in scope for the badguys [sic], it's in scope for you."
"Attackers will use it. So I think it is fair game."
Those are the wrong answers. As a few others outlined well in their responses, the fact that a criminal or intruder employs a tactic does not mean that it's appropriate for an offensive security team to use it too.
I could imagine several COVID-19 phishing lures that could target school districts and probably cause high double-digit click-through rates. What's the point of that? For a "community" that supposedly considers fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) to be anathema, why introduce FUD via a phishing test?
I've grown increasingly concerned over the past few years that there's a "cult of the offensive" that justifies its activities with the rationale that "intruders do it, so we should too." This is directly observable in the replies to Jake's Tweet. It's a thin veneer that covers bad behavior, outweighing the small benefit accrued to high-end, 1% security shops against the massive costs suffered by the vast majority of networked global organizations.
The is a selfish, insular mindset that is reinforced by the echo chamber of the so-called "infosec community." This "tribe" is detached from the concerns and ethics of the larger society. It tells itself that what it is doing is right, oblivious or unconcerned with the costs imposed on the organizations they are supposedly "protecting" with their backwards actions.
We need people with feet in both worlds to tell this group that their approach is not welcome in the broader human community, because the costs it imposes vastly outweigh the benefits.
I've written here about ethics before, usually in connection with the only real value I saw in the CISSP -- its code of ethics. Reviewing the "code," as it appears now, shows the following:
"There are only four mandatory canons in the Code. By necessity, such high-level guidance is not intended to be a substitute for the ethical judgment of the professional.
Code of Ethics Preamble:
The safety and welfare of society and the common good, duty to our principals, and to each other, requires that we adhere, and be seen to adhere, to the highest ethical standards of behavior.
Therefore, strict adherence to this Code is a condition of certification.
Code of Ethics Canons:
Protect society, the common good, necessary public trust and confidence, and the infrastructure.
Act honorably, honestly, justly, responsibly, and legally.
Provide diligent and competent service to principals.
Advance and protect the profession."
This is almost worthless. The only actionable item in the "code" is the word "legally," implying that if a CISSP holder was convicted of a crime, he or she could lose their certification. Everything else is subject to interpretation.
Contrast that with the USAFA Code of Conduct:
"We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does."
While it still requires an Honor Board to determine if a cadet has lied, stolen, cheated, or tolerated, there's much less gray in this statement of the Academy's ethics. Is it perfect? No. Is it more actionable than the CISSP's version? Absolutely.
I don't have "solutions" to the ethical bankruptcy manifesting in some people practicing what they consider to be "information security." However, this post is a step towards creating red lines that those who are not already hardened in their ways can observe and integrate.
Perhaps at some point we will have an actionable code of ethics that helps newcomers to the field understand how to properly act for the benefit of the human community.
"I have an interesting ethical quandary. Is it ethically okay to use COVID-19 themed phishing emails for assessments and user awareness training right now? Please read the thread before responding and RT for visibility. 1/"
Ultimately he decided:
"My gut feeling is to not use COVID-19 themed emails in assessments/training, but to TELL users to expect them, though I understand even that might discourage consumption of legitimate information, endangering public health. 6/"
I responded by saying this was the right answer.
Thankfully there were many people who agreed, despite the fact that voting itself was skewed towards the "yes" answer.
There were an uncomfortable number of responses to the Tweet that said there's nothing wrong with red teams phishing users with COVID-19 emails. For example:
"Do criminals abide by ethics? Nope. Neither should testing."
"Yes. If it's in scope for the badguys [sic], it's in scope for you."
"Attackers will use it. So I think it is fair game."
Those are the wrong answers. As a few others outlined well in their responses, the fact that a criminal or intruder employs a tactic does not mean that it's appropriate for an offensive security team to use it too.
I could imagine several COVID-19 phishing lures that could target school districts and probably cause high double-digit click-through rates. What's the point of that? For a "community" that supposedly considers fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) to be anathema, why introduce FUD via a phishing test?
I've grown increasingly concerned over the past few years that there's a "cult of the offensive" that justifies its activities with the rationale that "intruders do it, so we should too." This is directly observable in the replies to Jake's Tweet. It's a thin veneer that covers bad behavior, outweighing the small benefit accrued to high-end, 1% security shops against the massive costs suffered by the vast majority of networked global organizations.
The is a selfish, insular mindset that is reinforced by the echo chamber of the so-called "infosec community." This "tribe" is detached from the concerns and ethics of the larger society. It tells itself that what it is doing is right, oblivious or unconcerned with the costs imposed on the organizations they are supposedly "protecting" with their backwards actions.
We need people with feet in both worlds to tell this group that their approach is not welcome in the broader human community, because the costs it imposes vastly outweigh the benefits.
I've written here about ethics before, usually in connection with the only real value I saw in the CISSP -- its code of ethics. Reviewing the "code," as it appears now, shows the following:
"There are only four mandatory canons in the Code. By necessity, such high-level guidance is not intended to be a substitute for the ethical judgment of the professional.
Code of Ethics Preamble:
The safety and welfare of society and the common good, duty to our principals, and to each other, requires that we adhere, and be seen to adhere, to the highest ethical standards of behavior.
Therefore, strict adherence to this Code is a condition of certification.
Code of Ethics Canons:
Protect society, the common good, necessary public trust and confidence, and the infrastructure.
Act honorably, honestly, justly, responsibly, and legally.
Provide diligent and competent service to principals.
Advance and protect the profession."
This is almost worthless. The only actionable item in the "code" is the word "legally," implying that if a CISSP holder was convicted of a crime, he or she could lose their certification. Everything else is subject to interpretation.
Contrast that with the USAFA Code of Conduct:
"We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does."
While it still requires an Honor Board to determine if a cadet has lied, stolen, cheated, or tolerated, there's much less gray in this statement of the Academy's ethics. Is it perfect? No. Is it more actionable than the CISSP's version? Absolutely.
I don't have "solutions" to the ethical bankruptcy manifesting in some people practicing what they consider to be "information security." However, this post is a step towards creating red lines that those who are not already hardened in their ways can observe and integrate.
Perhaps at some point we will have an actionable code of ethics that helps newcomers to the field understand how to properly act for the benefit of the human community.
Comments