Technology is an integral part of the fabric of everyday life. There is almost no organization that does not rely on digital services in some way in order to survive. The opportunity that technology provides also brings with it more vulnerabilities and threats as organizations and data become more connected and available.
In December, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) brought the world together to talk about the internet. I tend to take a definite interest in cybersecurity, but there were many more important topics discussed. They ranged from diversity in the technology sector through to philosophy in the digital age. Cybersecurity was, nonetheless, a major theme.
For several years now, policymakers and practitioners from governments, CERTs, and the security industry have been speaking about the importance of public-private partnerships as an essential part of combating cyber threats. It is impossible to attend a security conference without a keynote presenter talking about it.
This post is authored by Gene Burrus, Assistant General Counsel. As cybercrime becomes ever more pervasive, the need for states to devote law enforcement resources to battling the problem is apparent. However, states should beware using cybercrime legislation and enforcement resources as a vehicle for restricting speech or controlling content.
Last month, customers and companies around the world were impacted by the WannaCrypt ransomware attack. Even those not impacted are assessing their risk and taking steps to help prevent such attacks. For everyone, including Microsoft, the attack is a stark reminder of the need for continued focus on security and proven operational techniques.
The recent revision of the National Standards and Technology Institute’s (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework and the publication of European Network and Security Agency’s (ENISA) proposals on implementation of the Network and Information Security (NIS) Directive have made me pause and ponder the progress made (or indeed not) in securing our critical infrastructures since they were both
In 2005, just over a decade ago, the majority of large internet user populations, certainly as a percentage of their total national population, were still to be found in North America and Europe. In 2025, less than a decade from now, many of the largest internet user populations will be in Asia.
In some of my recent discussions with policy-makers, network separation, e.g. the physical isolation of sensitive networks from the Internet, has been floated as an essential cybersecurity tool. Why? It promises the holy grail of security, i.e. 100% protection, because cyberattacks can’t cross the “air gap” to reach their target.
Often in dangerous situations we initially look outwards and upwards for the greatest threats. Sometimes we should instead be looking inwards and downwards. Supply chain security in information and communication technology (ICT) is exactly one of those situations where detailed introspection could be of benefit to all concerned.
Are the rules and regulations being put in place today, from the Chinese cybersecurity law to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), going to be appropriate for the world 10 years from now? And if not, should this be of concern? To answer these questions, we need to learn from the past.
The unprecedented scale and sophistication of modern cyberthreats, combined with the rapidly disappearing IT perimeter, means that while preventing an attack from becoming a breach is ideal, it is no longer realistic. Microsoft proactively monitors the threat landscape for those emerging threats, to help better protect our customers.
The continuous connection of smart devices across networks, commonly called the Internet of Things (IoT) is driving a transformation in how enterprises all over the world manage network infrastructure and digital identities. With such rapid change comes new cybersecurity challenges.
