Bonum Certa Men Certa

Cybersecurity is a structural not behavioural problem.

posted by Roy Schestowitz on Jun 01, 2024,
updated Jun 01, 2024

Cybersecurity

Reprinted with permission from Cyber|Show.

Author: Dr. Andy Farnell

Figure 1: "Trickle down insecurity"

There's a bad idea at the heart of corporate models of cybersecurity. It leads to an endless, and mostly pointless cycle of poor-quality remedial or "naughty step" training. This puts workers who ought to need no operational knowledge of system security onto a merry-go-round of failure and re-training. It is costly, and wrong.

It's the belief that systems are essentially correct, but that behavioural problems lie with operators. Where have we seen this more prominently? In the Horizon Post-Office scandal of course.

Some of you may already be familiar with phishing simulations carried out by employers against staff. Those who fail get sent on a training programme, and are often deliberately humiliated or even fired.

Reverse psychology

There are a number of things very wrong with this:

Firstly and most shockingly, there's no actual evidence that putting cohorts through anti-phishing training really improves things. Or at least, there's a lower bound. In any phishing attack a small but seemingly fixed proportion of people will click. That's because the human factors are not purely rational or controllable.

For example, the real reason an employee keeps hitting phish emails may be that they are under extreme pressure to clear an inbox with thousands of outstanding items and only twenty allocated minutes per day to deal with communication backlog. There is simply not enough cognitive space to deal with that problem. It is a problem of working conditions and load.

After returning from "naughty step training" they go back to the same inbox - now with more outstanding work - and make the same mistakes immediately. What should really happen in the case such an employee fails a phish test is a full workload review, rate limiting, and declaration of "email bankruptcy" - where the inbox is simply cleared.

Entrapment by a trusted party is certain to destroy positive psychological relationships. It leads to abusive environments that set employees up to fail in order to send them on ineffective training before being thrown back into the same environment without any effective tools to change their behaviour.

This in turn harms security because it erodes trust in the IT team who become a source of fear rather than support. In the absence of any better security tactics these tests become entrenched in the security culture of a company who start to rely on them as "bad employee honeypots".

Let's look more closely and see what the problem really is:

As we can see, the employee training is only one part of the picture. And, as we shall shortly see, that's not really their fault at all.

Crappy code

To a good approximation most commercial software is rubbish. You don't need to take only my opinion on it. Ian Sommerville, the world expert in Software Engineering who literally who wrote the book, recently said after 40 years leading the field that quality software was a failed project. Ross Anderson, the leading light in Security Engineering and Security Economics has pointed out the multiple ways the software industry runs on negative externalities, has massive principal agent problems and has a necessary interest in placing time to market and network lock-in above security in every strategic analysis.

As Anderson put it, "When Alice relies on Bob's software for her security, but Alice pays the cost for Bob's failure, Bob has no incentive to fix any problems."

What makes it much worse is that individuals and companies rely on a small number (Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon) of monopolists who offer seemingly "free" services. In reality their software is not free but takes your data to sell. In order to do that it is deliberately insecure. Indeed, the incentives to write secure commercial software are so bad that governments around the world are having to draft far-reaching regulation to force companies to do it. And even that may not work, because as we have seen with all these companies, Big-Tech considers itself to be above the law.

The problems really break down into technical, economic and policy:

Amongst the technical problems are;

Broken economies

From an economic point of view, a major cause is skills shortage. Education is a positive public externaity whose cost is avoided by giant companies who pay little or no tax. It is a threat to their monopoly.

It seems to make more sense for businesses to use low quality products from big vendors like Microsoft than to invest in more expensive, high quality - but difficult to configure - solutions that are secure. This has side effects. The real, emerging skills gap in cybersecurity is not in front-line employee training but a dearth of capable system administrators and policy makers.

Cloud computing encouraged companies to outsource trust and responsibility for security. Basic skills like system configuration, maintenance, auditing, on-prem customisation and support have declined in favour of outsourced one-size-fits-all monoliths that are externally managed. Fewer companies are capable of even simple things like setting up and running their own email server now.

Put simply; we don't have the smart people who know about computers any more. They all went to work for Google and Microsoft. This is perhaps a hidden danger of monopolies that politicians focused only on the money side of "markets" do not see or understand.

Potty policies

Lastly, let's pick an example from the many policy problems.

Just because someone decides on a "IT security policy" doesn't mean it is 'correct', or, more to the point, even workable. Many IT policies contain contradictions, poor reasoning, or simply stop employees from doing their jobs. They represent internal power divides within firms, and the tendency of ICT services to suffer scope creep and become totalitarian.

A big problem starts with hiring policies. The assumption of prior training is pernicious. Everyone learns to use Microsoft Word at school, right? Wrong! What we call "Basic IT literacy" began in the 1980s as a way to boost the competitiveness of the Western workforce. Kids learned BASIC and how computers work as part of primary and secondary education. It was cool. It was the future. Engagement was high and the skills enduring.

After the mid 90s and into this century the quality of that education plummeted. Microsoft and Google infiltrated the school system and IT education became dumbed-down classes in Word and Excel without any appeal to young minds.

Today most employers assume wrongly that people have "Basic IT skills" on which they can rely. For employers this assumption is an invisible externality. In fact most 20 year-olds arrive at their first job having forgotten anything useful they picked up at school, which is almost certainly out of date anyway.

Millennial generations (Y-Z) learn new technologies on the fly as needed. These technologies are ever changing. No version of, for example, Microsoft "365" looks anything like the last, and the functional behaviour is constantly moving. Why invest personal time and effort in learning something that will change next week?

Besides, it benefits Big Tech and the education system to keep system interfaces in constant turmoil. The tech companies get to appear to be offering something new, and the training sector get an ever-fresh demand for re-training and issuing low level competency certificates. And who are the biggest players in that educational market now? Why, Google and Microsoft of course. Standard, durable IT skills in generic principles rather than products are eschewed to keep this circus running.

Not safe for work

In many cases the software chosen by companies is inappropriate for the workflow and company security. We say "chosen", but in fact it is just an arbitrary default from a BigTech supplier. For example the average web browser is a dumpster fire when it comes to security. Google Chrome browsers leak confidential information, and most browsers run dangerous JavaScript - which administrators wrongly assume is "necessary" - and have poor privacy settings out of the box. Browser companies have been found abusing privacy promises, fingerprinting and tracking users.

In many cases an employee does not need a full browser or even full access to the Internet. A "captive portal" built around a kiosk mode browser that runs a single web application would suffice. In many cases they do not even need to read email as part of work, yet are issued an email by default "for administrative reasons". Instead, an internally secure pull rather than push system of inter-departmental communication would work much better.

Browsers are some of the most bloated and unpredictable pieces of software. They are extensible via plugins which can bring all kinds of gains and risks too. Integrated applications including things like Jira, Office-365, GoogleDocs are packed with features. So many features in fact that they are overwhelming, unnecessary and a security risk. What we get with these flexible 'standardised tools' is a bad alignment of user capabilities with job descriptions. Indeed jobs are often ill-defined, suffer scope creep and make-work pressures that are the root causes of cybersecurity problems. Clearly these are issues that lie with management.

Terrible training

Finally, let's make some not so flattering observations on the quality of remedial cyber-training itself.

Most are bulk purchased by large employers at a standardised rate per seat. To minimise productivity impact they are finely chunked video based training with form based quizzes designed to be digested "during lunch hour". They are therefore designed to be completed on top of an existing workload. Students are distracted, not fully present and just resentfully going through the motions to get the punishment over with. These are the worst possible psychological conditions for learning, and we can realistically expect none of it to stick at all.

Online training videos are mostly space-fillers. In order to make money for the training company they are padded with endless introductions stating over and over what this video is going to teach you, how and in what order. By the time a student gets to the first chunk of actual knowledge, usually in the second or third video, they're dispirited and tired. Scenes of expensive looking stock footage of city skylines accompany tedious puffed up credetialising explaining how the video series is better than others, because it's from "internationally recognised" institutions and experts.

After throwing in some bold claims about the "total coverage" of the course, and how this is the "Only video you'll ever need" (despite the subject being enormous and ever-changing) we'll begin with the meaningless diagrams made of random clip-art, graphs without lables or axes and AI generated cartoons that accompany an incongruous robotic voice-over. These videos serve platitudes and gushing enthusiasm for ubiquitous technology, bleating learned helplessness about technological dependency and theatrical fear-mongering about cyber threats. They are justifications for poor cybersecurity, not authentic attempts to mitigate it. They are "all fur coat and no knickers".

Computer generated voices are in fashion again (because AI reasons) but these so-called amazing advances in "lifelike AI voices" only make cheap production values seem excusable. I find myself grateful for the rude punctuation of gauche, jarring edits and mispronunciations, as the are the only things that keep me awake. The worst human narrator does not send you to sleep in 30 seconds with an irritating monotone of cheap corporate dirge read flatly from a script.

Where there is synthetic expression it is disorienting and cartoonish. I feel like a child being down-talked to by an over-enthusiastic special needs teacher fresh from the empathy training course. Yes, I know that the black hoodie and balaclava-clad figure set against a Matrix backdrop of random green-screen symbols is supposed to be a "bad actor" - and that the cowering Penelope Pitstop character is the "victim" - without two octaves of pitch variance to emphasise that point. Infantalising cybersecurity narratives serve nobody.

Recommendations

Let's stop with the idea that "cybersecurity" can be bolted on as an afterthought for ordinary employees, and that adopting punitive, remedial attitudes is any way to accomplish that.

We're sending the wrong people on the training courses, and that isn't helping security and it isn't going to. Those attending training courses should be senior IT managers and policy makers. They should be getting a proper university-level education in the complexities of cybersecurity ecosystems, security engineering and economics.

We need them making better, and bolder choices about the IT structure of our companies, and not taking their cues from BigTech sales reps.

At present we have what I'll call trickle down insecurity. BigTech companies make a profit by pushing insecurity down onto smaller businesses. Those firms who make poor IT decisions push that pain down on to their employees. And the employees, in turn, transfer loss and misery to the general public or other business customers they serve.

In order to make workplaces safe for employees, for the companies that employ them and for the economy of our country we need a radical shake-up of how cybersecurity education is provisioned and delivered, and what its aims are.

Other Recent Techrights' Posts

Nobody is "Replaced by AI", It's Just a Smokescreen for Jobs Being Eliminated by Lack of Money (Too Much Debt) and Offshoring
It's also why many make the jokes about the "I" in "AI" being "India" or "Indians"
The US Government is Now in the Business (Literally!) of Saving Microsoft and Intel
This means that President TACO/Cheeto now has greater financial incentive to also prop up Microsoft and Windows
 
The UEFI Restricted Boot 'Time Bomb' is About to Go Off in a Few Weeks
Garrett was the first person to face sanctions (like muting) in our IRC channels because of his abuse; worse yet, he hijacked other people's names and then locked them out of their own accounts
Should Currys PCWorld Start Voiding Warranties of Users of Vista 11?
If a person's laptop has a mechanical issue, should this person replace GNU/Linux with Vista 11 for the repair shop? Only to damage the SSD?
Newer is Not Always Better, and It's Possible That 'Peak' is the Past
People creating their own platforms means progress, whereas centralisation (like moving from blogs to social control media) is the opposite of progress
LLM Hype is Sowing Destruction: It Contributes to DDoS Attacks and Makes the Web Less Accessible (JavaScript "R U Human?" Tests)
If it was googlebot, it would be possible to argue that you'd at least then get referral traffic from Google Search. With LLMs, all you get is plagiarised.
Links 24/08/2025: New York Times Talks About Hey Hi (AI) Bubble
Links for the day
Gemini Links 24/08/2025: Upgrading Debian and Mobile-indifferent Design
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, August 23, 2025
IRC logs for Saturday, August 23, 2025
Richard Stallman's Talk in Buenos Aires Scheduled for 16 November 2025 (a Month After FSF Turns 40)
they've just updated their site and Stallman is listed first
Men Who Abuse Women Should Never Spend Over 3 Years of the UK High Court's Time
This demonstrates that we need a reform in the UK
Slopwatch: Linux Journal, WebProNews, LinuxSecurity, and the Serial Slopper
The bubble needs to burst, but even then the Web will be left with residues of these slopfarms
Links 23/08/2025: Science, War, and Important Win for the British Media Against SLAPPers Who Abuse Women
Links for the day
Gemini Links 23/08/2025: BaseLibre Numerical System and Back to Oldschool
Links for the day
"Deserved Victory" for "Women That Suffered"
"GNM defended its reporting as being both true and in the public interest and in a judgment on Friday"
Links 23/08/2025: onmicrosoft.com as Spam Cannon, The Cheeto-Intel Deal Is Official
Links for the day
Wired Complained About LLM Slop Only Days Before It Got Caught Doing That Itself
Never throw stones in a glass house
IBM "Value" Down 14.16% in a Month, Red Hat Layoffs Allegedly Discussed 12 Days Ago
"IBM is a dinosaur. Dinosaurs get extinct when the don't keep up."
We're Seeing More Countries Where Windows Isn't Even in Second Place Anymore (Third or Worse)
In a way, Microsoft can barely even hold onto second place anymore
Microsoft Workers on Canonical's Payroll
If you want something that's sort of like Ubuntu but is not controlled by Canonical, then look into Linux Mint, Debian, or LMDE
GNU/Linux Climbs to 4% in Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone isn't a very rich country (to say the least), but it's better off than some of its neighbours
The SLAPPS Run Out of Oxygen Because They're Abuse of Process
At the end of the day we plan to publish over 1,000 articles explaining what happened
The Register MS Gets Paid by the Employer of the Previous Editor in Chief to Promote the "AI" Ponzi Scheme, Which Does Considerable Damage to the Web and to Online Journalists
The Register MS can 'badmouth' slop all it wants; it gets paid to inflate this bubble. It's actively participating in it.
Soon It'll be Autumn, Time to Repair Things
Where they don't charge an arm and a leg
Doing Our Best to Cover Software Patents When the Mainstream Media Does Not
Even the FSF has its limits
Gemini Links 23/08/2025: August Questions and Network Solutions
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Friday, August 22, 2025
IRC logs for Friday, August 22, 2025
Microsoft Has Issues in Guyana
It's not just Guyana
About 25% of the "Linux" News/Results in Google News Today Are LLM Slop, Almost 20% From the Same Rogue Operators of Slopfarms
Google, which tries to market itself as an LLM giant, apparently fails to understand what's wrong with it
Harassing People on Holiday
There are "no-go areas"; but that assumes all laws firms have ethical standards
The Great, Undeniable Value of Paper Trail, Not Purely Digital Systems
Suppose you have nothing but bits on someone else's computer and "word of mouth"...
The Company Behind Ars Technica, Reddit and Wired Caught Publishing LLM Slop (It Also Admits It Now)
Condé Nast busted
Links 22/08/2025: Lagrange 1.18.8, Wired Magazine and Business Insider Caught Resorting to LLM Slop
Links for the day
This Saturday It's Gonna be 3.5 Years* Since Russia Invaded Ukraine. No Microsoft Protests Against Microsoft Having Provided Russia With Services.
Companies do not have consistent policies and enforcement of "corporate values" is somewhat of an egg salad
Slopwatch: Sites Gone Rogue, Google Promoting Lies, and DDoS Attacks by Plagiarism Giants
Charlatans and frauds engage in a war against artistic industries, mislabeling plagiarism as "AI"
Links 22/08/2025: Cisco Layoffs, LA Times Says "AI Hype is Fading Fast"
Links for the day
Gemini Links 22/08/2025: K for Kentucky and Caddy Versus LLM Slopbots
Links for the day
The "End Software Patents" Initiative of the FSF Explains "WHY [to] ABOLISH SOFTWARE PATENTS"
We hope to cover patent-related issues more and more as the big anniversary of the FSF approaches
Freenode Sniffing
The grown-ups left the building
The Only Thing Worse Than Misinformation is Misinformation Sold to Everyone as "Intelligence"
Misplaced trust is worse than none at all
The Register MS Now Openly Admits LLM Hype Does Damage, But It's Also Being Paid to Participate in the LLM Hype (With Paid 'Articles' and 'Webcasts' for Paying Advertisers)
The Register MS gets paid to do this
End of the Smartphone Era? No.
Maybe the media should focus on producing accurate, factual news
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Thursday, August 21, 2025
IRC logs for Thursday, August 21, 2025
Enshittification of Airports, Airlines, and Airplanes
If people are willing to tolerate standard declines and enshittification (nowadays sold as "pivot to AI" or "replaced by AI" or "AI layoffs") they will pay for it some other way
Latest Is Not Greatest: The Case of "Foldable" Tech
don't be shamed into abandoning old things just because the "fashion industry" of Apple and Samsung tells you to
Airlines and Their Tricks That Only Work in the 'Digital Age'
People sceptical of the direction technology has taken are not "Luddites"
Open Source Initiative (OSI), Which Became a Propaganda Front of Microsoft and "Hey Hi" (Hype, Misnomer), Wants You to Forget These Scandals
A lot of these issues won't be set aside until there's a resolution