The US government looks poised to force tech companies to do more about security:
The US government, worried about the continuing growth of cybercrime, ransomware, and countries including Russia, Iran, and North Korea hacking into government and private networks, is in the middle of drastically changing its cybersecurity strategy. No longer will it rely largely on prodding businesses and tech companies to voluntarily take basic security measures such as patching vulnerable systems to keep them updated.
Instead, it now wants to establish baseline security requirements for businesses and tech companies and to fine those that don't comply.
It's not just companies that use the systems who might eventually need to abide by the regulations. Companies that make and sell them, such as Microsoft, Apple, and others could be held accountable as well. Early indications are that the feds already have Microsoft in their crosshairs — they've warned the company that, at the moment, it doesn't appear to be up to the task.
[...] In theory, if those standards aren't met, fines would eventually be imposed. Glenn S. Gerstell, former general counsel of the National Security Agency, explained it this way to the Times: "In the cyberworld, we're finally saying that Ford is responsible for Pintos that burst into flames, because they didn't spend money on safety." That's a reference to the Ford Pinto frequently bursting into flames when rear-ended in the 1970s. That led to a spate of lawsuits and a ramp-up in federal auto safety regulations.
But cybersecurity requirements backed by fines aren't here yet. Dig into the new document and you'll find that because the new strategy is only a policy document, it doesn't have the bite of law behind it. For it to go fully into effect, two things need to happen. President Biden has to issue an executive order to enforce some of the requirements. And Congress needs to pass laws for the rest.
It's not clear when lawmakers might get around to moving on the issue, if ever, although Biden could issue an executive order for parts of it.
[...] So, what does all this have to do with Microsoft? Plenty. The feds have made clear they believe Microsoft has a long way to go before it meets basic cybersecurity recommendations. At least one top government security official has already publicly called out Microsoft for poor security practices.
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Jen Easterly recently criticized the Microsoft during a speech at Carnegie Mellon University. She said that only about one-quarter of Microsoft enterprise customers use multifactor authentication, a number she called "disappointing." That might not sound like much of a condemnation, but remember, this is the federal government we're talking about. It parses its words very carefully. "Disappointing" to them is the equivalent of "terrible job" anywhere else.
[...] Even without laws and executive orders, the company could be in trouble. The US government spends billions of dollars on Microsoft systems and services every year, a revenue stream that could be endangered if Microsoft doesn't adhere to the standards.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by krishnoid on Friday March 17, @01:58AM (2 children)
For the Ford Pinto [youtu.be] issue. It was also the issue that put Ralph Nader on the map.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17, @03:09AM (1 child)
> the issue that put Ralph Nader on the map
...was the Corvair, in one chapter of his first book, "Unsafe At Any Speed". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_bibliography [wikipedia.org] Long before the Pinto existed.
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Saturday March 18, @06:11AM
It's worth noting that "Unsafe At Any Speed" was an emotionally biassed hit piece. Nader avoided mentioning several aspects of the Corvair: The car's design had been changed by the time the book was published. The Corvair's notorious terminal oversteer, caused by its swing-axle rear suspension, was largely compensated for by using higher pressure in the rear tires (as specified in the owner's manual, which drivers routinely ignored.) The car had safety features that Nader hid, such as excellent visual field for the driver.