Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Thursday March 16 2023, @11:51PM   Printer-friendly

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by canopic jug on Friday March 17 2023, @04:22AM (3 children)

    by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 17 2023, @04:22AM (#1296627) Journal

    As an addendum to the comment above, Appendix B: Membership and participants of the DRAFT NSTAC REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT: Strategy for Increasing Trust in the Information and Communications Technology and Services Ecosystem [cisa.gov] shows that the subcommittee leadership is classic fraud. All three leading the committee are active microsofters:

    • Mr. Scott Charney: Microsoft Corp. Subcommittee Chair
    • Mr. Kevin Reifsteck: Microsoft Corp. Working Group Co-Lead
    • Mr. Robert Spiger: Microsoft Corp. Working Group Co-Lead

    Aside from not having paid enough campaign donations to Biden back in 2015, why the fuck is no one from the FSF there even in the membership list as a committee participant?

    --
    Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Informative=2, Touché=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by turgid on Friday March 17 2023, @10:27AM (1 child)

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 17 2023, @10:27AM (#1296658) Journal

    Are Microsoft looking for a government grant (a few hundred million bucks maybe) to "invest" in Windows security, for Truth, Justice and the American Way(TM)?

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Rich on Friday March 17 2023, @11:10AM

      by Rich (945) on Friday March 17 2023, @11:10AM (#1296661) Journal

      No. That would be just a single handout, which is not suitable for a post-scarcity software economy. They're likely after making a commercial "antivirus" subscription mandatory.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2023, @08:44PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2023, @08:44PM (#1296744)

    Are you implying that MS is not acting on behalf of the Russians/Norks?