|
|
|
|
|
by pycal
1918 days ago
|
|
I think on balance it actually hurts more than it helps. The author lists Equifax as a case where an organization “failed to update a web server in timely fashion (a few months)” but a software bill of materials would not have made it any more or less obvious that they were running vulnerable web software an attacker could get a foothold in, and could have made it easier for an attacker to exploit that foothold, pivot, and exfiltrate, knowing what other software is available for them to exploit. Equifax didn’t “fail” to manage that particular vulnerability, as the author describes, and protect customer data. They neglected to manage the vulnerability and protect customer data. It’s my opinion that what would actually be valuable (and have been valuable) in the case of Equifax is compliance legislation that places liability on the custodian of PII. This compliance should require companies which are custodians of PII or financial data, or which operate critical infrastructure to have a vulnerability management practice. |
|