<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Equipment reviews for security worthiness in Tech Talk</title>
    <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Equipment-reviews-for-security-worthiness/m-p/69697#M4408</link>
    <description>&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.isc2.org/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/136236425"&gt;@ericgeater&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;wrote:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;What resources do you use to research device trustworthiness / reputation?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;P&gt;Really good question. I've used Common Criteria, which was a great sounding idea, but had/has certain logistical hurdles. The other place I always look is the CVE.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Consistent firmware updates I take as a good sign. When I worked in higher ed, we always did an accessibility check (i.e., Section 508 compliance) on any interface. Part of this was to anticipate potential end-user issues, but one thing I have found is that manufacturers who pay attention to things like accessibility, valid HTML, etc., tend to pay attention in more critical but less visible areas too.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is a good question, but the bigger challenge I always saw wasn't in developing the criteria for an evaluation. It was making sure such an evaluation was part of the purchasing process.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:35:42 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>JoePete</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-04-25T12:35:42Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Equipment reviews for security worthiness</title>
      <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Equipment-reviews-for-security-worthiness/m-p/69664#M4405</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;What resources do you use to research device trustworthiness / reputation?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm trying to research a network switch vendor, whose equipment is well-appreciated by tech enthusiasts.&amp;nbsp; But I don't want to bring something on-network that we don't explicitly trust.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In brief, the manufacturer does not have a profile with CISecurity or Common Criteria.&amp;nbsp; If you have other resources for reviewing the security worthiness of such vendors, I'd love to hear them!&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;If you have a hardware vendor list that's nothing but devices with terrible reputations, that would be cool, too!&amp;nbsp; Government restricted or prohibited would be nice, because I know they're wary of many tech providers.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The goal is to determine the vendor's country of origin (both design AND manufacture), the vendor's history of fixing bugs, likelihood of the device "phoning home" after install, etc.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks, everyone!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;eg&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:51:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Equipment-reviews-for-security-worthiness/m-p/69664#M4405</guid>
      <dc:creator>ericgeater</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-04-24T15:51:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Equipment reviews for security worthiness</title>
      <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Equipment-reviews-for-security-worthiness/m-p/69681#M4406</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.isc2.org/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/136236425"&gt;@ericgeater&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Is it open source?&amp;nbsp; If, so check Open Source distribution lists.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You can also check out evaluation web sites such as gartner etc?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Good old Google searches normally turn up something about a vendor or software supplier good or bad including evaluations.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But if you are connected to an international organisation or government department - make sure you go seek advice from the Procurement Unit, and let them do the research for you, plus ensure you have registered your interest, and ensures you don't have a procurement bypass against your name too.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Caute_Cautim&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 06:19:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Equipment-reviews-for-security-worthiness/m-p/69681#M4406</guid>
      <dc:creator>Caute_cautim</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-04-25T06:19:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Equipment reviews for security worthiness</title>
      <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Equipment-reviews-for-security-worthiness/m-p/69697#M4408</link>
      <description>&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.isc2.org/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/136236425"&gt;@ericgeater&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;wrote:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;What resources do you use to research device trustworthiness / reputation?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;P&gt;Really good question. I've used Common Criteria, which was a great sounding idea, but had/has certain logistical hurdles. The other place I always look is the CVE.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Consistent firmware updates I take as a good sign. When I worked in higher ed, we always did an accessibility check (i.e., Section 508 compliance) on any interface. Part of this was to anticipate potential end-user issues, but one thing I have found is that manufacturers who pay attention to things like accessibility, valid HTML, etc., tend to pay attention in more critical but less visible areas too.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is a good question, but the bigger challenge I always saw wasn't in developing the criteria for an evaluation. It was making sure such an evaluation was part of the purchasing process.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:35:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Equipment-reviews-for-security-worthiness/m-p/69697#M4408</guid>
      <dc:creator>JoePete</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-04-25T12:35:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Equipment reviews for security worthiness</title>
      <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Equipment-reviews-for-security-worthiness/m-p/69707#M4409</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Good responses.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.isc2.org/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/809125741"&gt;@Caute_cautim&lt;/a&gt;, I can't say whether the underlying tech in the device has open source components (it took me a moment to remember that pfSense &lt;EM&gt;does&lt;/EM&gt;, as an example!), but that's a very good reminder.&amp;nbsp; And most of my googling yesterday was for evaluations, because the vendor in question does not seem to have a profile at the eval sites I'm most familiar with.&amp;nbsp; That's why this thread is here, actually!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also, when you say "Procurement Unit", is this an entity?&amp;nbsp; Or are you talking about any org's own internal procurement and test facility?&amp;nbsp; If it's the latter, my next thread will be, "What are your some of your preferred testing tools?"&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:"&gt;😁&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:"&gt;😁&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:"&gt;😁&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.isc2.org/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/1005241419"&gt;@JoePete&lt;/a&gt;, now I know what Section 508 is!&amp;nbsp; And yes, hardware in constant states of improvement (both for features and fixes) are definitely a net positive.&amp;nbsp; The vendor in question seems to fix everything which was reported, at least.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've now created a Gartner Peer Insights profile (and unsubscribed from their spam list already). Also, I stumbled across the&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://www.niap-ccevs.org/Product/index.cfm" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;National Information Assurance Partnership website&lt;/A&gt;, which looks similar to the &lt;A href="https://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/products/index.cfm" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;Common Criteria website&lt;/A&gt; in its layout.&amp;nbsp; I'll be curious to hear what y'all think about it.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:22:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Equipment-reviews-for-security-worthiness/m-p/69707#M4409</guid>
      <dc:creator>ericgeater</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-04-25T15:22:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Equipment reviews for security worthiness</title>
      <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Equipment-reviews-for-security-worthiness/m-p/69722#M4411</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.isc2.org/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/136236425"&gt;@ericgeater&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Procurement unit, what I mean is a dedicated department within your organisation responsible for purchasing hardware, software and services.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; If you have such a unit within your organisation, as my own organisation does, we have to go through a risk management process, identifying why, what, when, where and how questions - stating what the software is for example.&amp;nbsp; They then do due diligence on the request and hunt vendors, distributors etc.&amp;nbsp; If the item is new, they will ask further questions, and and examine the need and urgency for the request.&amp;nbsp; They go through licensing, including any Open Source licensing requests, plus formal security testing and vulnerability testing for the software etc.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have a security and privacy by design principle in place, which forces rigor and examination before any Open Source software can be used - a lot of emphasis on licensing types etc&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Caute_Cautim&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2024 04:53:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Tech-Talk/Equipment-reviews-for-security-worthiness/m-p/69722#M4411</guid>
      <dc:creator>Caute_cautim</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-04-26T04:53:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

