We’re forced to take a cybersecurity online course every year, and I’m constantly confused at what the terms are supposed to mean. Like why is spear phishing a thing? Why do we need specialized terms for every conceivable variation of a concept?
Let’s just stick with basic terms:
malware - malicious software
social engineering - covers calls, texts, emails, etc designed to get access to something they shouldn’t
cracking - breaking cryptography
security hacking - breaking secure systems by exploiting bugs, such as zero-days or unpatched systems, usually to get privilege escalation
I may be missing a couple, but I think most cybersecurity concepts can fit in one of those categories.
Well, I’m not a cybersec specialist, but my job requires us to comply with NIST cyber security frameworks, including going through external audits every year. In my opinion, your basic generalities are fine for those not working in that field specifically.
However, for cyber security analysts and other specialists, I think specific subcategories are necessary. The reason being, IT is an absolutely massive field that contains a ton of specialties. As such, that means there are roughly an equal variety of malicious actors in the same field.
There’s no such thing really as a general “hacker” anymore. Especially when you take into consideration the rapid expansion of state sponsored cyber attacks/warfare. You’ll have specialists for various types of:
phishing (e.g. targeting general pop/employees, or those going for specific people)
cryptography (e.g. those who try to compromise an org’s PKI, or people finding vulns to exploit expired certs like what happened with Azure last year)
vuln hunters/exploiters (e.g. people that monitor known vulnerabilities and probe orgs’ defenses to see if those vulns are present/unpatched/unmitigated, or even people who try to discover new ones)
malware engineers (e.g. fairly self explanatory, but malware is a very broad term and can come in numerous shapes and sizes, like even using infected images on a website to conduct RCE on mobile devices like what happened a year or two ago)
Sorry, tangent is getting a bit long-winded now. Anyway, tldr; general terms are fine for laymen or non-specialists, but more precise terms are beneficial for experts in that field.
Sure, specialists can and should use specialized terms. But that’s not what articles like this are targeting. Keep that to symposiums and whatnot, and keep the general public vernacular simple to avoid confusion. That’s all I’m saying.
I suppose, but the article has nothing to do with data centers and is written like any other news article on regular news sites. It’s a little more tech focused, but still very accessible.
We’re forced to take a cybersecurity online course every year, and I’m constantly confused at what the terms are supposed to mean. Like why is spear phishing a thing? Why do we need specialized terms for every conceivable variation of a concept?
Let’s just stick with basic terms:
I may be missing a couple, but I think most cybersecurity concepts can fit in one of those categories.
Well, I’m not a cybersec specialist, but my job requires us to comply with NIST cyber security frameworks, including going through external audits every year. In my opinion, your basic generalities are fine for those not working in that field specifically.
However, for cyber security analysts and other specialists, I think specific subcategories are necessary. The reason being, IT is an absolutely massive field that contains a ton of specialties. As such, that means there are roughly an equal variety of malicious actors in the same field.
There’s no such thing really as a general “hacker” anymore. Especially when you take into consideration the rapid expansion of state sponsored cyber attacks/warfare. You’ll have specialists for various types of:
Sorry, tangent is getting a bit long-winded now. Anyway, tldr; general terms are fine for laymen or non-specialists, but more precise terms are beneficial for experts in that field.
Sure, specialists can and should use specialized terms. But that’s not what articles like this are targeting. Keep that to symposiums and whatnot, and keep the general public vernacular simple to avoid confusion. That’s all I’m saying.
Fair point. Though, the source is data center dynamics, which does seem a bit niche.
I suppose, but the article has nothing to do with data centers and is written like any other news article on regular news sites. It’s a little more tech focused, but still very accessible.