The lawsuit claimed that the students’ planned presentation would violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) by enabling others to defraud the MBTA of transit fares. A different federal judge, meeting in a special Saturday session, ordered the trio not to disclose for ten days any information that could be used by others to get free subway rides.

“The judge today correctly found that it was unlikely that the CFAA would apply to security researchers giving an academic talk,” said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. “A presentation at a security conference is not some sort of computer intrusion. It’s protected speech and vital to the free flow of information about computer security vulnerabilities. Silencing researchers does not improve security — the vulnerability was there before the students discovered it and would remain in place regardless of whether the students publicly discussed it or not.”

This sets a good precedent for future cases, and perhaps next time a similar situation arises, a judge will not be so quick to issue a gag order. It’s not a happy ending yet though, as the original lawsuit is still in effect.

As Chris Wysopal pointed out last week, the MBTA’s ire is misdirected. Rather than suing the vendor who sold them the defective system, they sued and attempted to silence the students who discovered the weakness. This is 2008, not 1988 — did they honestly think a gag order would prevent the information from reaching the general public? The DEFCON presentation was already available on the Intertubes prior to the injunction being issued, and the MBTA attorneys included a copy of the confidential whitepaper with their filing, thereby making it public.

I guess you wouldn’t expect that a transit authority would have paid any attention to theCiscogate fiasco from a few years ago. That presentation never got out either, did it? All that taxpayer money the MBTA spent on ridiculous lawsuits and restraining orders could have been put toward fixing the security flaws. What a concept.

• They hacked nine major U.S. retailers, stole and sold more than 40 million credit and debit card numbers...
• Apparently this is the single largest and most complex identity theft case ever charged in this country

The information security field is not yet fully mature; there is a lack of cohesive interoperable framework.   The rapidly evolving landscape adds to the existing problem. There are several examples: Intrusion Detection System (IDS) was quickly overtaken by Intrusion Prevention System (IPS).  On the Firewall arena: the focus has moved from perimeter security to end point security.  There are some security visionaries who are preaching inside-out security approach i.e. building products with information security in mind from the beginning.

Threats are moving higher up in the OSI stack making it harder to detect. Hackers are becoming more sophisticated – there are powerful free open source hacking tools available at their disposal. Security managers driving security initiatives without co-ordination can result in pieces of puzzle that don't fit well. Agency problem i.e. security managers thinking more about their personal advancement rather than security of the company is bad for the company’s security initiative. Security leaders who do not have a clear vision of

security at the component level, the administration level and the strategy level can only make information security even more convoluted. The CISO and acting CIO of US Dept of Veteran affairs resigned after the breach in May, 2006 where personal data of 26 million veterans and more than 2 million service members was stolen. This clearly demonstrates the accountability and visibility of security leadership.

The attitude of IT security leaders and security team members has a significant impact on security.  Reckless buying of information security technology can result in wasteful expenditure and very little gain in efficiency. Not understanding the business perspective of security issues or security perspective of business issues can lead to poor security decisions. Using security as a mechanism to gain control rather than using it as a tool to reduce risk can only diminish the perceived value of security initiative. Implementing security as an afterthought rather than building it into the framework not only result in poor architectural decision. Security investment is more like buying insurance. Thinking security as a vehicle providing an ROI can result in wrong expectation and lead poor decision. The business in which a company operates contributes largely to the perceived importance to security. Financial institutions usually have a higher bar on security because of the very nature of their business and their exposure legal liability. It is a good idea for many technology companies to emulate financial institutions to raise their information security bar.

It could be a pipedream to accomplish complete  information security but accomplishing a well managed information security program is an attainable possibility.