>The irony is that they don’t eat their own dogfood. In other words, they relied on yesterday’s best of breed tools to prevent and detect the attack.
I don't think she understands what eating your dogfood means.
I don't think she understands what eating your dogfood means.
As they were using a network observer which wasn't as sophisticated as other tools they make and sell.
> The irony though with RSA is that they don’t eat their own dog food.
> In other words, they relied on yesterday’s best of breed tools to
> prevent and detect the attack. They gave a lot of credit to NetWitness
> for helping them find the attack in real time but they obviously weren’t
> able to stop the attack in real time, which means the signals and
> scores weren’t high enough to cause a person to shut down the attack
> in real time.
>
> RSA sells its own fraud detection systems based on user and account
> profiling which use statistical Beysian models, and rules, to
> spot abnormal behavior and intervene in real time to re-authenticate
> users and verify the authenticity of suspect access, behavior, or
> transactions. (RSA appears in the leaders quadrant of Gartner’s 2010
> Web Fraud Detection Magic Quadrant). They should have applied these
> techniques to their own internal systems. They need to stay innovative
> and apply the lessons learned from serving their clients to their own
> internal enterprise systems.