7 ms·

>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 t

by kqueue 15y ago

>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.

alecco 15y ago
In the following paragraph she mentions RSA didn't use another tool they sell to prevent this kind of attacks. I think she used the phrase correctly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food
- kqueue 15y ago
  Can you copy that specific section?
  - Groxx 15y ago
    >RSA sells its own fraud detection systems based on user and account profiling ... They should have applied these techniques to their own internal systems. As they were using a network observer which wasn't as sophisticated as other tools they make and sell.
  - alecco 15y ago
    I don't know why you ask, it's right next paragraph to your quote. But let's save other people the time to check: > 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.

by kqueue 15y ago

alecco 15y ago

In the following paragraph she mentions RSA didn't use another tool they sell to prevent this kind of attacks. I think she used the phrase correctly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food

kqueue 15y ago
Can you copy that specific section?
- Groxx 15y ago
  >RSA sells its own fraud detection systems based on user and account profiling ... They should have applied these techniques to their own internal systems. As they were using a network observer which wasn't as sophisticated as other tools they make and sell.
- alecco 15y ago
  I don't know why you ask, it's right next paragraph to your quote. But let's save other people the time to check: > 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.