SecPod

Learn Search

Search across all Learn content

← Back to Expressions & POVs
What are we doing wrong in safeguarding our computer systems?

What are we doing wrong in safeguarding our computer systems?

1. Naïve Belief: Who is interested in my system? Nobody is going to attack me. I haven’t done anything bad to anyone, so why will they?

May 23, 2013By Chandra1 min read

1. Naïve Belief: Who is interested in my system? Nobody is going to attack me. I haven’t done anything bad to anyone, so why will they?

2. Believing Security can be bought: that magic device that I bought will take care of everything.

3. Trusting Anti-virus is enough to safeguard the system: Feel safe once installed.

4. Cleaning instead of prevention: Trying to clean the malware after it has already infected instead of putting in all the measures that could have avoided the malware infection itself.

5. Ignore proactive security measures:Not proactively assessing the security posture of the system in order to fix the loopholes and strengthening the system.

6. Not willing to take the hard step: patching and hardening is hard to do.

On the last point, yes, it is hard, because,

  • Users are not aware what patches to apply
  • It takes too long to download and install for each application
  • It takes away time from the core work
  • Not aware what the update might do

Hardening the security posture of the system, knowing the loopholes and applying the fix is a very effective and proven defense system. This requires a deeper or may be simpler, second look.

Featured Posts

Open The Most Effective Vulnerability Assessment Framework What Makes One Effective
The Most Effective Vulnerability Assessment Framework What Makes One Effective

Point of View

The Most Effective Vulnerability Assessment Framework What Makes One Effective

No single named standard makes a vulnerability assessment framework effective. This piece covers NIST, ISO, and CIS Controls, then breaks down what actually separates a working framework from a checklist, coverage, risk based prioritization, cadence, ownership, and a feedback loop.

Sep 11, 2026

Open Threat and Vulnerability Assessment How Risk Actually Gets Calculated
Threat and Vulnerability Assessment How Risk Actually Gets Calculated

Point of View

Threat and Vulnerability Assessment How Risk Actually Gets Calculated

A vulnerability alone doesn't tell the whole risk story. This piece breaks down how a threat and vulnerability assessment pairs technical weaknesses with real attacker context, walks through the six step process, and covers frameworks like NIST 800-30 and ISO 27005.

Sep 11, 2026

Open Vulnerability Assessment Services: What to Look For
Vulnerability Assessment Services: What to Look For

Point of View

Vulnerability Assessment Services: What to Look For

Choosing a vulnerability assessment provider means asking about actual coverage, scan frequency, and whether findings come with real prioritization or just a CVSS dump. This piece breaks down what strong vulnerability assessment services include, red flags to avoid, and questions to ask before signing.

Sep 11, 2026

Open Agentic AI Vulnerability Assessment What Changes and What Does Not
Agentic AI Vulnerability Assessment What Changes and What Does Not

Point of View

Agentic AI Vulnerability Assessment What Changes and What Does Not

Agentic AI is expanding what a vulnerability assessment needs to cover, autonomous agents bring their own credentials, tool access, and memory, adding a genuinely new asset class alongside servers and endpoints. It's also compressing attacker timelines and introducing risk categories like goal hijacking and tool misuse that don't map to a traditional CVE. But the core discipline hasn't changed: the same lifecycle of scoping, scanning, prioritizing, and remediating still applies, human judgment still drives prioritization, and accountability still sits with the people who deployed the agent, not the agent itself.

Sep 9, 2026