<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Anatomy of an Advanced Persistent Threat</title>
		<description>Discuss Anatomy of an Advanced Persistent Threat</description>
		<link>https://www.prometheus-group.com/component/content/article/36-web-security/152-anatomy-of-apt.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2026 02:28:47 --500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<item>
			<title>Michael Shinn says:</title>
			<link>https://www.prometheus-group.com/component/content/article/36-web-security/152-anatomy-of-apt.html#comment-8</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Thanks Michael. I think what also complicates the discussion with ICS is the way we use the same words differently between the reliability and security fields. For example, the word "compromise" has an important difference between the two fields. In reliability engineering, compromise = failure, where as in security compromise may result in failure, its not the only thing that can occur. In practive, it certainly seems that this rarely occurs. So in essence, in reliability space failure is the superset, and in security space its just a subset of the things that can happen. But we still use that word without realizing that different people hear a different and critical meaning. It may help when working in the ICS field to keep these "miscommunications" in mind. It certainly has helped in our work to encourage a broader perspective when analyzing ICS for security issues.]]></description>
			<author>Michael Shinn</author>
			<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:16:47 --500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Michael Thompson says:</title>
			<link>https://www.prometheus-group.com/component/content/article/36-web-security/152-anatomy-of-apt.html#comment-7</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I found your article very refreshing. I wrote a paper once on the psychology of risk and the abstract faceless danger is one of the top reasons people take risk. I also agree with your view on defending against attackers and recognizing that they are in fact intelligent adversaries and that the approach to mitigating this threat needs to be unique. I think too often in my field we approach the defense of our ICS as another possible failure rather than recognizing that the threat is coming from a probing calculating adversary. Good stuff.]]></description>
			<author>Michael Thompson</author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:52:50 --500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bill Z says:</title>
			<link>https://www.prometheus-group.com/component/content/article/36-web-security/152-anatomy-of-apt.html#comment-3</link>
			<description><![CDATA[All the more reason that should practice defense in depth.]]></description>
			<author>Bill Z</author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:53:06 --500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Tom says:</title>
			<link>https://www.prometheus-group.com/component/content/article/36-web-security/152-anatomy-of-apt.html#comment-2</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Wow, thats pretty scary stuff right there. I wonder if we had something similar happen back earlier this year? We ended up fighting iframe injections for months.]]></description>
			<author>Tom</author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:38:30 --500</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>James says:</title>
			<link>https://www.prometheus-group.com/component/content/article/36-web-security/152-anatomy-of-apt.html#comment-1</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've seen the same thing happen at another government site.]]></description>
			<author>James</author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:29:07 --500</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
