Among the many lies told by the company behind the very popular WordPress security plugin Wordfence Security, Defiant, one that really stands out to us personally is a lie they told that relates to something that as far as we are aware we uniquely do when it comes to collecting data on vulnerabilities in WordPress plugins. In response to a complaint about the data they use in trying to tell people if an update to a plugin is a security update they claimed to rely on “confirmed/validated” data for that. In truth their source, the WPScan Vulnerability Database, explicitly notes that they haven’t verified the vulnerabilities in their data set. As far as we are aware we are the only ones that actually do the work it takes to confirm and validate vulnerabilities, which provides our customer with higher quality data and doesn’t leave them unaware that vulnerabilities haven’t actually been fixed. We recently ran across an instance of where the WPScan Vulnerability Database clearly didn’t do that work, where we had at first thought that maybe we had missed something that we should have noticed.
When it comes to choosing security products and services what is lacking is nearly any evidence that they are effective, while at the same time there is plenty that shows that many of them are not. For example, over at our main business we regularly have people asking if we offer one that will really protect their website from being hacked after the one they were using didn’t prevent their website from being hacked. So why would people being using those if there isn’t evidence that they work? One of the reasons we have heard from people we have dealt with that have had their websites hacked is that they are using products and services based on recommendation of others. Since those are not going to be based on evidence, since there is a dearth of that, not surprisingly a lot of that advice is quite bad. Take as an example of that bad advice, the most recent post on the blog of the Ninja Forms plugin, which is used on 1+ million websites. We ran across that while looking if they had released a post on the vulnerability fixed a couple of days ago, when were detailing that.
Over at our main business we have a steady stream of people contacting us to ask if we offer a service that will stop their websites from being hacked, a not insignificant number of them mention that they are currently using a service that claimed to do that and there website got hacked anyway. That second item obviously tells you that these service don’t necessarily work, but what seems more relevant to the poor state of security is that even when one of these doesn’t work these people are often sure that they can and do work, just the one they used didn’t. That probably goes a long way to explaining why the complete lack of evidence that these services are effective at all hasn’t been an impediment to people using them. The problem with that is not only do they end up not working well or at all, but the money spent on them could have been spent on services that actually improve security of these websites (and everyone else’s website if there services is anything like ours), but are not sold on false promises.
When it comes to actually trying to improve the poor state of web security one of the big impediments are security journalists, who often act not as journalists, but as stenographers repeating claims made by security companies with little concern for their accuracy or actual significance. A case in point with that comes from a post from ZDNet’s Zero Day blog (which at least in the past was run by people that didn’t even understand what a zero-day is), titled “Thousands of WordPress sites backdoored with malicious code”, which we got notified due to a Google alert we have set related to WordPress plugin vulnerabilities.