SubImage, a Y Combinator W25 startup, launched a tool that allows you to see your cloud infrastructure through the eyes of an attacker. It automatically scans public-facing assets, identifying vulnerabilities and potential attack paths without requiring any credentials or agents. This external perspective helps companies understand their real attack surface and prioritize remediation efforts, focusing on the weaknesses most likely to be exploited. The goal is to bridge the gap between security teams' internal view and the reality of how attackers perceive their infrastructure, leading to a more proactive and effective security posture.
A recent EPA assessment revealed that drinking water systems serving 26 million Americans face high cybersecurity risks, potentially jeopardizing public health and safety. These systems, many small and lacking resources, are vulnerable to cyberattacks due to outdated technology, inadequate security measures, and a shortage of trained personnel. The EPA recommends these systems implement stronger cybersecurity practices, including risk assessments, incident response plans, and improved network security, but acknowledges the financial and technical hurdles involved. These findings underscore the urgent need for increased federal funding and support to protect critical water infrastructure from cyber threats.
Hacker News users discussed the lack of surprising information in the article, pointing out that critical infrastructure has been known to be vulnerable for years and this is just another example. Several commenters highlighted the systemic issue of underfunding and neglect in these sectors, making them easy targets. Some discussed the practical realities of securing such systems, emphasizing the difficulty of patching legacy equipment and the air-gapping trade-off between security and remote monitoring/control. A few mentioned the potential severity of consequences, even small incidents, and the need for more proactive measures rather than reactive responses. The overall sentiment reflected a weary acceptance of the problem and skepticism towards meaningful change.
Summary of Comments ( 0 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43161332
The Hacker News comments section for SubImage expresses cautious interest and skepticism. Several commenters question the practical value proposition, particularly given existing open-source tools like Amass and Shodan. Some doubt the ability to accurately replicate attacker reconnaissance, citing the limitations of automated tools compared to a dedicated human adversary. Others suggest the service might be more useful for smaller companies lacking dedicated security teams. The pricing model also draws criticism, with users expressing concern about per-asset costs potentially escalating quickly. A few commenters offer constructive feedback, suggesting integrations or features that would enhance the product, such as incorporating attack path analysis. Overall, the reception is lukewarm, with many awaiting further details and practical demonstrations of SubImage's capabilities before passing judgment.
The Hacker News post for Launch HN: SubImage (YC W25) – See your infra from an attacker's perspective has a moderate number of comments, sparking a discussion around the utility and approach of the presented tool.
Several commenters express skepticism about the value proposition of SubImage. Some argue that existing open-source tools, like nmap and Shodan, already provide similar functionality. They question whether SubImage offers enough differentiation to justify its existence, especially considering it's a commercial product. This skepticism revolves around the perception that simply identifying open ports and services isn't novel and that truly understanding an attacker's perspective requires more sophisticated analysis.
One commenter specifically points out the challenge of accurately mimicking an attacker's reconnaissance process. They contend that attackers often leverage insider knowledge, social engineering, or vulnerabilities beyond simple port scanning. Therefore, a tool that only focuses on publicly exposed services might provide a limited and potentially misleading view of actual attack vectors.
The discussion also touches on the complexity of managing false positives. One commenter expresses concern about the potential for SubImage to generate numerous alerts for services intentionally exposed or misconfigured in non-critical ways. This raises questions about the tool's practicality in real-world scenarios where security teams must prioritize genuine threats amidst a sea of noise.
Conversely, some comments express interest in the tool. They highlight the potential benefits of having an automated and centralized platform for external attack surface monitoring. The convenience of aggregating information from various sources and presenting it in a digestible format is recognized as a potential strength of SubImage.
One commenter specifically asks about SubImage's ability to handle cloud environments and dynamic IP addresses, suggesting a demand for tools that can adapt to the complexities of modern infrastructure.
The founder of SubImage also participates in the discussion, responding to several comments and clarifying the intended purpose of the tool. They emphasize that SubImage aims to complement existing security practices, not replace them. They also acknowledge the limitations of purely external scanning and mention ongoing development to incorporate more sophisticated analysis capabilities.
In summary, the comment section reveals a mixed reception to SubImage. While some see it as a potentially useful addition to the security toolkit, others remain unconvinced of its unique value proposition and express concerns about its practical limitations. The discussion highlights the ongoing need for innovative security solutions while also underscoring the importance of critical evaluation and a nuanced understanding of the threat landscape.