Attacks/Breaches
1/28/2014
05:58 PM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

The IPS Makeover

Next-gen intrusion-prevention systems have fuller visibility into applications and data. But do newer firewalls make IPS redundant?

More organizations are deploying next-generation firewalls that include advanced application inspection and content awareness features, including many of the same features they have been they have been getting from old-school intrusion-prevention systems. That overlap has IT security leaders wondering: Do we still need a traditional, single-task IPS?

IPS vendors are rapidly adding new capabilities to make systems more functional and effective, hoping to resuscitate a category that has long been a staple of the IT security arsenal.

The data suggests that the IPS still has relevance, but its hold is fragile. In the 2013 InformationWeek Strategic Security Survey, only 43% of respondents considered IPS to be "highly effective" at securing their organizations. That response rate is down 3 points from the year before. The firewall fared better: 62% rated their firewalls as highly effective in 2013, though that was down from 66% in 2012. While the two systems stop different types of attacks, it's clear that IT groups view the firewall as more efficient than the IPS.

Read the full article in Dark Reading's January Tech Digest.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Discuss" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
AnonymousMan
100%
0%
AnonymousMan,
User Rank: Moderator
1/29/2014 | 2:06:38 AM
re: The IPS Makeover
Firewalls and IPS each serve a different purpose; comparing their efficiency is just stupid. It's like comparing the efficiency of a toaster and a waffle maker.
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Flash Poll
Current Issue
Cartoon
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-6335
Published: 2014-08-26
The Backup-Archive client in IBM Tivoli Storage Manager (TSM) for Space Management 5.x and 6.x before 6.2.5.3, 6.3.x before 6.3.2, 6.4.x before 6.4.2, and 7.1.x before 7.1.0.3 on Linux and AIX, and 5.x and 6.x before 6.1.5.6 on Solaris and HP-UX, does not preserve file permissions across backup and ...

CVE-2014-0480
Published: 2014-08-26
The core.urlresolvers.reverse function in Django before 1.4.14, 1.5.x before 1.5.9, 1.6.x before 1.6.6, and 1.7 before release candidate 3 does not properly validate URLs, which allows remote attackers to conduct phishing attacks via a // (slash slash) in a URL, which triggers a scheme-relative URL ...

CVE-2014-0481
Published: 2014-08-26
The default configuration for the file upload handling system in Django before 1.4.14, 1.5.x before 1.5.9, 1.6.x before 1.6.6, and 1.7 before release candidate 3 uses a sequential file name generation process when a file with a conflicting name is uploaded, which allows remote attackers to cause a d...

CVE-2014-0482
Published: 2014-08-26
The contrib.auth.middleware.RemoteUserMiddleware middleware in Django before 1.4.14, 1.5.x before 1.5.9, 1.6.x before 1.6.6, and 1.7 before release candidate 3, when using the contrib.auth.backends.RemoteUserBackend backend, allows remote authenticated users to hijack web sessions via vectors relate...

CVE-2014-0483
Published: 2014-08-26
The administrative interface (contrib.admin) in Django before 1.4.14, 1.5.x before 1.5.9, 1.6.x before 1.6.6, and 1.7 before release candidate 3 does not check if a field represents a relationship between models, which allows remote authenticated users to obtain sensitive information via a to_field ...

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
This episode of Dark Reading Radio looks at infosec security from the big enterprise POV with interviews featuring Ron Plesco, Cyber Investigations, Intelligence & Analytics at KPMG; and Chris Inglis & Chris Bell of Securonix.