News
6/30/2010
11:07 AM
George Crump
George Crump
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Keeping Data Forever vs. Data Retention

Keeping data forever vs. data retention is going to become an increasingly fierce battle. In the past data retention strategies always won but as we discussed in our first entry in the series the technology is now available to store data forever and as we discussed in the second entry the technology is there to find it when you need it.

Keeping data forever vs. data retention is going to become an increasingly fierce battle. In the past data retention strategies always won but as we discussed in our first entry in the series the technology is now available to store data forever and as we discussed in the second entry the technology is there to find it when you need it.The alternative to a keep it forever strategy is to have a very specific data retention strategy, something that I used to be a promoter of. The challenge with implementing fixed data retention strategies is that first you have to get various non-IT departments to decide exactly how long their data needs to be retained. Herding cats may be an easier task. Many will say they want their data kept forever anyway. Which then you need to convince them why they shouldn't. Obviously in the keep it forever strategy you are giving them exactly what they want. Giving people what they want is always popular.

Other departments will want their information deleted rather quickly or to follow some obscure guideline. Reality is that different types of data needs to be stored for varying lengths of time and the regulations that dictate those timeframes are often vague and change frequently. The challenge is most people don't store or tag their information by how it should be retained, they either don't have the time, don't know how to tag it or wouldn't know what the retention policy is even if they could tag it. The odds of you properly categorizing all the data in all its forms into the right retention windows are stacked against you. The man hours to properly identify up front and as an ongoing bases all the data which is being created in your enterprise, and then to properly move that data into the right retention buckets at just the right time are going to be staggering.

Finally and probably most condemning to retention policies is the fact that digital assets are too portable. As a result even if you build the perfect data retention strategy, are able to maintain it and verify that data is deleted at just the right time, employees have a tendency to look after themselves first, not the organization. It is difficult to stop an employee that finds some condemning data that may hurt the organization but helps or protects them. They can for example email the data to a personal email address or copy it to a USB stick. You have to assume if the data was going to hurt the organization it is going to get out somehow. It seems like it always does. The organization's best bet, other than never doing anything wrong, is to at least know about potential threats and be prepared to defend itself. If the data is deleted as part of a retention policy, that is hard to do.

In our next entry we will wrap up this series with looking at the costs associated with a keep data forever strategy and how to keep those costs under control. The strategy needs to be accomplished while meeting the typical cost challenges beyond hard costs; power, cooling and space.

Track us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/storageswiss

Subscribe to our RSS feed.

George Crump is lead analyst of Storage Switzerland, an IT analyst firm focused on the storage and virtualization segments. Find Storage Switzerland's disclosure statement here.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Flash Poll
Current Issue
Cartoon
DevOps’ Impact on Application Security
DevOps’ Impact on Application Security
Managing the interdependency between software and infrastructure is a thorny challenge. Often, it’s a “developers are from Mars, systems engineers are from Venus” situation.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-0103
Published: 2014-07-29
WebAccess in Zarafa before 7.1.10 and WebApp before 1.6 stores credentials in cleartext, which allows local Apache users to obtain sensitive information by reading the PHP session files.

CVE-2014-0475
Published: 2014-07-29
Multiple directory traversal vulnerabilities in GNU C Library (aka glibc or libc6) before 2.20 allow context-dependent attackers to bypass ForceCommand restrictions and possibly have other unspecified impact via a .. (dot dot) in a (1) LC_*, (2) LANG, or other locale environment variable.

CVE-2014-0889
Published: 2014-07-29
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in IBM Atlas Suite (aka Atlas Policy Suite), as used in Atlas eDiscovery Process Management through 6.0.3, Disposal and Governance Management for IT through 6.0.3, and Global Retention Policy and Schedule Management through 6.0.3, allow remote atta...

CVE-2014-2226
Published: 2014-07-29
Ubiquiti UniFi Controller before 3.2.1 logs the administrative password hash in syslog messages, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to obtains sensitive information via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-3020
Published: 2014-07-29
install.sh in the Embedded WebSphere Application Server (eWAS) 7.0 before FP33 in IBM Tivoli Integrated Portal (TIP) 2.1 and 2.2 sets world-writable permissions for the installRoot directory tree, which allows local users to gain privileges via a Trojan horse program.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio