Comments
Security vs. Speed: The Risk of Rushing to the Cloud
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
REISEN1955
100%
0%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
2/14/2018 | 1:37:11 PM
Re: Not safe
Woz - our great ancient savant from Apple - stated flat out that there is no security in the cloud.  That said, the cloud is - at most base - just a longer RJ-45 or optic cable from your endpooint to another server somewhere in the world hosted by god knows who.  The cloud has to reside on something somewhere and adding layers of exposure on top of your own protection increases risk many times over.   Not to add too that another set of human hands on a distant keyboard working with your data as an unknown too.

No safety in the cloud - it is a snake oil pitch worthy of W.C. Fields
Alsec
50%
50%
Alsec,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/9/2018 | 6:20:26 AM
Re: Not safe
Thumbs up. I totally agree.
BrianN060
50%
50%
BrianN060,
User Rank: Ninja
2/7/2018 | 7:34:27 PM
Re: Not safe
As with all optimization choices, it depends on your priorities.  For many use-cases, the hybrid-cloud model provides the best balance of security vs. cost tradeoffs.  As other commenters have mentioned, the physical location of the public-cloud assets can have important security implications.  Most important is which of your organization's data assets you trust to the public-cloud, and which do you keep within your own perimeter.  Start there; then evaluate public-cloud vendors/services. 
nosmo_king
50%
50%
nosmo_king,
User Rank: Strategist
2/7/2018 | 10:14:59 AM
Re: Not safe
I am sorry you feel that way, I know it can be overwhelming at times and I have felt that pain.

It is possible to use cloud services safely, when thought and care are woven into the decision-making process from the very start, not least of all determining what services and data are eligible to be shipped to the cloud and which must stay within the enterprise.

If the course of technology has taught us anything it is that over a shortish period of time the market will consolidate into fewer potential suppliers and the less than spectacular ones will go out of business relatively quickly.

Don't throw the metaphoric baby out with the bathwater just yet.
nosmo_king
100%
0%
nosmo_king,
User Rank: Strategist
2/7/2018 | 10:06:26 AM
Understanding the kill chain is a key part of due diligence
When selecting a SaaS provider it amazes me how infrequently someone thinks to ask the provider who supplies their platform, their infrstructure and their support services.

It is not very often that a second-tier or lower SaaS provider houses their own servers, does their own maintenance and backups, or provides their own customer support.

These are usually spread out to multiple providers, and understanding who they are and who provides service to them must be a part of security due diligence. You have to know where your data is going to end up and who will have what level of access to it.

While the initial supplier may do and say all the right things in regard to security and privacy, it is necessary to go through the whole chain of suppliers to determine the complete truth.
aumickmanuela
100%
0%
aumickmanuela,
User Rank: Strategist
2/7/2018 | 9:56:31 AM
Not safe
Yeah, i can tottaly agree with your tips, you are right) Cloud is not safe at all 


Election Websites, Back-End Systems Most at Risk of Cyberattack in Midterms
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  8/14/2018
Intel Reveals New Spectre-Like Vulnerability
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  8/15/2018
Australian Teen Hacked Apple Network
Dark Reading Staff 8/17/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2011-2765
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-20
pyro before 3.15 unsafely handles pid files in temporary directory locations and opening the pid file as root. An attacker can use this flaw to overwrite arbitrary files via symlinks.
CVE-2018-15594
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-20
arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c in the Linux kernel before 4.18.1 mishandles certain indirect calls, which makes it easier for attackers to conduct Spectre-v2 attacks against paravirtual guests.
CVE-2018-15572
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-20
The spectre_v2_select_mitigation function in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c in the Linux kernel before 4.18.1 does not always fill RSB upon a context switch, which makes it easier for attackers to conduct userspace-userspace spectreRSB attacks.
CVE-2018-15573
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-20
** DISPUTED ** An issue was discovered in Reprise License Manager (RLM) through 12.2BL2. Attackers can use the web interface to read and write data to any file on disk (as long as rlm.exe has access to it) via /goform/edit_lf_process with file content in the lfdata parameter and a pathname in the lf...
CVE-2018-15574
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-20
** DISPUTED ** An issue was discovered in the license editor in Reprise License Manager (RLM) through 12.2BL2. It is a cross-site scripting vulnerability in the /goform/edit_lf_get_data lf parameter via GET or POST. NOTE: the vendor has stated "We do not consider this a vulnerability."