Risk
9/24/2009
11:30 AM
50%
50%

Full Disk Encryption Evolves

The Opal standard paves the way for hardware-based encryption.

Management's A Must

Consider yourself warned: Without an integrated management infrastructure, enterprise deployment and support of Opal-compliant hard drives will be a nightmare. There are a few key features that are essential. For starters, organizations must manage boot passwords and password resets. If an employee leaves, becomes unavailable, or just forgets the password, IT needs a way to access the data on the drive. Conversely, if an IT administrator leaves, the organization must be able to change admin accounts.

Another necessary function is the ability to report on the state of a given laptop or asset. If a device goes missing, can you demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the drive was indeed protected via encryption? This capability will have a major impact on compliance with state breach disclosure laws and limit the fallout from potential data loss.

These use cases require a centralized management platform that can communicate with endpoints. We're aware of only one vendor--Wave Systems--that's shipping a management platform to tie all of this together. Wave uses a "pre-boot" operating system to set up admin and user accounts for unlocking the hard drive's encryption keys before the OS boots, and also has a Windows agent that can sync these accounts with Active Directory.

At A Glance
SELECTED FULL DISK ENCRYPTION PLAYERS
Opal hard-drive manufacturers:
Fujitsu, Hitachi, Samsung, Seagate Technology
Opal management software vendor:
Wave Systems
Laptop vendors shipping Opal drives: Dell, Lenovo
Software-based FDE vendors:
Check Point Software, Guardian Edge, McAfee, Microsoft, PGP
So will software-based FDE products go the way of the dodo? Not likely--organizations with global software FDE deployments aren't about to rip them out. It also will take time for companies to swap in laptops with Opal-compatible drives. Software FDE vendors certainly don't project a sense of urgency, either. McAfee and Check Point say they see the need for managing hardware- and software-based FDE. But neither has announced timelines for Opal support.

In contrast, on the manufacturing side, vendor support for hardware-based FDEs is good. In the last six months, Fujitsu, Hitachi, and Samsung have debuted Opal-compliant drives, and system vendors Dell and Lenovo are shipping laptops with Opal-based drives. In fact, the hardware-based approach is going to come faster than some FDE vendors are envisioning. The technology will find a warm reception among organizations struggling with their FDE strategies, because the advantages are too compelling to ignore.

Greg Shipley is CTO of Neohapsis, an information security and risk management firm.

Previous
2 of 2
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-0750
Published: 2015-05-22
The administrative web interface in Cisco Hosted Collaboration Solution (HCS) 10.6(1) and earlier allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via crafted input to unspecified fields, aka Bug ID CSCut02786.

CVE-2012-1978
Published: 2015-05-21
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Simple PHP Agenda 2.2.8 and earlier allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) add an administrator via a request to auth/process.php, (2) delete an administrator via a request to auth/admi...

CVE-2015-0741
Published: 2015-05-21
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Cisco Prime Central for Hosted Collaboration Solution (PC4HCS) 10.6(1) and earlier allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users, aka Bug ID CSCut04596.

CVE-2015-0742
Published: 2015-05-21
The Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) application in Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software 9.2(0.0), 9.2(0.104), 9.2(3.1), 9.2(3.4), 9.3(1.105), 9.3(2.100), 9.4(0.115), 100.13(0.21), 100.13(20.3), 100.13(21.9), and 100.14(1.1) does not properly implement multicast-forwarding registrati...

CVE-2015-0746
Published: 2015-05-21
The REST API in Cisco Access Control Server (ACS) 5.5(0.46.2) allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (API outage) by sending many requests, aka Bug ID CSCut62022.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Join security and risk expert John Pironti and Dark Reading Editor-in-Chief Tim Wilson for a live online discussion of the sea-changing shift in security strategy and the many ways it is affecting IT and business.