Risk
3/29/2012
03:45 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

How To Choose Endpoint Protection

Don't fret about malware detection. Focus on user interactions, performance, and management.

InformationWeek Green - Apr. 2, 2012 InformationWeek Green
Download the entire Apr. 2, 2012 issue of InformationWeek, distributed in an all-digital format as part of our Green Initiative
(Registration required.)
We will plant a tree for each of the first 5,000 downloads.

Security Software Listen Up!

As a security consultant I am frequently asked, "Which endpoint protection product detects the most malware?" Invariably, the question that follows is "So I should buy that one, right?"

Not necessarily.

Software vendors will hate to hear this, but the malware-detection capability of most products is good enough. At the consulting firm Savid, our endpoint protection reviews show that they all do fine when it comes to identifying malicious software. Other testing also shows only moderate differences among products. For instance, the top 10 vendors blocked between 93.6% and 99.5% of malicious examples provided, according to a November report from AV-Comparatives, a testing company. That's a relatively small gap in terms of detection capability.

The point here is that you shouldn't focus your endpoint protection requests for proposals or technical reviews on detection rates alone, nor is it necessary to spend a lot of time infecting PCs in your lab to watch how the various products fend for themselves.

Instead, we believe you'll have more success with endpoint protection by analyzing three key areas: how willing employees are to interact with the software for alerts and messages, how much the software slows PC performance, and how manageable the product is in terms of changing policies and other vital tasks.

Users Matter Most

IT pros love to get a bunch of products in a lab and throw malware at them to see what happens. But we believe you'll get better results if you focus on employees. Here's why.

Security software varies greatly in how much interaction is required from employees. It might show a simple icon on a Google search page to indicate potentially malicious sites. It can also be more complex, such as an on-screen pop-up message that warns of possible dangers if an executable or program runs. These messages often require the user to make a decision to allow or deny an action.

The degree to which employees understand (or care) about these interactions will affect the viability of an endpoint product. If users accept this level of interaction given the sensitive nature of the company's work, a product with lots of accept-or-deny options can work. But if users feel like security software is blocking them from doing work, they will demand less-restrictive controls, or even the removal of certain security modules.

In our consulting engagements, we routinely see network threat protection turned off because of all the darn security messages that appear when users browse the Web or run various apps. We have even seen endpoint products that have been trained by users to always allow every executable and to grant access to every website, which defeats the purpose of the software. Don't underestimate employees' ability to incapacitate your endpoint security.

Thus, our No. 1 rule for endpoint protection success: Test products with your end users. Devise user-interaction scenarios for key malware infection points, including Web browsing and email. See how the product reacts to threats, how the product presents those threats to your users, and, most important of all, how your end users respond to warnings. You can record every user's interactions using software such as CamStudio (which is free). The output plays like a video, which lets you review and analyze people's activity once the tests are concluded. This output can also be used in employee training.

To read the rest of the article,
Download the Apr. 2, 2012 issue of InformationWeek


Securing end user devices is tricky business. We offer free reports on three distinct facets:
Get All Our Reports


Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
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-2013-6306
Published: 2014-08-22
Unspecified vulnerability on IBM Power 7 Systems 740 before 740.70 01Ax740_121, 760 before 760.40 Ax760_078, and 770 before 770.30 01Ax770_062 allows local users to gain Service Processor privileges via unknown vectors.

CVE-2014-0232
Published: 2014-08-22
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in framework/common/webcommon/includes/messages.ftl in Apache OFBiz 11.04.01 before 11.04.05 and 12.04.01 before 12.04.04 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, which are not properly handled in a (1)...

CVE-2014-3525
Published: 2014-08-22
Unspecified vulnerability in Apache Traffic Server 4.2.1.1 and 5.x before 5.0.1 has unknown impact and attack vectors, possibly related to health checks.

CVE-2014-3563
Published: 2014-08-22
Multiple unspecified vulnerabilities in Salt (aka SaltStack) before 2014.1.10 allow local users to have an unspecified impact via vectors related to temporary file creation in (1) seed.py, (2) salt-ssh, or (3) salt-cloud.

CVE-2014-3587
Published: 2014-08-22
Integer overflow in the cdf_read_property_info function in cdf.c in file through 5.19, as used in the Fileinfo component in PHP before 5.4.32 and 5.5.x before 5.5.16, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) via a crafted CDF file. NOTE: this vulnerability exists bec...

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Three interviews on critical embedded systems and security, recorded at Black Hat 2014 in Las Vegas.