Perimeter
2/19/2013
11:02 AM
50%
50%

5 Overlooked Cloud-Based Compliance Dangers

Fully understanding risks helps avoid expensive surprises later

We all know the use of cloud-based resources is becoming increasingly common in organizations of all sizes. This can range from large-scale systems to small software-as-a-service tools. While convenient and sometimes quite cost-effective, this trend creates several compliance and data security dangers that are often overlooked. Here are five of the most serious issues:

1. Legal Liability: Whenever access to shared resources is constantly changing hands, ensuring the company is secure and compliant is like conducting an orchestra with musicians in different rooms. It takes extra effort to keep everyone on the same beat, otherwise the song (or security) falls apart. This applies with all shared resources, including hardware, software, or storage mediums.

2. Third-Party Validation: Unless you have complete control of your cloud-based assets, it is unlikely you can do much about how a cloud provider secures the data in their care. There are many data centers that make great efforts to obtain compliance certifications; however, you will probably be acting on faith that they remain secure and compliant.

3. Disclaimers Of Liability: The terms of a cloud provider's service-level agreement (SLA) normally states that the provider accepts no liability for data breaches. This is understandable from their perspective because the cost and effort to manage and track everyone involved in the hosting and use of the servers would be incredibly challenging. The bottom line is, when there's a data security breach, the cloud provider is not at risk, but your company is.

4. Application Interoperability: Moving data between secure systems and databases can create points of greater risk or exposure. Standardization can help solve this problem, but our experience is that a large number of system interfaces are still custom-built and often lack security that is as robust as the applications themselves.

5. Application Mismatched To Laws And Regulations: Many regulations and laws, such as HIPAA, require that access to private data be limited to the minimum number of necessary data fields required for a specific purpose. This level of granular detail is not a function of the cloud, but instead a function of the cloud-based application. Many such applications, particularly if they were originally designed for more general-purpose use, are not capable of meeting such compliance needs.

Unless you have invested in a private cloud in your own facilities, your organization may have little control over the security and monitoring of your system that you've placed in a cloud environment. However, an inventory of covered data points, periodic privacy, and security assessments, and a response plan for breaches can go a long way toward demonstrating compliance efforts that will mitigate the impact of a data breach.

Glenn S. Phillips is not sure if he is an overlooked danger. He is the president of Forte' Incorporated where he works with business leaders who want to leverage technology and understand the often hidden risks within. Glenn is the author of the book Nerd-to-English and you can find him on twitter at @NerdToEnglish. Glenn works with business leaders who want to leverage technology and understand the often hidden risks awaiting them. The Founder and Sr. Consultant of Forte' Incorporated, Glenn and his team work with business leaders to support growth, increase profits, and address ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Title Partner’s Role in Perimeter Security
Title Partner’s Role in Perimeter Security
Considering how prevalent third-party attacks are, we need to ask hard questions about how partners and suppliers are safeguarding systems and data.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-0714
Published: 2015-05-02
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Cisco Finesse Server 10.0(1), 10.5(1), 10.6(1), and 11.0(1) allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified parameters, aka Bug ID CSCut53595.

CVE-2014-3598
Published: 2015-05-01
The Jpeg2KImagePlugin plugin in Pillow before 2.5.3 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted image.

CVE-2014-8361
Published: 2015-05-01
The miniigd SOAP service in Realtek SDK allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted NewInternalClient request.

CVE-2015-0237
Published: 2015-05-01
Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization (RHEV) Manager before 3.5.1 ignores the permission to deny snapshot creation during live storage migration between domains, which allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (prevent host start) by creating a long snapshot chain.

CVE-2015-0257
Published: 2015-05-01
Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization (RHEV) Manager before 3.5.1 uses weak permissions on the directories shared by the ovirt-engine-dwhd service and a plugin during service startup, which allows local users to obtain sensitive information by reading files in the directory.

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.