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-2014-9710
Published: 2015-05-27
The Btrfs implementation in the Linux kernel before 3.19 does not ensure that the visible xattr state is consistent with a requested replacement, which allows local users to bypass intended ACL settings and gain privileges via standard filesystem operations (1) during an xattr-replacement time windo...

CVE-2014-9715
Published: 2015-05-27
include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.h in the netfilter subsystem in the Linux kernel before 3.14.5 uses an insufficiently large data type for certain extension data, which allows local users to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and OOPS) via outbound network traffic that trig...

CVE-2015-1157
Published: 2015-05-27
CoreText in Apple iOS 8.x through 8.3 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (reboot and messaging disruption) via crafted Unicode text that is not properly handled during display truncation in the Notifications feature, as demonstrated by Arabic characters in (1) an SMS message or (2)...

CVE-2015-2666
Published: 2015-05-27
Stack-based buffer overflow in the get_matching_model_microcode function in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_early.c in the Linux kernel before 4.0 allows context-dependent attackers to gain privileges by constructing a crafted microcode header and leveraging root privileges for write access to t...

CVE-2015-2830
Published: 2015-05-27
arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S in the Linux kernel before 3.19.2 does not prevent the TS_COMPAT flag from reaching a user-mode task, which might allow local users to bypass the seccomp or audit protection mechanism via a crafted application that uses the (1) fork or (2) close system call, as demonstrate...

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
After a serious cybersecurity incident, everyone will be looking to you for answers -- but you’ll never have complete information and you’ll never have enough time. So in those heated moments, when a business is on the brink of collapse, how will you and the rest of the board room executives respond?