Perimeter
11/15/2012
02:10 PM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

All Security Technologies Are Not Data Loss Prevention

While security technologies may share the common goal of protecting an organization's sensitive data, not all can -- or should -- be called data loss prevention

I recently read an article that made the following assertion (paraphrased in my words): Every part of an organization's security technology arsenal is, in fact, data loss prevention (DLP). At the very heart of every organization's information security strategy is the blessed data, the object of the safeguarding effort. Any and every security tool or technology that serves to protect that data, therefore, can be deemed DLP.

One example in the article suggests that disk encryption could very well be DLP to an organization with a mobile workforce because both technologies share the objective of data protection. If that logic holds true, then we might as well drop in uninterruptible power supplies and data recovery services to the growing list of DLP products because each one helps protect data. Why not add laptop privacy screen filters and portable hard drives, while we're at it? In fact, let's drop in all 3,009 products once listed on the website of an office supply giant in its innovative "DLP" category.

Of course, I'm being facetious to emphasize my point. The unfortunate reality is the marketplace is flooded with "data loss prevention" tools that wouldn't know sensitive data if it bit them in the power cord. Where should we draw the line?

While all security technologies may share the same objective of protecting an organization's critical data, different tools arrive at that objective from different angles, often using completely different technologies. Those different technologies require unique labels in order to distinguish one technology from another. (Imagine a world where all security technologies were referred to as "data loss prevention.")

Those who share the "all-security-is-DLP" mindset seem to disregard this point, claiming that any security tool can be DLP to one organization, while a different security tool can be data loss prevention to another organization. I agree that DLP often has different meanings to different people.

The problem I have with this approach is: I do not agree this should be the case.

While most of us can agree that data protection is the overarching goal of information security, the reality is very few information security defenses work at the data level. DLP technologies deliver something that other data protection tools do not -- and simply cannot: They monitor the actual data, detecting and preventing the leakage of that sensitive data. What's more, true DLP technologies accomplish this colossal task comprehensively, through deep packet inspection, using a high level of content-awareness across all major leakage vectors: data in motion at the network gateway, data in use at the endpoint and data at rest in storage.

For years, many argued the phrase "data loss prevention" was too broad and did not accurately describe the true benefit of these technologies. I would argue an even more significant problem is the generally accepted notion that data loss prevention is a product, rather than the complete process of safeguarding data. Regardless of how I feel about these arguments, both are now rendered moot. It's too late to turn back the clock. The marketplace has spoken definitively: DLP is the descriptive term for that category of solutions that prevent the leakage of sensitive data.

By accepting and promoting this reality, the marketplace -- and specifically those organizations with data protection needs -- will better understand how to meet requirements with the right tools for the greatest data protection benefit.

Jared Thorkelson is founder and president of DLP Experts, a vendor-agnostic VAR and consulting practice focused exclusively on data protection. He can be reached at jthork@dlpexperts.com Jared is president of DLP Experts, a value-added reseller dedicated exclusively to data loss prevention (DLP) and other data protection technologies and services. For over twenty years Jared has held executive level positions with technology firms, with the last six years ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
ANON1233964134849
50%
50%
ANON1233964134849,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/16/2012 | 3:39:32 AM
re: All Security Technologies Are Not Data Loss Prevention
Core Technology of DLP - Protection of the Data (regardless of the device or file) -á http://www.gtbtechnologies.com...
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
In a digital world inundated with advanced security threats, Intel Security seeks to transform how we live and work to keep our information secure. Through hardware and software development, Intel Security delivers robust solutions that integrate security into every layer of every digital device. In combining the security expertise of McAfee with the innovation, performance, and trust of Intel, this vision becomes a reality.

As we rely on technology to enhance our everyday and business life, we must too consider the security of the intellectual property and confidential data that is housed on these devices. As we increase the number of devices we use, we increase the number of gateways and opportunity for security threats. Intel Security takes the “security connected” approach to ensure that every device is secure, and that all security solutions are seamlessly integrated.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading's October Tech Digest
Fast data analysis can stymie attacks and strengthen enterprise security. Does your team have the data smarts?
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-2013-0334
Published: 2014-10-31
Bundler before 1.7, when multiple top-level source lines are used, allows remote attackers to install arbitrary gems by creating a gem with the same name as another gem in a different source.

CVE-2014-2334
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2336.

CVE-2014-2335
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiManager before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2336.

CVE-2014-2336
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiManager before 5.0.7 and FortiAnalyzer before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2334 and CVE-2014-2335.

CVE-2014-3366
Published: 2014-10-31
SQL injection vulnerability in the administrative web interface in Cisco Unified Communications Manager allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via a crafted response, aka Bug ID CSCup88089.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Follow Dark Reading editors into the field as they talk with noted experts from the security world.