Perimeter
4/11/2012
11:14 AM
50%
50%

Be Ready To Clean Up That Mess

Compliant systems do more than prevent problems -- they help solve problems that happen

In our assessment and consulting projects, we often find clients who see compliant systems as those with the best wall of protection, like a great castle surrounded by the seas and cliffs. Granted, great security is wonderful. But it is not the end of the story; security alone will not make your organization compliant.

If you dig into any of the various laws and regulations that require compliance in various industries, you'll find they do not assume secure systems can never be breached. Full, impenetrable security is never the final metric of compliance. Secure systems are very important, but the ability to detect problems and address them is also critical.

In Kelly Jackson Higgins' recent Dark Reading article, "Damage Mitigation As The New Defense," Dave Piscitello, senior security technologist for ICANN, shared the current security reality: "Organizations that are only now coming to the realization that their network perimeters have been compromised are late to the game," he said. "The criminal application of collected/exfiltrated data is now such an enormous problem that it's impossible to avoid."

If your security and compliance efforts are focused primarily on preventing breaches and leaks, then you'll be woefully unprepared to properly respond when things go wrong. Compliant systems include processes and procedures for checking the security and steps for a prompt response.

The day after a data breach goes public or the CEO asks where the data went is not the day you want to be developing a response plan on the fly. Any unplanned, impromptu responses can even contribute to making the problem worse.

Any company or IT leadership that believes their security is complete and total has yet to face reality. They're living on borrowed time. As the old saying goes, "The problem with making systems foolproof is that fools are so darn ingenious." And so are those with ill intent.

Today's reality is that we can never make a system completely secure and still reasonable to use. There are simply too many continually evolving threats to ever be prepared to stop them all. Proper detection and response are not reactions -- they are processes that can be defined and documented.

Can you plan a response for every possible problem? Of course not. Smart plans include a framework of response steps with room to adjust the plan as necessary for specific situations. That's more than just good response planning -- that's good business planning.

Assuming you'll never be attacked, hacked, breached, or betrayed is not only naive, it is arrogant and risky for your organization and career. A strong compliance program understands that the world is always evolving, and therefore so must our processes for both security and for problem response.

Glenn S. Phillips, the president of Forte' Incorporated, works with business leaders who want to leverage technology and understand risks within. He 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
Dark Reading December Tech Digest
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of end-user security training.
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-2014-2037
Published: 2014-11-26
Openswan 2.6.40 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and IKE daemon restart) via IKEv2 packets that lack expected payloads. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE 2013-6466.

CVE-2014-6609
Published: 2014-11-26
The res_pjsip_pubsub module in Asterisk Open Source 12.x before 12.5.1 allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (crash) via crafted headers in a SIP SUBSCRIBE request for an event package.

CVE-2014-6610
Published: 2014-11-26
Asterisk Open Source 11.x before 11.12.1 and 12.x before 12.5.1 and Certified Asterisk 11.6 before 11.6-cert6, when using the res_fax_spandsp module, allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (crash) via an out of call message, which is not properly handled in the ReceiveFax dia...

CVE-2014-7141
Published: 2014-11-26
The pinger in Squid 3.x before 3.4.8 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information or cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds read and crash) via a crafted type in an (1) ICMP or (2) ICMP6 packet.

CVE-2014-7142
Published: 2014-11-26
The pinger in Squid 3.x before 3.4.8 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information or cause a denial of service (crash) via a crafted (1) ICMP or (2) ICMP6 packet size.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Now that the holiday season is about to begin both online and in stores, will this be yet another season of nonstop gifting to cybercriminals?