Perimeter
2/22/2012
11:19 AM
Adrian Lane
Adrian Lane
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%
Repost This

Can You Delete A Database?

Data and databases keep growing, but there's a security tradeoff

When was the last time you deleted a database -- not accidentally, but on purpose? Have you ever willfully deleted a database? How about removed sensitive data from one?

Most database administrators I've spoken with have never retired the contents of a database. They may migrate the contents of the old database into a newly architected repository, but seldom have they just deleted a database. Or parsed out old data lying around that was clearly obsolete, or possibly truncated tables of sensitive data. DBA's are trained to keep data consistent and make sure the data can be recovered in case of emergency. It's there job, and there is legitimate fear of being fired if you can't produce data when it's requested.

But from a security perspective removing old data is a simple security precaution. Why do I recommend this approach? First off, you can't steal what's not there. If you deleted it from the database and only keep an encrypted tape backup, you're better off if your systems are breached. Second, it's an inexpensive security option that requires no special products and no additional purchases. And as an added bonus, shrinking a database means smaller storage requirements and less overhead on queries, both of which improve performance.

The real problem is this scares the heck out of database administrators. What happens if someone actually wants that data a year from now? Could you recover it? Do you even know who owns it to ask if you can delete it? What if it was subject to regulatory controls you're not aware of? No, it's easier just to keep the data.

And in this day and age where IT keeps more databases, and collects every tidbit of data they can, databases are growing. We collect more data and look for new ways to derive information from it. More data means more information, resulting in better decisions that hopefully provide some competitive sales advantage. Conceptually, anyway. Some firms are under strict regulatory controls to keep data for five- seven-, or even ten years. But studies show data used for analytics purposes goes "bad" -- as much as 30 percent -- after after just 18 months. For your reports that means "Garbage in, Garbage out."

But unlike garbage, bad data does not smell, so DBA's have no good incentive to get rid of it. Until you're breached, that is.

Adrian Lane is an analyst/CTO with Securosis LLC, an independent security consulting practice. Special to Dark Reading. Adrian Lane is a Security Strategist and brings over 25 years of industry experience to the Securosis team, much of it at the executive level. Adrian specializes in database security, data security, and secure software development. With experience at Ingres, Oracle, and ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-3946
Published: 2014-04-24
Cisco IOS before 15.3(2)S allows remote attackers to bypass interface ACL restrictions in opportunistic circumstances by sending IPv6 packets in an unspecified scenario in which expected packet drops do not occur for "a small percentage" of the packets, aka Bug ID CSCty73682.

CVE-2012-5723
Published: 2014-04-24
Cisco ASR 1000 devices with software before 3.8S, when BDI routing is enabled, allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via crafted (1) broadcast or (2) multicast ICMP packets with fragmentation, aka Bug ID CSCub55948.

CVE-2013-6738
Published: 2014-04-24
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM SmartCloud Analytics Log Analysis 1.1 and 1.2 before 1.2.0.0-CSI-SCALA-IF0003 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via an invalid query parameter in a response from an OAuth authorization endpoint.

CVE-2014-0188
Published: 2014-04-24
The openshift-origin-broker in Red Hat OpenShift Enterprise 2.0.5, 1.2.7, and earlier does not properly handle authentication requests from the remote-user auth plugin, which allows remote attackers to bypass authentication and impersonate arbitrary users via the X-Remote-User header in a request to...

CVE-2014-2391
Published: 2014-04-24
The password recovery service in Open-Xchange AppSuite before 7.2.2-rev20, 7.4.1 before 7.4.1-rev11, and 7.4.2 before 7.4.2-rev13 makes an improper decision about the sensitivity of a string representing a previously used but currently invalid password, which allows remote attackers to obtain potent...

Best of the Web