Perimeter
8/3/2012
09:46 AM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Compliance And Proofreading: A Fresh Perspective Is Required

It can be difficult to see the errors we've made

Think about how often someone proofreading your writing finds a mistake. The exact same idea applies to the far more complex processes and procedures required for robust security and compliance.

In a recent assessment project, our client’s IT staff had done a fine job of considering security issues and compliance processes for the company’s computer systems. They had documented the technical tasks, had a regular review process, and continually considered appropriate security issues.

What they failed to notice were some dangerous flaws in their backup processes. As we see way too often, this client relied on the backup software’s confirmation that these backups were successful. Since they trusted the software, they never restored any data from a backup drive in order to confirm beyond a doubt the backup had really worked. A common line of thinking, even if never admitted, is, “The computer said it worked, so it must have been successful.”

If you think this is something that only happens at small or marginal businesses, then you are in for a surprise. This is a common mistake, often made at companies you might assume are too large to make such small-time errors. And with increasingly short-staffed IT teams, these mistakes are even easier when everyone has more work than they can do. When a staff is short on time, checking backups, logs, and monitoring systems is often done haphazardly -- and sometimes not at all.

Through the years, our team has often been called in to try to help restore a failed backup that was managed by someone else. This call often comes from small and midsize businesses with small or outsourced IT staff, but we’ve also seen this situation at large organizations, too. Any company can fall prey to complacency, apathy, or ignorance.

Without fail, the person responsible for these backups trusted the software and did not perform routine, methodical testing, restoring data from the backup devices to ensure the backup was working as expected. Because this employee did not have our broad experience with many different organizations, backup failure wasn’t considered a major risk. Or perhaps the risk was known, but the staff member deferred the work until “they weren’t so busy.” From our experience and perspective, we always know the risk involved in this scenario, and also what a common and easily avoidable risk it is.

This is a classic example of how using a compliance and security “proofreader” can be invaluable: a fresh perspective, one with different experiences, to look over the operations and find the glaring holes that can be easily missed and subsequently remain unknown. This proofreading of your compliance can involve more than simple backups, of course. It works best when it is designed as an objective review of all your work. After all, proofreading only one chapter won’t actually improve a book at all.

The more removed from the day-to-day aspects of a business or department, the easier it is to spot issues and mistakes. Even if it's not required, an outside auditor (or even simply someone from another department) may be more effective (and more economical) than your own staff spending hours hoping to find the mistakes they didn’t see the first time.

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
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-2013-3304
Published: 2014-10-30
Directory traversal vulnerability in Dell EqualLogic PS4000 with firmware 6.0 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in the default URI.

CVE-2013-7409
Published: 2014-10-30
Buffer overflow in ALLPlayer 5.6.2 through 5.8.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a long string in a .m3u (playlist) file.

CVE-2014-3446
Published: 2014-10-30
SQL injection vulnerability in wcm/system/pages/admin/getnode.aspx in BSS Continuity CMS 4.2.22640.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the nodeid parameter.

CVE-2014-3584
Published: 2014-10-30
The SamlHeaderInHandler in Apache CXF before 2.6.11, 2.7.x before 2.7.8, and 3.0.x before 3.0.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (infinite loop) via a crafted SAML token in the authorization header of a request to a JAX-RS service.

CVE-2014-3623
Published: 2014-10-30
Apache WSS4J before 1.6.17 and 2.x before 2.0.2, as used in Apache CXF 2.7.x before 2.7.13 and 3.0.x before 3.0.2, when using TransportBinding, does properly enforce the SAML SubjectConfirmation method security semantics, which allows remote attackers to conduct spoofing attacks via unspecified vect...

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.