Perimeter

8/3/2012
09:46 AM
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
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Election Websites, Back-End Systems Most at Risk of Cyberattack in Midterms
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  8/14/2018
Intel Reveals New Spectre-Like Vulnerability
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  8/15/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-13435
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-16
** DISPUTED ** An issue was discovered in the LINE jp.naver.line application 8.8.0 for iOS. The Passcode feature allows authentication bypass via runtime manipulation that forces a certain method to disable passcode authentication. NOTE: the vendor indicates that this is not an attack of interest w...
CVE-2018-13446
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-16
** DISPUTED ** An issue was discovered in the LINE jp.naver.line application 8.8.1 for Android. The Passcode feature allows authentication bypass via runtime manipulation that forces a certain method's return value to true. In other words, an attacker could authenticate with an arbitrary passcode. ...
CVE-2018-14567
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-16
libxml2 2.9.8, if --with-lzma is used, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (infinite loop) via a crafted XML file that triggers LZMA_MEMLIMIT_ERROR, as demonstrated by xmllint, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-8035 and CVE-2018-9251.
CVE-2018-15122
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-16
An issue found in Progress Telerik JustAssembly through 2018.1.323.2 and JustDecompile through 2018.2.605.0 makes it possible to execute code by decompiling a compiled .NET object (such as DLL or EXE) with an embedded resource file by clicking on the resource.
CVE-2018-11509
PUBLISHED: 2018-08-16
ASUSTOR ADM 3.1.0.RFQ3 uses the same default root:admin username and password as it does for the NAS itself for applications that are installed from the online repository. This may allow an attacker to login and upload a webshell.