Perimeter
11/30/2011
02:44 PM
Adrian Lane
Adrian Lane
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

DAM Is Morphing

DAM may not be DAM much longer.

The database activity monitoring (DAM) market has changed over the last 18 months, specifically in the ways DAM is augmenting base functionality to solve a broader range of security threats.

The changes include both the incorporation of existing security technologies into DAM platforms along with the seamless linking of other -- external -- security services. This deserves mention both because the integration is tighter than we have seen with other security products like IDS or SIEM, and because the DAM vendors are coupling technologies to fit different visions of how customers want to manage security and compliance.

Why is this important? DAM may not be DAM much longer. It's morphing into something -- maybe more than one thing -- entirely different.

Here I am going to describe one such adaptation of DAM, one of four trends that I have been monitoring. I'll go over the others in subsequent posts.

The first trend I see is the applying DAM features generically to many back-office applications. Data operations -- such as a a file read, MS Sharepoint request or SAP transaction -- are treated just like a database query. The structure of the user request is different but DAM parses each request for critical attributes and make sure the call complies with security policies. As before, if the analysis shows a rule was violated, a security response is triggered.

The beauty of this adaptation from the user perspective is that the deployment model is unchanged. Events are collected through same basic OS layer agents as before, and sent to a central server for analysis and storage. The agents are modified to collect and understand many different types of application events, and the policy management engine is tweaked to accommodate non-database rules.

Note that DAM does more than alerting and blocking -- it will also leverage masking, encryption and labeling technologies to address security and compliance requirements. This model relies heavily on discovery to help administrators locate data and define usage policies in advance.

You'll notice there is a little overlap with SIEM, but the types of events being monitored are much more focused on the application layer, and the responses are intended to be real time. There is also some overlap with DLP, but DAM approach lacks the endpoint capabilities and full content awareness.

To be honest, I don't know what to call this yet. It's application monitoring, but focused on data usage. The architecture is one that mimics the business processing systems, acting as underlying sensors for each data exchange. For now, I am describing this as an "Business Activity Monitoring," for lack of a better term. I am sure this name will change several times during the course of the research project and as I delve into the other models in more detail.

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
Dark Reading Must Reads - September 25, 2014
Dark Reading's new Must Reads is a compendium of our best recent coverage of identity and access management. Learn about access control in the age of HTML5, how to improve authentication, why Active Directory is dead, and more.
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-2012-5485
Published: 2014-09-30
registerConfiglet.py in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote attackers to execute Python code via unspecified vectors, related to the admin interface.

CVE-2012-5486
Published: 2014-09-30
ZPublisher.HTTPRequest._scrubHeader in Zope 2 before 2.13.19, as used in Plone before 4.3 beta 1, allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTTP headers via a linefeed (LF) character.

CVE-2012-5487
Published: 2014-09-30
The sandbox whitelisting function (allowmodule.py) in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote authenticated users with certain privileges to bypass the Python sandbox restriction and execute arbitrary Python code via vectors related to importing.

CVE-2012-5488
Published: 2014-09-30
python_scripts.py in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote attackers to execute Python code via a crafted URL, related to createObject.

CVE-2012-5489
Published: 2014-09-30
The App.Undo.UndoSupport.get_request_var_or_attr function in Zope before 2.12.21 and 3.13.x before 2.13.11, as used in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1, allows remote authenticated users to gain access to restricted attributes via unspecified vectors.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
In our next Dark Reading Radio broadcast, we’ll take a close look at some of the latest research and practices in application security.