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, September 16, 2014
Malicious software is morphing to be more targeted, stealthy, and destructive. Are you prepared to stop it?
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-2006-1318
Published: 2014-09-19
Microsoft Office 2003 SP1 and SP2, Office XP SP3, Office 2000 SP3, Office 2004 for Mac, and Office X for Mac do not properly parse record lengths, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a malformed control in an Office document, aka "Microsoft Office Control Vulnerability."

CVE-2012-2588
Published: 2014-09-19
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in MailEnable Enterprise 6.5 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) From, (2) To, or (3) Subject header or (4) body in an SMTP e-mail message.

CVE-2012-6659
Published: 2014-09-19
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the admin interface in Phorum before 5.2.19 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted URL.

CVE-2014-1391
Published: 2014-09-19
QT Media Foundation in Apple OS X before 10.9.5 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption and application crash) via a crafted movie file with RLE encoding.

CVE-2014-3614
Published: 2014-09-19
Unspecified vulnerability in PowerDNS Recursor (aka pdns_recursor) 3.6.x before 3.6.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via an unknown sequence of malformed packets.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio