Perimeter
7/13/2012
05:32 PM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Data Loss Prevention: What's The Use?

Why deploy data loss prevention technologies if there are ways to circumvent the system?

For years I’ve heard arguments as to why data loss prevention (DLP) tools can’t prevent all incidents of sensitive data leakage. These arguments have been delivered by a variety of customers, analysts, vendors, and just about anyone who likes to take a contrarian view, even if only to stoke the fires of debate.

After the new article "Stealing Documents Through Social Media Image-Sharing" gets a bit of circulation, I'm sure to start hearing this new argument as additional proof of why DLP technologies won't work. The article references SNScat, a newly developed software tool that proves it is possible to exfiltrate sensitive data using steganography, a method of making data appear to be something else, so only the intended recipient is aware of the hidden data. The developers explain that SNScat breaks the subject data into pieces that are, in turn, embedded into the data of image files and uploaded to social media sites. The intended recipient then downloads the image files, uses SNScat to reconstruct the subject data, and voila! The whole effort results in the acquisition of the subject data while leaving no trace of the theft.

The developers of this new tool are not interested in using their software for malicious purposes, of course. They are sharing their efforts with the hope that the marketplace will recognize the need to research and challenge this method of data theft.

Steganography is not new; the method has been around for hundreds of years, but the new twist is in leveraging social media sites as data mules for packing out the hidden data in the images. It's a logical and compelling approach that, unfortunately for data owners, appears to work as long as image sharing is available to end users. It has the potential to make malicious efforts of data exfiltration harder to detect -- and prevent.

With this new development, I expect to hear the DLP cynic's argument to go something like this: "What's the use of deploying data loss prevention technologies when a user can simply use SNScat [or insert any other method du jour here] to covertly steal sensitive data?" This flawed logic says that if a network security technology is not 100 percent effective, it's not worth the cost or effort to deploy.

I cringe every time I encounter this defeatist attitude, especially among information security professionals. If we all followed this same logic in other areas of network security, then we would never deploy any security technologies. We would mitigate exactly zero risk, leaving our networks -- and our sensitive data -- completely open to theft.

If we accept the fact (and we must) that there will always be some way to circumvent some security measures to steal sensitive data, then we must also accept our overarching objective as being the identification and mitigation of as much risk as possible.

As for protecting against the likes of SNScat, companies must weigh the risk associated with allowing users access to social media sites (as well as a long list of other sites) with the benefits. There is a simple solution: Restrict access to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to all but those who may need these services in the performance of their job duties. No doubt it will be an unpopular decision among employees and maybe even executives. But as we all know, desperate times call for desperate measures. Is the security of your organization's sensitive data more or less valuable than company morale?

I have visited companies where I was forced to surrender my camera phone and put electrical tape over my laptop webcam or surrender the device entirely. Thankfully for most of us, this is the exception and not the rule. One thing is certain: If a malicious insider is hell-bent on extracting confidential data from an organization, then there are certainly easier -- albeit less sophisticated and cool -- ways to do it than steganography.

Jared Thorkelson is founder and president of DLP Experts, a vendor-agnostic VAR and consulting practice focused exclusively on data protection. He can be reached at jthork@dlpexperts.com. Jared is president of DLP Experts, a value-added reseller dedicated exclusively to data loss prevention (DLP) and other data protection technologies and services. For over twenty years Jared has held executive level positions with technology firms, with the last six years ... 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-2014-7877
Published: 2014-10-30
Unspecified vulnerability in the kernel in HP HP-UX B.11.31 allows local users to cause a denial of service via unknown vectors.

CVE-2014-3051
Published: 2014-10-29
The Internet Service Monitor (ISM) agent in IBM Tivoli Composite Application Manager (ITCAM) for Transactions 7.1 and 7.2 before 7.2.0.3 IF28, 7.3 before 7.3.0.1 IF30, and 7.4 before 7.4.0.0 IF18 does not verify X.509 certificates from SSL servers, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof s...

CVE-2014-3668
Published: 2014-10-29
Buffer overflow in the date_from_ISO8601 function in the mkgmtime implementation in libxmlrpc/xmlrpc.c in the XMLRPC extension in PHP before 5.4.34, 5.5.x before 5.5.18, and 5.6.x before 5.6.2 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) via (1) a crafted first argument t...

CVE-2014-3669
Published: 2014-10-29
Integer overflow in the object_custom function in ext/standard/var_unserializer.c in PHP before 5.4.34, 5.5.x before 5.5.18, and 5.6.x before 5.6.2 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via an argument to the unserialize function ...

CVE-2014-3670
Published: 2014-10-29
The exif_ifd_make_value function in exif.c in the EXIF extension in PHP before 5.4.34, 5.5.x before 5.5.18, and 5.6.x before 5.6.2 operates on floating-point arrays incorrectly, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (heap memory corruption and application crash) or possibly exec...

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.