Perimeter
12/15/2011
10:36 AM
Adrian Lane
Adrian Lane
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Data Security, Top Down

Focus on what needs to be done, not how to do it

Continuing the database security trends with database activity monitoring (DAM), the next model I want to talk about is policy-driven data security. Conceptually this means you define the security or compliance task to be accomplished, and that task gets divided by a number of technologies that get the work done. Policies are mapped -- from the top down -- into one or more security tools, each performing part of the workload to accomplish a task.

In an ideal world, the tool best-suited to do the work gets assigned the task. To make this type of approach work, you must have a broad set of security capabilities and a management interface tightly coupled with underlying features.

For database security, this is the classic coupling of discovery, assessment, monitoring, and auditing -- each function overlapping with the next. The key to this model is policy orchestration: Policies are abstracted from the infrastructure, with the underlying database -- and even non-database -- tools working in unison to fulfill the security and compliance requirements. A policy for failed logins, as an example, will have assessment, monitoring, and auditing components that capture data and perform analysis. A central management interface includes lots of pre-generated rules that coordinate resources that allow customers to cover the basics quickly and easily. In practice, it's rare to see top-down security limited to database security, and it usually covers general network services and endpoints as well.

This model is great for reducing the pain of creating and managing security across multiple systems. It also lowers the bar on technical and compliance expertise required for users to manage the system -- that knowledge is built in.

Workers don't have to know "how" to do it, just what they need to do. And that is a big deal for mid-market firms that cannot afford to have lots of security and compliance experts on staff. Finally, since it's designed to leverage lots of tools, integrating with other platforms is much easier.

However, there are several significant detractors to the model because the lack of flexibility and deployment complexity overwhelms the midmarket buyer it conceptually best serves. Since the technologies are prebundled, you have more tools to accomplish tasks you can solve with a single product from a different vendor, resulting in a much larger footprint on your organization. While basic setup of policies is as simple as selecting a prewritten rule, custom policies have a greater degree of complexity as compared to more traditional database security systems.

In this model, DAM is just one of many tools to collect and analyze events, and not necessarily central to the platform. As such, policy-driven security is not an evolution or change to DAM (as it is with business activity monitoring and ADMP); it's more a vision of how DAM fits within the security ecosystem.

The intention of the model is to mask the underlying complexities of technology from the users who simply want to get a compliance or security task done. Many in IT don't have the time or desire to be a security expert, and want more of a "point-and-click" solution. This model has been around for a long time -- since at least 2006 with DAM. I know because this was the model I architected and was attempting to build out as a "next generation" DAM solution. Conceptually, it's very elegant, but every firm I have ever seen try to attempt this fails because the underlying technologies have not been best-of-breed, nor did the interfaces deliver on promised simplicity. It requires a great deal of commitment from the vendor to carry this off, and the jury is still out as to whether it will deliver on the intended value proposition.

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
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-2014-2021
Published: 2014-10-24
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in admincp/apilog.php in vBulletin 4.4.2 and earlier, and 5.0.x through 5.0.5 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted XMLRPC API request, as demonstrated using the client name.

CVE-2014-3604
Published: 2014-10-24
Certificates.java in Not Yet Commons SSL before 0.3.15 does not properly verify that the server hostname matches a domain name in the subject's Common Name (CN) field of the X.509 certificate, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers via an arbitrary valid certificate.

CVE-2014-6230
Published: 2014-10-24
WP-Ban plugin before 1.6.4 for WordPress, when running in certain configurations, allows remote attackers to bypass the IP blacklist via a crafted X-Forwarded-For header.

CVE-2014-6251
Published: 2014-10-24
Stack-based buffer overflow in CPUMiner before 2.4.1 allows remote attackers to have an unspecified impact by sending a mining.subscribe response with a large nonce2 length, then triggering the overflow with a mining.notify request.

CVE-2014-7180
Published: 2014-10-24
Electric Cloud ElectricCommander before 4.2.6 and 5.x before 5.0.3 uses world-writable permissions for (1) eccert.pl and (2) ecconfigure.pl, which allows local users to execute arbitrary Perl code by modifying these files.

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.