Perimeter
5/10/2011
01:13 PM
Commentary
Commentary
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

If An ESIM Falls In The Woods, Does Anyone Care?

To the operationally minded, the loss of security monitoring capabilities will almost always play second fiddle to availability for Internet and internetworked resources

If a firewall stops passing traffic, people react. If a Web proxy prevents browsing to Facebook, people react. If an Enterprise Security Information Management system, such as a SIEM or Log Management (LM) product, stops collecting data or generating reports and alerts, however, the business typically keeps on chugging along -- without end users calling the help desk citing near-apocalyptic employment conditions. Why, you might ask?

Well, monitoring products are rarely deemed "critical" systems within an organization. Those who do assign some level of criticality to their ESIM controls usually do so under fear of stiff regulatory compliance-imposed financial penalty. Security monitoring, as a service, is still attributed to a diminished level of importance within the grand sphere of operational information technology.

What about the loss of visibility into insider threat activities or the probing exercises of external attackers? Shouldn’t the mechanisms that provide this information be deemed critical? To the security-minded, yes. To the operationally minded, however, the loss of ESIM capabilities will almost always play second (or perhaps third or fourth) fiddle to the infrastructure providing availability for Internet and internetworked resources.

The bottom line is that the moving of packets and frames throughout an internetworked architecture will always take precedence over the reactive detection and reporting capabilities offered by an ESIM product. What most operationally minded people often fail to consider, however, is that if these products are not actively collecting, normalizing, correlating, and reporting on organizational data, the organization's ability to troubleshoot incidents is significantly diminished.

Hindsight is 20/20, and nowhere is this truer than in the world of ESIM monitoring. If your ESIM isn't operational, then you can’t collect the generated information, and you certainly can't view data related to an incident. Theologian Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam is often credited with the adage, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king," but how is such a philosophical statement relevant to the ESIM sector? Well, if the operations side of the organization doesn’t see your ESIM infrastructure as an important piece of the IT puzzle, then it is up to the security team to push for high-availability capable products. If the operations team can’t (won’t) elevate the criticality of your collection infrastructure, deploy redundant collectors (where possible) to ensure coverage.

If your log-generating devices are sending data following a single network path, ensure that they are sending to a secondary path in case the primary loses connectivity (sounds like a simple routing problem to me). If you can’t afford to dedicate physical hardware or vendor-backed appliances to do the job, perhaps you can explore the possibility of virtualizing some of the components for the sake of redundancy -- as most ESIM vendors are beginning to move toward software-only instances of their components. Ultimately, this will come down to a combined budget and technical feasibility issue.

However, planning for redundancy during the planning phase of an ESIM implementation is almost certainly better than months or years after the selected product is implemented.

Andrew Hay is senior analyst with The 451 Group's Enterprise Security Practice and is an author of three network security books. Follow him on Twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewsmhay.

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-2013-3304
Published: 2014-10-30
Directory traversal vulnerability in Dell EqualLogic PS4000 with firmware 6.0 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in the default URI.

CVE-2013-7409
Published: 2014-10-30
Buffer overflow in ALLPlayer 5.6.2 through 5.8.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a long string in a .m3u (playlist) file.

CVE-2014-3446
Published: 2014-10-30
SQL injection vulnerability in wcm/system/pages/admin/getnode.aspx in BSS Continuity CMS 4.2.22640.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the nodeid parameter.

CVE-2014-3584
Published: 2014-10-30
The SamlHeaderInHandler in Apache CXF before 2.6.11, 2.7.x before 2.7.8, and 3.0.x before 3.0.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (infinite loop) via a crafted SAML token in the authorization header of a request to a JAX-RS service.

CVE-2014-3623
Published: 2014-10-30
Apache WSS4J before 1.6.17 and 2.x before 2.0.2, as used in Apache CXF 2.7.x before 2.7.13 and 3.0.x before 3.0.2, when using TransportBinding, does properly enforce the SAML SubjectConfirmation method security semantics, which allows remote attackers to conduct spoofing attacks via unspecified vect...

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.