Perimeter
4/5/2011
11:49 AM
Commentary
Commentary
Commentary
50%
50%

IT GRC, ESIM Vendors Dig In For War

With no sign of the two technologies combining into one, where does that leave the buyer?

Although IT GRC and the easily identifiable vendors that compete in the sector might sound fairly cut-and-dry, there is an adjacent technology sector muddying the water and causing confusion among buyers: enterprise security information management (ESIM).

The ESIM sector is composed primarily of security information and event management (SIEM) and log management vendors. One could easily draw static lines dividing disparate security technologies, but the lines (if they ever truly existed) between ESIM and IT GRC products are starting to blur.

Since EMC's January 2010 acquisition of Archer Technologies, ESIM vendors are including more risk-centric capabilities within their core products. In fact, many ESIM vendors began searching for an IT GRC product acquisition to achieve the competitive parity presented by a joint RSA (enVision) and EMC (Archer) product pairing. From a 10,000-foot view, one could easily draw parallels between both product sectors.

Generally speaking, both can consume log and vulnerability data in addition to providing users with alerting, dashboard, and ticket workflow capabilities. The biggest difference, however, is the audience for which each product is designed. ESIM products have always had a heavily weighted operations and security side, whereas IT GRC products are traditionally presented to CISO-, CSO- and CFO-level executives, in addition to the somewhat newly minted chief risk officer (CRO) and chief compliance officer (CCO) designates.

To appeal to all levels of the organization, nearly all of these vendors present their products with an alluring and whimsical term to hook buyers: a single pane of glass. Promising the coveted single pane of glass for all levels of the organization to leverage, vendors are hoping to bring their products to bear in support of the entire business stack -- from the entrenched security practitioner at the bottom to the executive branch of the organization.

Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to present data in a way that is everything to everyone, since ESIM and IT GRC products were designed with different business use cases in mind. So ESIM is a more security-centric and operationally positioned technology, while IT GRC is a more business-centric and process-positioned technology.

So which one should you pick? One issue that plagues the adoption of IT GRC systems is the cost of purchasing both an IT GRC and ESIM product. Organizations faced with having to choose between an IT GRC or ESIM product typically do not have the budget to purchase both. Since the purchase of an ESIM is predominantly driven by a compliance mandate, the water becomes even more muddied when the buyer learns that the ESIM could cover everything but the "G" portion of IT GRC -- a somewhat lofty claim when the capabilities of both product sectors are examined under the end-user microscope.

So who's the buyer for IT GRC? The side of the organization that purchases IT GRC products remains those responsible for the measurement and reporting of risk and compliance within the organization. These people are also the holders of the budget for projects of this nature and might see the security aspect of an ESIM as simply "nice to have," as opposed to a primary purchasing driver. Should the security team have little sway over those further up the management stack, increasingly more organizations could find themselves adopting IT GRC products over ESIM products.

While I don't see the ESIM and IT GRC sectors converging to create a new combined sector, it is likely safe to postulate that there will at least be some overlap in the immediate future as the adjacent sectors figure each other out.

A more likely result will be closer integration and data sharing between the products in each sector. Why send IDS logs to both an ESIM and an IT GRC product when one could simply forward the data to the other? Instead of poking holes in a perimeter firewall to allow data sources to feed a cloud-based IT GRC product, why not allow the on-premises ESIM product to aggregate and forward, or vice versa? Of course, in order to facilitate this transparent cooperation, a promiscuous integration stance will need to be embraced by the vendors in their respective sectors to further the cross-pollination between products.

Andrew Hay is a senior security analyst with The 451 Group's Enterprise Security Practice

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
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-2014-7896
Published: 2015-03-03
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in HP XP P9000 Command View Advanced Edition Software Online Help, as used in HP Device Manager 6.x through 8.x before 8.1.2-00, HP XP P9000 Tiered Storage Manager 6.x through 8.x before 8.1.2-00, HP XP P9000 Replication Manager 6.x and 7.x before ...

CVE-2014-9283
Published: 2015-03-03
The BestWebSoft Captcha plugin before 4.0.7 for WordPress allows remote attackers to bypass the CAPTCHA protection mechanism and obtain administrative access via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-9683
Published: 2015-03-03
Off-by-one error in the ecryptfs_decode_from_filename function in fs/ecryptfs/crypto.c in the eCryptfs subsystem in the Linux kernel before 3.18.2 allows local users to cause a denial of service (buffer overflow and system crash) or possibly gain privileges via a crafted filename.

CVE-2015-0890
Published: 2015-03-03
The BestWebSoft Google Captcha (aka reCAPTCHA) plugin before 1.13 for WordPress allows remote attackers to bypass the CAPTCHA protection mechanism and obtain administrative access via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2015-2168
Published: 2015-03-03
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue in customer-controlled software. Notes: none.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
How can security professionals better engage with their peers, both in person and online? In this Dark Reading Radio show, we will talk to leaders at some of the security industry’s professional organizations about how security pros can get more involved – with their colleagues in the same industry, with their peers in other industries, and with the IT security community as a whole.