Perimeter
11/26/2012
03:49 PM
Wendy Nather
Wendy Nather
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Log All The Things

How the growing granularity in computing is going to affect monitoring

Yes, computers are smaller now. From the behemoths of old to systems on a chip, we've seen a change in the form factor such that these days, you could just about lose millions of SSNs if your USB navel-piercing fell down the shower drain. And that's not even counting the sprawl when it comes to virtual machines.

But there's another trend, as well. Mainframes, VAXen, PDP-11s, and so on were multiuser and multipurpose (even if, in some cases, you could only load one card stack at a time). Then came distributed computing, and the computing power was split between the client and the server 00 notwithstanding diskless workstations and the whole "the network is the computer" thing. This meant that the resources were being dedicated: some for the local work, some for the remote, and they weren't easily transferable.

Unix servers would often be centrally used – covering whole departments – but as time went on, enterprises split them for particular purposes, such as storage, processing, routing, mail, and more. Windows servers became even more granular, depending on how much they could handle at one time. Add in high availability requirements, and you suddenly had hundreds of servers to go with hundreds of endpoints.

This is about the time where logging and monitoring got complicated. Keeping clocks in sync and deduping the huge amount of similar data generated by each of those systems are just some of the challenges that gave rise to the industry we now know and love: log management. We're just now starting to figure out how to monitor mobile devices in a scalable and flexible manner.

Things only got worse when VMs came along. Cheap and easy to spin up and down, like blowing bubbles, these systems not only have to be monitored in and of themselves, but their lifetimes and hypervisor management need coverage, as well. Their great advantage is being dynamic, but a dynamic environment also means more things are happening – and when more things are happening, there's more to monitor. It's easier to monitor one big lumbering elephant than it is a thousand squirrels, but what we've got here, right now, are squirrels.

Now we even have the concept of micro-VMs, where individual processes and tasks are wrapped and managed separately. If you thought VM sprawl was a problem now, wait until you have to track events associated with security policies for, say, each tab of your browser. And don't forget the Internet of Things, in which all our millions, or perhaps undecillions, of smart components might require some sort of monitoring.

We're getting to the point where, as Jonathan Swift once wrote:

So, naturalists observe, a flea
Has smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller still to bite 'em;
And so proceed ad infinitum.

Increasing granularity of computing may be good for performance, and it may be good for some aspects of security, but it's not good for everything. If security monitoring is going to have to address the problem of infinite fleas, then we'd better get cracking.

Wendy Nather is Research Director of the Enterprise Security Practice at the independent analyst firm 451 Research. You can find her on Twitter as @451wendy. Wendy Nather is Research Director of the Enterprise Security Practice at independent analyst firm 451 Research. With over 30 years of IT experience, she has worked both in financial services and in the public sector, both in the US and in Europe. Wendy's coverage areas ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-5467
Published: 2014-08-29
Monitoring Agent for UNIX Logs 6.2.0 through FP03, 6.2.1 through FP04, 6.2.2 through FP09, and 6.2.3 through FP04 and Monitoring Server (ms) and Shared Libraries (ax) 6.2.0 through FP03, 6.2.1 through FP04, 6.2.2 through FP08, 6.2.3 through FP01, and 6.3.0 through FP01 in IBM Tivoli Monitoring (ITM)...

CVE-2014-0600
Published: 2014-08-29
FileUploadServlet in the Administration service in Novell GroupWise 2014 before SP1 allows remote attackers to read or write to arbitrary files via the poLibMaintenanceFileSave parameter, aka ZDI-CAN-2287.

CVE-2014-0888
Published: 2014-08-29
IBM Worklight Foundation 5.x and 6.x before 6.2.0.0, as used in Worklight and Mobile Foundation, allows remote authenticated users to bypass the application-authenticity feature via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-0897
Published: 2014-08-29
The Configuration Patterns component in IBM Flex System Manager (FSM) 1.2.0.x, 1.2.1.x, 1.3.0.x, and 1.3.1.x uses a weak algorithm in an encryption step during Chassis Management Module (CMM) account creation, which makes it easier for remote authenticated users to defeat cryptographic protection me...

CVE-2014-3024
Published: 2014-08-29
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in IBM Maximo Asset Management 7.1 through 7.1.1.12 and 7.5 through 7.5.0.6 and Maximo Asset Management 7.5.0 through 7.5.0.3 and 7.5.1 through 7.5.1.2 for SmartCloud Control Desk allows remote authenticated users to hijack the authentication of arbitr...

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
This episode of Dark Reading Radio looks at infosec security from the big enterprise POV with interviews featuring Ron Plesco, Cyber Investigations, Intelligence & Analytics at KPMG; and Chris Inglis & Chris Bell of Securonix.