Perimeter
7/23/2012
12:31 PM
Wendy Nather
Wendy Nather
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

The Mobile Monitoring Mess

Bringing your own device to work sounds peachy to employees, but security, regulatory, and privacy issues still need to be worked out on the monitoring side

At what point did “their device” become “my device”? Probably as soon as I started taking personal calls on the brick I called a mobile phone around 1990. I never saw a bill because my employer was paying for every call -- even the international ones where I had to talk to a non-native English speaker in a loud data center on another continent through a reboot and fsck while at the same time navigating the Chicago freeway system. Good times.

I went through any number of personal digital assistants -- Palm, Casio, Sharp Zaurus -- because it was just so easy to keep all of my work appointments and contact numbers in them. Email clients were cumbersome to use back then, so the amount of work-related data I had on them was minimal, even though the fact that I was meeting with particular people might have been considered confidential. There was no thought of segregating the personal, especially when I had work reasons to be sending SMS messages to a friend while on a business trip.

However, things became a lot more voluminous once I started receiving work email on a BlackBerry. Email is the virtual file cabinet for a lot of people; that’s often where the gold is. The device (paid for by me) became a de facto business data repository, just as much as the servers in the data center. And that’s when the issues bubbled up: Is the data still subject to legally mandated retention schedules? Is it searchable in response to a required Public Information Act request? Can my employer search it without my knowledge or consent in the course of an investigation? Could I be forced to have it wiped if the device were stolen?

Ironically enough, the creation of mobile device management (MDM) and other network-based mobile security solutions made the question even bigger. Because many of those require the mobile device to send all of its traffic through an enterprise-owned proxy, this meant that all network activity -- including off-hours browsing -- could be logged by my employer. Should they be logging my personal activity? Should they be forcing it to comply with their enterprise policies? (I like going to Mabel’s 4chan Politically Incorrect Adult Exotic Yarn World as much as the next guy.)

In other words, this mobile device monitoring issue has always been lurking in the background. It just got worse as more functions became possible: the increased storage of data and the expanded ability to manage communications. In countries where data privacy laws are so strict that you can’t collect login events for your employees, this may actually tame the problem better than in places where privacy regulations are still undefined. When the policies have to be defined by the organization, vetted by legal and human resource experts, and communicated to staff, there is a lot of room for error and expensive misunderstanding.

Your monitoring policies have to strike a balance among any regulatory compliance, your security risk management, and your attitude toward your employees. Policies to protect the privacy of users should be independent of who paid for the smartphone. And it should be consistent across all IT assets because the enterprise isn’t based on box ownership anymore. The enterprise is an abstract operation that involves the manipulation of certain types of data in a business context. Don’t let the mobile angle fool you too much into treating those endpoints differently from the ones you have sitting in the office. Monitoring is monitoring, no matter where or how it happens.

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
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-2014-7298
Published: 2014-10-24
adsetgroups in Centrify Server Suite 2008 through 2014.1 and Centrify DirectControl 3.x through 4.2.0 on Linux and UNIX allows local users to read arbitrary files with root privileges by leveraging improperly protected setuid functionality.

CVE-2014-8346
Published: 2014-10-24
The Remote Controls feature on Samsung mobile devices does not validate the source of lock-code data received over a network, which makes it easier for remote attackers to cause a denial of service (screen locking with an arbitrary code) by triggering unexpected Find My Mobile network traffic.

CVE-2014-0619
Published: 2014-10-23
Untrusted search path vulnerability in Hamster Free ZIP Archiver 2.0.1.7 allows local users to execute arbitrary code and conduct DLL hijacking attacks via a Trojan horse dwmapi.dll that is located in the current working directory.

CVE-2014-2230
Published: 2014-10-23
Open redirect vulnerability in the header function in adclick.php in OpenX 2.8.10 and earlier allows remote attackers to redirect users to arbitrary web sites and conduct phishing attacks via a URL in the (1) dest parameter to adclick.php or (2) _maxdest parameter to ck.php.

CVE-2014-7281
Published: 2014-10-23
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Shenzhen Tenda Technology Tenda A32 Router with firmware 5.07.53_CN allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that reboot the device via a request to goform/SysToolReboot.

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.