Perimeter
10/24/2012
10:32 AM
Adrian Lane
Adrian Lane
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

When Data Errors Don't Matter

Does bad data break 'big data' analysis?

I ran across this short video comparing MySQL to MongoDB, and it really made me laugh. A tormented MySQL engineer is arguing platform choices with a Web programming newbie who only understands big data at a buzzword level. Do be careful if you watch the video with the sound on because the latter portion is not child-friendly, but this comical post captures the essence of the argument relational DB architects have against NoSQL: Big data systems fail system architects' criteria for data accuracy and consistency. Their reasoning is if the data's not accurate, who care's whether it's "Web scale?" It's garbage in, garbage out, so why bother?

But I think the question deserves more attention. In fact, I ask the question: Does some bad data in a big data cluster matter?

I think that the answer is, "No, it does not."

There are two reasons for this.

Data in the aggregate:
Most of the big data analytics are basing decisions across billions on records. Trends and decisions are not a simple "X=Y" comparison, but billions of "X=Y" comparisons. Decisions are made across the aggregate to show trends and provide a likelihood of an event. Big data clusters are not used to produce an accurate ATM statement, but rather to predict a person's potential interest in a specific product based upon prior Web search history. It's less about binary outcomes and more like fuzzy-logic.

Data velocity:
Most of the clusters I've seen in operation pour new data in at furious rate -- terabytes of data every day. Queries may favor more recent events, or they may balance their predictions on current and historic trend data. In either case, if you get some bad data into the cluster due to a hardware of software issue, it's likely to cause a short-term dip in accuracy. Tomorrow a whole new batch of data will offset, or overwrite, or mute the impact of yesterday's bad data. Data velocity and volume greatly reduce the impact of data corruption of a handful of records.

And that's the essence of big data analytics -- it's not so much about specific data points as it is metatrends.

Keep in mind that if there is one thing that's consistent with big data systems it's inconsistency. These systems are incredibly diverse in features and functions. It's dangerous to pigeonhole big data into a specific set of value statements because there are some 120 different NoSQL systems, each with add-on packages that provide near limitless functional variations. While the Web programmer newbie in the video above may not have a clue, application developers who work with big data have tuned out the relational database dogma for good reason. There are, in fact, ACID-compliant databases built on a Hadoop framework. These provide transactional consistency -- granted, in different ways than many relational platforms -- but the options exist. There are cases where relational databases are a must-have, but the decision to choose one over the other is far more complex that what's commonly portrayed.

And let's not forget that most relational systems have their own issues with data accuracy. The handful of studies I've seen on data accuracy in relational platforms -- during the past 12 years or so -- finds about 25 percent of the data stored to be inaccurate. Data entry errors, data "aging" issues where information becomes inaccurate over time, errors when collecting information, errors when aggregating and correlating, errors when loading data into the relational format, as well as other problems do exist in relational environments. This is not due to the hardware or software, but it's simply due due to how data is collected and processed between systems. It's a set of issues not often discussed, as relational databases are excellent at transactional consistency, but still have unreliable data that affects analysts even more than it does with big data clusters.

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-2014-3409
Published: 2014-10-25
The Ethernet Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) handling feature in Cisco IOS 12.2(33)SRE9a and earlier and IOS XE 3.13S and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (device reload) via malformed CFM packets, aka Bug ID CSCuq93406.

CVE-2014-4620
Published: 2014-10-25
The EMC NetWorker Module for MEDITECH (aka NMMEDI) 3.0 build 87 through 90, when EMC RecoverPoint and Plink are used, stores cleartext RecoverPoint Appliance credentials in nsrmedisv.raw log files, which allows local users to obtain sensitive information by reading these files.

CVE-2014-4623
Published: 2014-10-25
EMC Avamar 6.0.x, 6.1.x, and 7.0.x in Avamar Data Store (ADS) GEN4(S) and Avamar Virtual Edition (AVE), when Password Hardening before 2.0.0.4 is enabled, uses UNIX DES crypt for password hashing, which makes it easier for context-dependent attackers to obtain cleartext passwords via a brute-force a...

CVE-2014-4624
Published: 2014-10-25
EMC Avamar Data Store (ADS) and Avamar Virtual Edition (AVE) 6.x and 7.0.x through 7.0.2-43 do not require authentication for Java API calls, which allows remote attackers to discover grid MCUser and GSAN passwords via a crafted call.

CVE-2014-6151
Published: 2014-10-25
CRLF injection vulnerability in IBM Tivoli Integrated Portal (TIP) 2.2.x allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary HTTP headers and conduct HTTP response splitting attacks via unspecified vectors.

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.